Strategic Decision Facilitation: Supporting Critical Assumptions of the Human in Empirical Modeling of Pairwise Value Comparisons

Modeling human decision-making is difficult. Decision-makers are typically primed with unique biases that widen the confidence interval of judgment. Therefore, it is important that the human process in the system being modeled is designed to alleviate damaging biases and assumptions in an effort to increase process consistency between decision-makers. In this experiment, it is hypothesized that coupling specific decision-facilitation methods with a specific scale range will affect the consistency between decision-makers. This article presents a multiphase experiment that examines a varying presentation mode as well as scale range to determine how value is determined in subsequent pairwise comparisons of alternatives against specific requirements. When considering subject value ratings of the expected rank order of alternative subgroups (indicating strong criteria independence), results show that subjects used consistent comparison ratios regardless of the scale range. Furthermore, when comparing the subgroups of expected rank order responses to the subgroups of biased responses, although ratios were different, the same general trend of comparison existed within subgroups. Providing evidence that careful selection of the presentation mode can facilitate more consistent value comparisons between compatible decision-makers allows for the identification of and adjustment of disparities due to bias and potential lack of incremental scaling detail. Furthermore, by creating decision processes that render more consistent cognitive behavior between decision-makers, tighter confidence intervals can be obtained, and critical assumptions can be validated

Strengthening Criteria Independence through Optimization of Alternative Value Ratio Comparisons

Every decision maker’s internal scale is different based on a myriad of possible factors unique to that decision maker. Conflicting criteria within and between alternatives in multicriteria decision making can create negative effects within the weighting schemes and amplify preference biases and scale disparities between decision makers in a group decision context. Additionally, the weighting of group decision-making frameworks can intensify the already skewed criteria values. When making judgments against requirements, it may be preferable to reduce scale trend distortions between decision makers as much as possible. Previous research supports that certain information presentation modes can significantly reduce preference bias and strengthen criteria independence against requirements through cross alternative anchoring. This paper expands that research and proposes a new optimization model for strengthening criteria independence and consensus in group decision making. Initial results indicate the proposed optimization model can significantly reduce scale distortions and smooth comparative alternative value trends between decision makers toward strengthened group consensus. Furthermore, results support the potential and opportunity for semiautonomous group consensus processes