Premium
A Field Experiment Comparing Anchored and Unanchored Criteria Weights in the Analytic Hierarchy Process
Author(s) -
HADLEY CYNTHIA F.,
SCHONER BERTRAM,
WEDLEY WILLIAM C.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
journal of multi‐criteria decision analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.462
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1099-1360
pISSN - 1057-9214
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199705)6:3<140::aid-mcda128>3.0.co;2-t
Subject(s) - analytic hierarchy process , argument (complex analysis) , dimension (graph theory) , psychology , incentive , task (project management) , hierarchy , field (mathematics) , mode (computer interface) , actuarial science , statistics , social psychology , computer science , operations research , mathematics , economics , medicine , microeconomics , management , political science , law , pure mathematics , operating system
This study reports the results of a field experiment comparing the predictive validity of two approaches to multicriteria assessments: the absolute measurement mode of AHP and the absolute measurement mode of linking pin AHP. The questioning procedures of the two differ only in that the former employs unanchored criteria weight assessments and the latter anchored criteria weight assessments. The decision task required insurance agents to respond to a mailed questionnaire in which they evaluated non‐monetary incentives (contests) according to (1) the public recognition received from winning, (2) the criteria for winning and (3) the nature of the reward. There were four levels for each dimension. A between subjects design was used, with each subject receiving one of the two methods. In addition, all subjects divided 100 points among four contests and these hold‐out assignments were employed as a validity check. Linking pin AHP was found to be superior to conventional AHP in this experiment, lending weight to the argument that the use of unanchored criteria weights is problematic. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Multi‐Crit. Decis. Anal. 6 : 140–149 (1997) No. of Figures: 3. No. of Tables: 5. No. of References: 24.