This paper aims to draw attention to the interdisciplinary research of the AHP/ANP methodology by emphasizing how it can be studied from a cognitive perspective. We provide an overview of the main cognitive approaches in decision-making, and consider different heuristics that lie at the basis of pairwise comparisons. We emphasize that the AHP/ANP must be considered at the junction of mathematics and psychology, and for further development of the methodology, we should examine the AHP/ANP from the cognitive point of view. We review the recent experimental studies of the AHP/ANP that test human behavior in real decision problems. We also discuss the future applicability of the AHP/ANP methodology in the Experience Age - the age of not only digital information and knowledge, but also behavior. This article is just a small step on the way to discovering the cognitive aspects and future extensions of decision making with the AHP/ANP.
cognitive decision making, AHP, ANP, heuristics, heuristic decision making, cognitive psychology, Experience Age
Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 73-92. Doi: 10.2307/2118511
Bernasconi, M., Choirat, C., & Seri, R. (2010). The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the theory of measurement. Management Science, 56(4), 699-711. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1123
Brugha, C. (2000). Relative measurement and the power function. European Journal of Operational Research, 121, 627–640. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00057-0
Brugha, C. (2004). Phased multicriteria preference finding. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 308–316. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.06.006
Brighton, H. (2006). Robust inference with simple cognitive models. In C. Lebiere, & B. Wray (Eds.), Between a rock and a hard place: Cognitive science principles meet AI-hard problems: Papers from the AAAI Spring Symposium (17-22). Menlo Park, California: AAAI Press.
Camerer C. F., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2004). Neuroeconomics: Why economics needs brains. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106 (3), 555-579. Doi: 10.1111/j.0347-0520.2004.00377.x
Campos-Vazquez, & R.M., Cuilty, E. (2013). The role of emotions on risk aversion: A Prospect Theory experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 50, 1-9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2014.01.001
Czerlinski, J., Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D.G. (1999). How good are simple heuristics? In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group, Simple heuristics that make us smart (97–118). New York: Oxford University Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00277-050204
Dean, M., K?br?s, O., & Masatlioglu, Y. (2017). Limited attention and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Theory, 169, 93-127. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2017.01.009
Delre, S. A., Jager, W., & Janssen, M.A. (2007). Diffusion dynamics in small-world networks with heterogeneous consumers. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 13(2), 185-202. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-9007-2
Dyer, J. (1990). Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 36(3), 249-258.
Forman, E.H., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: An exposition. Operations Research, 49(4), 469-486. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.4.469.11231
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103 (4), 650-669. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.103.4.650
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451-482. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
Goldstone, R.L., & Lupyan, G. (2016). Discovering psychological principles by mining naturally occurring data sets. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 548–568. Doi: 10.1111/tops.12212
Helbing, D. (2019). Towards digital enlightenment: Essays on the dark and light sides of the digital revolution. Springer. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90869-4
Huizingh E., & Vrolijk H (1997). Extending the applicability of the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 31(1), 29–39. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0038-0121(96)00025-0
Ishizaka, A., Balkenborg, D., & Kaplan, T. (2011). Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 1801–1812. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.158
Ishizaka, A. (2012). Clusters and pivots for evaluating a large number of alternatives in AHP. Pesquisa Operacional, 32(1), 87-101. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0101-74382012005000002
Jandri?, P., Knox, J., Besley, T., Ryberg, T., Suoranta, J., & Hayes, S. (2018). Postdigital science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893-899. Doi: 10.1080/00131857.2018.1454000
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103(3), 582–591. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.103.3.582
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697
Katsikopoulos, K. V., Schooler, L.J., & Hertwig, R. (2010). The robust beauty of ordinary information. Psychological Review, 117 (4), 1259–1266. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020418
Korhonen, P. & Topdagi, H. (2003). Performance of the AHP in comparison of gains and losses. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 37, 757–766. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-7177(03)00083-9
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Series in affective science. Handbook of affective sciences (619-642). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Martignon, L., & Hoffrage, U. (2002). Fast, frugal, and fit: simple heuristics for paired comparisons. Theory and Decision, 52 (1), 29–71. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744282.003.0012
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
Moreno-Jiménez, J.M., & Vargas, L.G. (2018). Cognitive AHP-Multifactor decision making. International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Hong Kong, HK.
Morewedge, C.K., & Giblin, C.E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: an integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19(6), 339-348. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.004
Mousavi, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1671-1678. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.013
Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 119–128. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.22.214.171.124292
Pachur, T., & Biele, G. (2007). Forecasting from ignorance: The use and usefulness of recognition in lay predictions of sports events. Acta Psychologica, 125(1), 99-116. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.07.002
Paxton, A., & Griffiths, T.L. (2017). Finding the traces of behavioral and cognitive processes in big data and naturally occurring datasets. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1630-1638. Doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0874-x
Pohl, R. F. (2006). Empirical tests of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(3), 251-271. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.522
Rottenstreich, Y., Burson, K., & Faro, D. (2013). Multiple unit holdings yield attenuated endowment effect. Management Science, 59, 545-555. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1562
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-i
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making: Why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors. RACSAM, 102(2), 251-318. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03191825
Saaty, T. L., & Ozdemir, M. S. (2003). Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 38, 233-244. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-7177(03)90083-5
Saaty, T. L., & Vargas Luis G. (2006). Decision making with the Analytic Network Process: Economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. New York: Springer.
Saaty, T.L., & Vargas, L.G. (2012). The possibility of group choice: Pairwise comparisons and merging functions, Social Choice and Welfare, 38(3), 481-496. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-011-0541-6
Saaty, T. L. (2013). On the measurement of intangibles. A principal eigenvector approach to relative measurement derived from paired comparisons. Notes of the AMS, 60(2).Doi: https://doi.org/10.1090/noti944
Saaty, T.L. (2015). The Neural Network Process (NNP): Generalization of the AHP and ANP to the continuous case of neural firing. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Taffel, S. (2015). Perspectives on the postdigital: Beyond rhetorics of progress and novelty. Convergence, 22(3), 324-338. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856514567827
The Guardian (2017). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/02/digital-revolution-age-of-experience-books-vinyl (23.10.2018)
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299. Doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0032955
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science, 211(4481), 453-458. Doi: 10.1126/science.7455683
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, New Series, 185, 4157. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032955
Vargas, L.G. (2017). How to write a contract with the AHP. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 9(2), 274-284. Doi: https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i2.490
Weiss, E. N., 1987. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in a dynamic environment, Mathematical Modelling, 9/3-5, 211 -218. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90478-7
Whitaker, R. (2007). Criticisms of the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Why they often make no sense. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46, 948–961. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.016
Wübben, M., & Wangenheim, F. (2008). Instant customer base analysis: Managerial heuristics often “get It right”, Journal of Marketing, 72, 82–93. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744282.003.0036
Zhang, H., Chen, X., Dong, Y. et al. (2018) . Analyzing Saaty’s consistency test in pairwise comparison method: a perspective based on linguistic and numerical scale. Soft Computing, 22(6), 1933–1943. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2454-x
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.