Analysis of Graphical Visualizations for Multi-criteria Decision Making in FITradeoff Method Using a Decision Neuroscience Experiment

The use of bar graphics and tables to represent a Multi-Criteria Decision Making/Aiding (MCDM/A) problems are investigated in this study since these visualizations present a holist vision for MCDM/A situations. In this context, these visualizations bring flexibility to the decision-making process conducted in the Decision Support System (DSS) developed for the FITradeoff method, being an important advantage in this method. In order to support this study, the Neuroscience approach is aggregated to MCDM/A and a neuroscience experiment is constructed to investigate how decision-makers (DMs) evaluate bar graphs and tables in order to identify some patterns of behavior. The main task required in this experiment was to evaluate MCDM/A situations and select the alternative which performed best. Based on descriptive and statistical analyses of the results, some suggestions could be made about DMs behavior´s when the visualizations were evaluated. Therefore, for this study, two main purposes were raised: provide insights for the analyst about the use of graphical and tabular visualization in MCDM/A situations and to improve the FITradeoff Decision Support System. Regarding to the first purpose, a advising rule has been built to support the analyst in the advising process performed with the DMs. Regarding to the second purpose was suggested that tables should be included in the FITradeoff DSS. In total, 51 Management Engineering students took part in the experiment.

[1]  Kesra Nermend,et al.  The Implementation of Cognitive Neuroscience Techniques for Fatigue Evaluation in Participants of the Decision-Making Process , 2017 .

[2]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Consumer neuroscience: Assessing the brain response to marketing stimuli using electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye tracking , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[3]  N. Barberis,et al.  What Drives the Disposition Effect? An Analysis of a Long-Standing Preference-Based Explanation , 2006 .

[4]  Kristian Lukander,et al.  Estimating Brain Load from the EEG , 2009, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[5]  Martin Weber,et al.  Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making , 1993 .

[6]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2016 .

[7]  Adiel Teixeira de Almeida,et al.  Neuroscience Experiment for Graphical Visualization in the FITradeoff Decision Support System , 2018, GDN.

[8]  José María Moreno-Jiménez,et al.  A systematic review of application of multi-criteria decision analysis for aging-dam management , 2017 .

[9]  Adiel Teixeira de Almeida,et al.  Visualization for Decision Support in FITradeoff Method: Exploring Its Evaluation with Cognitive Neuroscience , 2017, ICDSST.

[10]  Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa,et al.  Using data visualization for ranking alternatives with partial information and interactive tradeoff elicitation , 2019, Oper. Res..

[11]  Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa,et al.  A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoff , 2016, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  W. Klimesch,et al.  The functional significance of theta and upper alpha oscillations. , 2005, Experimental psychology.

[13]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Inside the Mind: Using Neuroimaging to Understand Moral Product Preference Judgments Involving Sustainability , 2017 .

[14]  Angelika Dimoka,et al.  THE POTENTIAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH , 2008 .

[15]  R. Raedt,et al.  Preparing for hard times: Scalp and intracranial physiological signatures of proactive cognitive control. , 2019, Psychophysiology.

[16]  James S. P. Macdonald,et al.  Trial-by-Trial Variations in Subjective Attentional State are Reflected in Ongoing Prestimulus EEG Alpha Oscillations , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[17]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Towards a NeuroIS Research Methodology: Intensifying the Discussion on Methods, Tools, and Measurement , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Timothy E. J. Behrens,et al.  Hierarchical competitions subserving multi-attribute choice , 2014, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  P. Glimcher,et al.  Neuroeconomics: The Consilience of Brain and Decision , 2004, Science.

[20]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Using Our Brains to Develop Better Policy , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[21]  Adiel Teixeira de Almeida,et al.  Decision neuroscience for improving data visualization of decision support in the FITradeoff method , 2019, Operational Research.

[22]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[23]  R. Poldrack,et al.  Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[24]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .