An Empirical Study of Equivalence Judgments vs. Ratio Judgments in Decision Analysis*
通过实验比较了等价判断和比率判断两种偏好强度获取方式，发现等价判断在估计单属性价值函数和多属性偏好结构时均优于比率判断，建议多属性决策技术应利用决策者更擅长的等价权衡判断。
Abstract Two commonly used elicitation modes on strength of preference, equivalence and ratio judgments, were compared in an experiment. The result from the experiment showed that ratio judgments were less effective than equivalence judgments. Based on an iterative design for eliciting multiattribute preference structures, equivalence judgments outperformed ratio judgments in estimating single‐attribute measurable value functions, while being nearly more effective than ratio judgments in assessing multiattribute preference structures. The implications of the results from the experiment are that multiattribute decision‐making techniques should take advantage of the decision maker's inclination of making effective equivalence trade‐off judgments, and that useful techniques should be devised to incorporate different commonly used techniques, such as multiattribute utility theory and the Analytic Hierarchy Process, to elicit and consolidate equivalence trade‐off judgments.