Do protocolo verbal Think Aloud a metodologia multicritério Macbeth: identificando estratégias de decisão em processos de escolha

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20397/2177-6652/2023.v23i1.2288

Keywords:

Estratégias de Decisão, Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão, MACBETH

Abstract

Resumo

Objetivo: O objetivo deste estudo é investigar a relação entre o método multicritério de apoio à decisão MACBETH (MMAD) e as estratégias de decisão utilizadas pelo indivíduo, sem o auxílio do Sistema de Apoio Multicritério à Decisão (SAD), no processo de escolha em um contexto específico.

Metodologia: Este estudo contou com a aplicação de uma tarefa que simulava a compra de um veículo usado, onde os decisores, por meio de um quase-experimento, poderiam resolvê-la com o auxílio do SAD M-MACBETH e sem o auxílio do SAD, ou seja, pelo modelo mental de decisão, utilizando o protocolo verbal think aloud.

Originalidade: A discussão dos resultados revela importantes particularidades no processo de tomada de decisão uma vez que o processo decisório, dentro uma perspectiva normativa, utilizando um SAD, tem relação com duas de quatro estratégias de decisão estudadas neste experimento.

Principais resultados: Os resultados comprovaram a relação entre duas, Diferença Aditiva e Eliminação por Aspecto, das quatro estratégias de decisão propostas por Todd & Benbasat (1991). Também, comprovou-se que a estratégia de Eliminação por Aspecto é semelhante ao MMAD subjacente ao sistema M-MACBETH.

Contribuições: A tomada de decisão é uma tarefa complexa, pois evolve inúmeras perspectivas, restrições e variáveis. Nesse sentido, este estudo apresenta contribuições sobre o processo decisório, em especial ao método multicritério de apoio à decisão MACBETH (MMAD) e as estratégias de decisão utilizadas pelo indivíduo.

Palavras-Chave: Estratégias de Decisão; Sistemas de Apoio à Decisão; MACBETH.

Author Biographies

Eliete dos Reis Lehnhart, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Brasil.

Doutora em Administração, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria – UFSM, Brasil.

Professora Adjunta, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria – UFSM, Brasil.

Mauri Leodir Löbler, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Brasil.

Doutor em Administração, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS.Professor Associado, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria – UFSM, Brasil.

Julia Tontini, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Brasil.

Doutoranda em Administração, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria – UFSM, Brasil.

Rafaela Dutra Tagliapietra, Faculdade Antônio Meneghetti - AMF, Brasil.

Mestra em Administração, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria – UFSM, Brasil.

References

Baltas, G., & Saridakis, C. (2013). An empirical investigation of the impact of behavioural and psychographic consumer characteristics on car preferences: An integrated model of car type choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 54, 92-110.

Bana Consulting. 2005. M-Macbeth Versão 1.1: Manual do usuário [Online]. Disponível em: <http://www.m-macbeth.com/help/pdf/MMACBETH%20Manual%20do%20usuario.pdf>.

Bana e Costa, C. A., & Chagas, M. P. (2004). A career choice problem: An example of how to use MACBETH to build a quantitative value model based on qualitative value judgments. European journal of operational research, 153(2), 323-331.

Bana e Costa, C. A., & Vansnick, J. C. (1994). MACBETH An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. International transactions in operational Research, 1(4), 489-500.

Bana e Costa, C. A., & Vansnick, J. C. (1995). General overview of the MACBETH approach. Advances in multicriteria analysis, 93-100.

Bana e Costa, C. A., & Vansnick, J. C. (1999). The MACBETH approach: Basic ideas, software, and an application. In Advances in decision analysis (pp. 131-157). Springer, Dordrecht.

Bana e Costa, C. A., De Corte, J. M., & Vansnick, J. C. (2016). On the mathematical foundations of MACBETH. In Multiple criteria decision analysis (pp. 421-463). Springer, New York, NY.

Brans, J. P., Mareschal, B. (2005). PROMETHEE Methods. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: state of the art surveys, New York: Springer, p. 163-196.

Banville, C., Landry, M., Martel, J. M., & Boulaire, C. (1998). A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 15(1), 15-32.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1979). Delineamentos experimentais e quase-experimentais de pesquisa (pp. 138-p). São Paulo: EPU.

Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., & Słowiński, R. (2020). How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega, 96, 102261.

Clivillé, V., Berrah, L., & Mauris, G. (2007). Quantitative expression and aggregation of performance measurements based on the MACBETH multi-criteria method. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(1), 171-189.

Demidovskij, A. V., & Babkin, E. A. (2021). Integrated neurosymbolic decision support systems: problems and opportunities. Бизнес-информатика, 15(3 (eng)), 7-23.

Ensslin, L., Neto, G. M., & Noronha, S. M. (2001). Apoio à decisão: metodologias para estruturação de problemas e avaliação multicritério de alternativas. Insular.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. the MIT Press.

Gomes, E. G., Leta, F. R., & Pessolani, R. B. V. (2003). Conceitos básicos do Apoio Multicritério à Decisão e sua aplicação no Projeto Aerodesign. Engevista.

Gomes, L. F. A. M., González, M. C. A., & Carignano, C. (2004). Tomada de decisões em cenários complexos: introdução aos métodos discretos do apoio multicritério à decisão. Thomson.

Gomes, L. F. A. M. (2020). Teoria da decisão. Cengage Learning.

Harte, J. M., Westenberg, M. R., & van Someren, M. (1994). Process models of decision making. Acta Psychologica, 87(2-3), 95-120.

Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis: methods and software. John Wiley & Sons.

Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and accuracy in choice. Management science, 31(4), 395-414.

Kahn, B. E. (2005). The power and limitations of social relational framing for understanding consumer decision processes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 28-34.

Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs John Wiley & Sons New York.

Kim, C. N., Chung, H. M., & Paradice, D. B. (1997). Inductive modeling of expert decision making in loan evaluation: a decision strategy perspective. Decision Support Systems, 21(2), 83-98.

Li, Y. (2007). An intelligent, knowledge-based multiple criteria decision making advisor for systems design (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology).

Maran, T., Ravet-Brown, T., Angerer, M., Furtner, M., & Huber, S. E. (2020). Intelligence predicts choice in decision-making strategies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 84, 101483.

Martel, J. M. (1999). L’aide multicritère à la décision: méthodes et applications. CORS-SCRO Bulletin, 31(1), 6-16.

Moffett, A., & Sarkar, S. (2006). Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Diversity and Distributions, 12(2), 125-137.

Oprea, C. (2011). Making the decision on buying second-hand car market using data mining techniques. The USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration, 10(3), 17-26.

Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological bulletin, 92(2), 382.

Payne, J. W., Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge university press.

Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Coupey, E., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). A constructive process view of decision making: Multiple strategies in judgment and choice. Acta Psychologica, 80(1-3), 107-141.

Polatidis, H., Haralambopoulos, D. A., Munda, G., & Vreeker, R. (2006). Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sources, Part B, 1(2), 181-193.

Prokosheva, S. (2016). Comparing decisions under compound risk and ambiguity: The importance of cognitive skills. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 64, 94-105.

Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media.

Sampieri, R. H., Collado, C. F., & Lucio, P. B. (2013). Metodologia de pesquisa. Porto Alegre: Penso.

Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational behavior and human performance, 23(1), 86-112.

Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1991). An experimental investigation of the impact of computer based decision aids on decision making strategies. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 87-115.

Westenberg, M. R., & Koele, P. (1994). Multi-attribute evaluation processes: Methodological and conceptual issues. Acta Psychologica, 87(2-3), 65-84.

Wu, W. Y., Liao, Y. K., & Chatwuthikrai, A. (2014). Applying conjoint analysis to evaluate consumer preferences toward subcompact cars. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 2782-2792.

Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and economic development of economy, 20(1), 165-179.

Downloads

Published

2023-03-01

How to Cite

Lehnhart, E. dos R., Löbler, M. L., Tontini, J., & Tagliapietra, R. D. (2023). Do protocolo verbal Think Aloud a metodologia multicritério Macbeth: identificando estratégias de decisão em processos de escolha. Journal of Management & Technology, 23(1), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.20397/2177-6652/2023.v23i1.2288

Issue

Vol. 23 No. 1 (2023)

Section

ARTIGO

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Management & Technology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: • 1. The author(s) authorize the publication of the article in the journal. • 2. The author(s) ensure that the contribution is original and unpublished and is not being evaluated in other journal(s). • 3. The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts expressed in the texts because they are the sole responsibility of the author(s). • 4. The publishers reserve the right to make adjustments and textual adaptation to the norms of APA. • 5. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work [SPECIFY PERIOD OF TIME] after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. • 6. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. • 7. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html