Effects of many conflicting objectives on decision-makers’ cognitive burden and decision consistency

Abstract

Practical planning and decision-making problems are often better and more accurately formulated with multiple conflicting objectives rather than a single objective. This study investigates a situation relevant for Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) as well as Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization (EMO), where the decision-maker needs to make a series of choices between nondominated options characterized by multiple objectives. The cognitive capacity of humans is limited, which leads to cognitive burden that influences human decision-makers’ decisions. We measure how the varying number of objectives influences cognitive burden in a laboratory study, and the impacts that this burden has on the decision-makers’ behavior and the consistency of their decisions. We use psychophysiological, behavioral, and self-report methods. Our results suggest that a higher number of objectives (i) increases cognitive burden significantly, (ii) leads to adopting strategies in which only a limited number of objectives is considered, and (iii) decreases decision consistency.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.