Many decisions can be represented as bipolar, qualitative sets of arguments: Arguments can be pros or cons, and ranked according to their importance, but not numerically evaluated. The problem is then to compare these qualitative, bipolar sets. In this paper (a collaboration between a computer scientist and a psychologist), seven procedures for such a comparison are empirically evaluated, by matching their predictions to choices made by 62 human participants on a selection of 33 situations. Results favor cardinality-based procedures, and in particular one that allows for the internal cancellation of positive and negative arguments within a decision.
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
Tel.: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300 firstname.lastname@example.org
(Corporate matters and books only) IOS Press c/o Accucoms US, Inc.
For North America Sales and Customer Service
West Point Commons
Lansdale PA 19446
Tel.: +1 866 855 8967
Fax: +1 215 660 5042 email@example.com