Three main approaches presently dominate preferences derivation or evaluation process in decision analysis (selecting, ranking or sorting options, alternatives, actions or decisions): value type approach (a value function or an utility measure is derived for each alternative to represent its adequacy with decision goal); outranking methods (a pair comparison of alternatives are carried up under each attribute or criteria to derive a pre-order on the alternatives set); and decision rules approach (a set of decision rules are derived by a learning process from a decision table with possible missing data). All these approaches suppose to have a single decision objective to satisfy and all alternatives characterized by a common set of attributes or criteria. In this paper we adopt an approach that highlights bipolar nature of attributes with regards to objectives that we consider to be inherent to any decision analysis problem. We, therefore, introduce supporting and rejecting notions to describ attributes and objectives relationships leading to an evaluation model in terms of two measures or indices (selectability and rejectability) for each alternative in the framework of satisficing game theory. Supporting or rejecting degree of an attribute with regard to an objective is assessed using known techniques such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP). This model allows alternatives to be characterized by heteregeneous attributes and incomparability between alternatives in terms of Pareto-equilibria.