IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i7p1070-d780189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probabilistic Linguistic Matrix Game Based on Fuzzy Envelope and Prospect Theory with Its Application

Author

Listed:
  • Shuying Li

    (School of Public Policy and Administration, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China)

  • Guoping Tu

    (School of Public Policy and Administration, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China)

Abstract

Game theory is a powerful tool in modeling strategic interaction among rational players. However, as practical problems become more complex, uncertainty inevitably appears in the game. Due to the advantages of probabilistic linguistic term sets (PLTSs) in comprehensively and flexibly portraying uncertainty, fuzziness and hesitancy, this paper uses PLTSs to express players’ payoff values, and aims to develop an integrated method based on fuzzy envelope and prospect theory (PT) under a probabilistic linguistic environment for solving matrix games. In this method, an improved probabilistic ordered weighted averaging (POWA) operator is defined. Then, a novel trapezoidal fuzzy envelope for PLTSs is proposed and some related theorems are analyzed. Next, based on the defined cosine distance measure for PLTSs, the players’ psychological behavior in the game is considered by establishing the prospect value function. Besides, the applicability and practicability of the proposed method is verified with an example from the development strategy of Sanjiangyuan National Nature Reserve (SNNR) in China. Finally, some comparative analyses are carried out to illustrate the superiority of the proposed method. In order to improve the application of this proposed method, a decision support system (DSS) based on it is designed.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuying Li & Guoping Tu, 2022. "Probabilistic Linguistic Matrix Game Based on Fuzzy Envelope and Prospect Theory with Its Application," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-30, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:7:p:1070-:d:780189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/7/1070/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/7/1070/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Li, Deng-Feng, 2012. "A fast approach to compute fuzzy values of matrix games with payoffs of triangular fuzzy numbers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 421-429.
    4. Collins, Benjamin C. & Kumral, Mustafa, 2020. "Game theory for analyzing and improving environmental management in the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    5. Li, Deng-Feng, 2011. "Linear programming approach to solve interval-valued matrix games," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 655-666, December.
    6. Anjali Singh & Anjana Gupta & Aparna Mehra, 2020. "Matrix games with 2-tuple linguistic information," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 287(2), pages 895-910, April.
    7. Laxminarayan Sahoo, 2019. "Solving matrix games with linguistic payoffs," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 10(4), pages 484-490, August.
    8. Metzger, Lars Peter & Rieger, Marc Oliver, 2019. "Non-cooperative games with prospect theory players and dominated strategies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 396-409.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chunsheng Cui & Zhongwei Feng & Chunqiao Tan, 2018. "Credibilistic Loss Aversion Nash Equilibrium for Bimatrix Games with Triangular Fuzzy Payoffs," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-16, December.
    2. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, 2020. "A New Application for the Goal Programming—The Target Decision Rule for Uncertain Problems," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Vincent Laferrière & David Staubli & Christian Thöni, 2023. "Explaining Excess Entry in Winner-Take-All Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1050-1069, February.
    4. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    5. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    6. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    7. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    8. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    9. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    10. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    11. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    12. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    13. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    14. Tetenov, Aleksey, 2012. "Statistical treatment choice based on asymmetric minimax regret criteria," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 157-165.
    15. Chen, Yanyan & Mandler, Timo & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2021. "Three decades of research on loyalty programs: A literature review and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 179-197.
    16. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    17. Massimiliano Amarante & Mario Ghossoub & Edmund Phelps, 2012. "Contracting for Innovation under Knightian Uncertainty," Cahiers de recherche 18-2012, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    18. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    19. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    20. Wang, Peiwen & Chen, Minghua & Wu, Ji & Yan, Yuanyun, 2023. "Do peer effects matter in bank risk? Some cross-country evidence," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:7:p:1070-:d:780189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.