IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v30y2021i4d10.1007_s10726-021-09736-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consensus-Based Linguistic Distribution Large-Scale Group Decision Making Using Statistical Inference and Regret Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Feifei Jin

    (Anhui University)

  • Jinpei Liu

    (Anhui University)

  • Ligang Zhou

    (Anhui University)

  • Luis Martínez

    (University of Jaén)

Abstract

Large-scale group decision-making (LSGDM) deals with complex decision- making problems which involve a large number of decision makers (DMs). Such a complex scenario leads to uncertain contexts in which DMs elicit their knowledge using linguistic information that can be modelled using different representations. However, current processes for solving LSGDM problems commonly neglect a key concept in many real-world decision-making problems, such as DMs’ regret aversion psychological behavior. Therefore, this paper introduces a novel consensus based linguistic distribution LSGDM (CLDLSGDM) approach based on a statistical inference principle that considers DMs’ regret aversion psychological characteristics using regret theory and which aims at obtaining agreed solutions. Specifically, the CLDLSGDM approach applies the statistical inference principle to the consensual information obtained in the consensus process, in order to derive the weights of DMs and attributes using the consensus matrix and adjusted decision-making matrices to solve the decision-making problem. Afterwards, by using regret theory, the comprehensive perceived utility values of alternatives are derived and their ranking determined. Finally, a performance evaluation of public hospitals in China is given as an example in order to illustrate the implementation of the designed method. The stability and advantages of the designed method are analyzed by a sensitivity and a comparative analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Feifei Jin & Jinpei Liu & Ligang Zhou & Luis Martínez, 2021. "Consensus-Based Linguistic Distribution Large-Scale Group Decision Making Using Statistical Inference and Regret Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 813-845, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09736-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-021-09736-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-021-09736-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-021-09736-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qifeng Wan & Xuanhua Xu & Xiaohong Chen & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "A Two-Stage Optimization Model for Large-Scale Group Decision-Making in Disaster Management: Minimizing Group Conflict and Maximizing Individual Satisfaction," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 901-921, October.
    2. Pei Wang & Xuanhua Xu & Shuai Huang, 2019. "An Improved Consensus-Based Model for Large Group Decision Making Problems Considering Experts with Linguistic Weighted Information," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 619-640, June.
    3. Bain, Kimberly & Hansen, Anne Steen, 2020. "Strengthening implementation success using large-scale consensus decision-making - A new approach to creating medical practice guidelines," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    4. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    5. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Yu, Shui, 2019. "Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 580-598.
    6. Feifei Jin & Zhiwei Ni & Reza Langari & Huayou Chen, 2020. "Consistency Improvement-Driven Decision-Making Methods with Probabilistic Multiplicative Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 371-397, April.
    7. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    8. Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Xu, Jiuping & Streimikiene, Dalia & Zheng, Xiaosong, 2020. "Adaptive consensus reaching process with hybrid strategies for large-scale group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(3), pages 957-971.
    9. Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "From conventional group decision making to large-scale group decision making: What are the challenges and how to meet them in big data era? A state-of-the-art survey," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Feifei Jin & Chang Li & Jinpei Liu & Ligang Zhou, 2021. "Distribution Linguistic Fuzzy Group Decision Making Based on Consistency and Consensus Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Shaw, Lipika & Das, Soumen Kumar & Roy, Sankar Kumar, 2022. "Location-allocation problem for resource distribution under uncertainty in disaster relief operations," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    3. Tong, Huagang & Zhu, Jianjun, 2023. "A parallel approach with the strategy-proof mechanism for large-scale group decision making: An application in industrial internet," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(1), pages 173-195.
    4. Fangqing Wei & Yanan Fu & Feng Yang & Chun Sun & Sheng Ang, 2023. "Closest target setting with minimum improvement costs considering demand and resource mismatches," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1-29, September.
    5. Lu Chen & Ayad Hendalianpour & Mohammad Reza Feylizadeh & Haiyan Xu, 2023. "Factors Affecting the Use of Blockchain Technology in Humanitarian Supply Chain: A Novel Fuzzy Large-Scale Group-DEMATEL," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 359-394, April.

    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. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2009. "Dynamic psychological games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 1-35, January.
    2. Georgia Perakis & Guillaume Roels, 2008. "Regret in the Newsvendor Model with Partial Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 188-203, February.
    3. van Winden, Frans & Krawczyk, Michal & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2011. "Investment, resolution of risk, and the role of affect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 918-939.
    4. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2017. "How regret moves individual and collective choices towards rationality," Chapters, in: Morris Altman (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics and Smart Decision-Making, chapter 11, pages 188-204, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    7. Zeelenberg, M. & van Dijk, W.W. & van der Pligt, J. & Manstead, A.S.R. & van Empelen, P. & Reinderman, D., 1998. "Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decision : The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret," Other publications TiSEM eafc28f9-18d6-4b76-b70f-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Ostermair, Christoph, 2022. "An experimental investigation of the Allais paradox with subjective probabilities and correlated outcomes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. Klaus Wälde, 2016. "Emotion Research in Economics," Working Papers 1611, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    10. Tania Bouglet & Thomas Lanzi & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2006. "Incertitude scientifique et décision publique : le recours au Principe de pré-caution," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 72(2), pages 109-127.
    11. Jhunjhunwala, Tanushree, 2021. "Searching to avoid regret: An experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 298-319.
    12. van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop, 1997. "The Impact of Probability and Magnitude of Outcome on Disappointment and Elation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 277-284, March.
    13. Ming Li & Dipjyoti Majumdar, 2010. "A Psychologically Based Model of Voter Turnout," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 12(5), pages 979-1002, October.
    14. Kobana Abukari & Isaac Otchere, 2020. "Dominance of hybrid contratum strategies over momentum and contrarian strategies: half a century of evidence," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 34(4), pages 471-505, December.
    15. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Johannes Kasinger & Dmitrij Schneider, 2024. "Skewness Preferences: Evidence from Online Poker," CESifo Working Paper Series 10977, CESifo.
    16. Qin, Jie, 2015. "A model of regret, investor behavior, and market turbulence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 150-174.
    17. Yan Li & David Ahlstrom, 2020. "Risk-taking in entrepreneurial decision-making: A dynamic model of venture decision," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 899-933, September.
    18. Joëts, Marc, 2015. "Heterogeneous beliefs, regret, and uncertainty: The role of speculation in energy price dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(1), pages 204-215.
    19. Alaoui, Larbi, 2008. "The value of useless information," MPRA Paper 11411, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Xiaoting Wang & Evangelos Triantaphyllou & Edouard Kujawski, 2008. "Communication on the paper ‘‘A reference‐dependent regret model for deterministic tradeoff studies’’," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 360-364, December.

    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:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09736-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.