IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/trt/disawp/1004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The dynamics of consensus in group decision making: investigating the pairwise interactions between fuzzy preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Mario Fedrizzi

    (DISA, Faculty of Economics, Trento University)

  • Michele Fedrizzi
  • Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira

    (DISA, Faculty of Economics, Trento University)

  • Matteo Brunelli

Abstract

In this paper we present an overview of the soft consensus model in group decision making and we investigate the dynamical patterns generated by the fundamental pairwise preference interactions on which the model is based. The dynamical mechanism of the soft consensus model is driven by the minimization of a cost function combining a collective measure of dissensus with an individual mechanism of opinion changing aversion. The dissensus measure plays a key role in the model and induces a network of pairwise interactions between the individual preferences. The structure of fuzzy relations is present at both the individual and the collective levels of description of the soft consensus model: pairwise preference intensities between alternatives at the individual level, and pairwise interaction coefficients between decision makers at the collective level. The collective measure of dissensus is based on non linear scaling functions of the linguistic quantifier type and expresses the degree to which most of the decision makers disagree with respect to their preferences regarding the most relevant alternatives. The graded notion of consensus underlying the dissensus measure is central to the dynamical unfolding of the model. The original formulation of the soft consensus model in terms of standard numerical preferences has been recently extended in order to allow decision makers to express their preferences by means of triangular fuzzy numbers. An appropriate notion of distance between triangular fuzzy numbers has been chosen for the construction of the collective dissensus measure. In the extended formulation of the soft consensus model the extra degrees of freedom associated with the triangular fuzzy preferences, combined with non linear nature of the pairwise preference interactions, generate various interesting and suggestive dynamical patterns. In the present paper we investigate these dynamical patterns which are illustrated by means of a number of computer simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario Fedrizzi & Michele Fedrizzi & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Matteo Brunelli, 2010. "The dynamics of consensus in group decision making: investigating the pairwise interactions between fuzzy preferences," DISA Working Papers 1004, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 29 Jul 2010.
    • Handle: RePEc:trt:disawp:1004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.unitn.it/files/download/10528/04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mario Fedrizzi & Michele Fedrizzi & R. A. Marques Pereira, 2007. "Consensus Modelling In Group Decision Making: Dynamical Approach Based On Fuzzy Preferences," New Mathematics and Natural Computation (NMNC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 219-237.
    2. French, Simon, 1981. "Consensus of opinion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 332-340, August.
    3. F. J. Cabrerizo & S. Alonso & E. Herrera-Viedma, 2009. "A Consensus Model For Group Decision Making Problems With Unbalanced Fuzzy Linguistic Information," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 109-131.
    4. Carlsson, Christer & Ehrenberg, Dieter & Eklund, Patrik & Fedrizzi, Mario & Gustafsson, Patrik & Lindholm, Paul & Merkuryeva, Galina & Riissanen, Tony & G.S. Ventre, Aldo, 1992. "Consensus in distributed soft environments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1-2), pages 165-185, August.
    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. Dombi, József & Jónás, Tamás, 2024. "Consensus measures based on a fuzzy concept," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(2), pages 642-653.
    2. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Anastasia Stamatopoulou, 2020. "Shapley and superShapley aggregation emerging from consensus dynamics in the multicriteria Choquet framework," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 583-611, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Gong, Zaiwu & Zhang, Huanhuan & Forrest, Jeffrey & Li, Lianshui & Xu, Xiaoxia, 2015. "Two consensus models based on the minimum cost and maximum return regarding either all individuals or one individual," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 183-192.
    3. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Anastasia Stamatopoulou, 2020. "Shapley and superShapley aggregation emerging from consensus dynamics in the multicriteria Choquet framework," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 583-611, December.
    4. Pang, Jifang & Liang, Jiye, 2012. "Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 294-301.
    5. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    6. González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.
    7. Joseph Kadane & Javier Girón & Daniel Peña & Peter Fishburn & Simon French & D. Lindley & Giovanni Parmigiani & Robert Winkler, 1993. "Several Bayesians: A review," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 2(1), pages 1-32, December.
    8. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2011. "An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 179-189, July.
    9. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    10. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    11. Jason R. W. Merrick, 2008. "Getting the Right Mix of Experts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 43-52, March.
    12. Yangjingjing Zhang & Xia Chen & Mengting Gao & Yucheng Dong, 2024. "Maximum Utility Consensus with Inequity Aversion in Social Network Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 1115-1142, October.
    13. Athanasios Spyridakos & Denis Yannacopoulos, 2015. "Incorporating collective functions to multicriteria disaggregation–aggregation approaches for small group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 227(1), pages 119-136, April.
    14. Erin Baker & Olaitan Olaleye, 2013. "Combining Experts: Decomposition and Aggregation Order," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1116-1127, June.
    15. Juan Carlos Leyva-López, 2024. "A consistency and consensus model for group decision support based on the outranking approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1-29, June.
    16. Carmen De Maio & Aurelio Tommasetti & Orlando Troisi & Massimiliano Vesci & Giuseppe Fenza & Vincenzo Loia, 2016. "Contextual Fuzzy-Based Decision Support System Through Opinion Analysis: A Case Study at University of the Salerno," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(05), pages 923-948, September.
    17. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    18. Ali E. Abbas, 2009. "A Kullback-Leibler View of Linear and Log-Linear Pools," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 25-37, March.
    19. Patrik Eklund & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Harrie Swart, 2008. "A consensus model of political decision-making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 5-20, February.
    20. Chuu, Shian-Jong, 2011. "Interactive group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 279-289, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:trt:disawp:1004. 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: Roberto Gabriele (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ditreit.html .

    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.