Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling experts’ attitudes in group decision making

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nowadays, important decisions that have a significant impact either in societies or in organizations are commonly made by a group rather than a single decision maker, which might require more than a majority rule to obtain a real acceptance. Consensus-reaching processes provide a way to drive group decisions which are more accepted and appreciated by people affected by such a decision. These processes care about different consensus measures to determine the agreement in the group. The correct choice of a consensus measure that reflects the attitude of decision makers is a key issue for improving and optimizing consensus-reaching processes, which still requires further research. This paper studies the concept of group’s attitude towards consensus, and presents a consensus model that integrates it in the measurement of consensus, through an extension of OWA aggregation operators, the so-called Attitude-OWA. The approach is applied to the solution of a real-like group decision making problem with the definition of different attitudes, and the results are analysed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beliakov G, Pradera A, Calvo T (2007) Aggregation functions: a guide for practitioners. Springer, Heidelberg

  • Bryson N (1996) Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process. Exploring the consensus-relevant information content. Comput Oper Res 23(1):27–35

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Butler C, Rothstein A (2006) On conflict and consensus: a handbook on formal consensus decision making. Food Not Bombs Publishing, Takoma Park

  • Elzinga C, Wang H, Lin Z, Kumar Y (2011) Concordance and consensus. Inf Sci 181(12):2529–2549

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fedrizzi M, Fedrizzi M, Marques R (1999) Soft consensus and network dynamics in group decision making. Int J Intell Syst 14(1):63–77

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Grabisch M, Orlovski S, Yager R (1998) Fuzzy Aggregation of numerical preferences. In: Fuzzy sets in decision analysis: operations, research and statistics. Kluwer, Boston, pp 31–68

  • Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J (1995) A sequential selection process in group decision making with linguistic assessments. Inf Sci 85(1995):223–239

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78(1):73–87

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F (2002) A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 32(3):394–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, Martínez L, Mata F, Chiclana F (2005) A consensus support system model for group decision making problems with multigranular linguistic preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 13(5):644–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2007a) A consensus model for group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(5):863–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Alonso S (2007b) Group decision-making model with incomplete fuzzy preference relations based on additive consistency. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 37(1):176–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, García-Lapresta J, Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M, Nurmi H, Zadrozny S (eds) (2011) Consensual processes. Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol 267. Springer, Berlin

  • Kacprzyk J (1986) Group decision making with a fuzzy linguistic majority. Fuzzy Sets Syst 18(2):105–118

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M (1988) A “soft” measure of consensus in the setting of partial (fuzzy) preferences. Eur J Oper Res 34(1):316–325

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M (1989) A ’human-consistent’ degree of consensus based on fuzzy logic with linguistic quantifiers. Math Soc Sci 18 (3):275–290

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kacprzyk J, Zadrozny S (2010) Soft computing and web intelligence for supporting consensus reaching. Soft Comput 14(8):833–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klir G, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: theory and applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

  • Kuncheva L, Krishnapuram R (1995) A fuzzy consensus aggregation operator. Fuzzy Sets Syst 79 (3)(3):347–356

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Han S (2008) Orness and parameterized RIM quantifier aggregation with OWA operators: a summary. Int J Approx Reason 48:77–97

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez L, Montero J (2007) Challenges for improving consensus reaching process in collective decisions. New Math Nat Comput 3(2):203–217

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mata F, Martínez L, Herrera-Viedma E (2009) An adaptive consensus support model for group decision-making problems in a multigranular fuzzy linguistic context. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 17(2):279–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parreiras R, Ekel P, Martini J, Palhares R (2010) A flexible consensus scheme for multicriteria group decision making under linguistic assessments. Inf Sci 180(7):1075–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrycz W, Ekel P, Parreiras R (2011) Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: models, methods and applications. Wiley, New York

  • Reformat M, Yager R, Li Z, Alajlan N (2011) Human-inspired identification of high-level concepts using OWA and linguistic quantifiers. Int J Comput Commun Control 6(3):473–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Roubens M (1997) Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 90(2):199–206

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saint S, Lawson JR (1994) Rules for reaching consensus. A modern approach to decision making. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

  • Shannon C, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tocqueville A (1840) Democracy in America, 2nd edn. Saunders and Otleym, London

  • Xu J, Wu Z (2011) A discrete consensus support model for multiple attribute group decision making. Knowl Based Syst 24(8):1196–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager R (1988) On orderer weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18(1):183–190

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yager R (1993) Families of OWA operators. Fuzzy Sets Syst 59:125–148

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yager R (1996) Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators. Int J Intell Syst 11:49–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager R (2001) Penalizing strategic preference manipulation in multi-agent decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 9(3):393–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager R, Filev D (1994) Essentials of fuzzy modeling and control. Wiley, New York

  • Zadeh L (1983) A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages. Comput Math Appl 9:149–184

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zadrozny S, Kacprzyk J (2003) An Internet-based group decision and consensus reaching support system. In: Applied decision support with soft computing (studies in fuzziness and soft computing), vol 124. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–275

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by the Research Project TIN-2009-08286, P08-TIC-3548 and FEDER funds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Jaén, 23071, Jaén, Spain

    I. Palomares & L. Martínez

  2. School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland, UK

    J. Liu

  3. School of Mathematics, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, 610031, Sichuan, China

    Y. Xu

Authors
  1. I. Palomares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y. Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Palomares.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Palomares, I., Liu, J., Xu, Y. et al. Modelling experts’ attitudes in group decision making. Soft Comput 16, 1755–1766 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-012-0859-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-012-0859-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation