Soft Computing

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 1653–1665 | Cite as

Modelling influence in group decision making

  • Luis G. Pérez
  • Francisco Mata
  • Francisco Chiclana
  • Gang Kou
  • Enrique Herrera-Viedma
Methodologies and Application

Abstract

Group decision making has been widely studied since group decision making processes are very common in many fields. Formal representation of the experts’ opinions, aggregation of assessments or selection of the best alternatives has been some of main areas addressed by scientists and researchers. In this paper, we focus on another promising area, the study of group decision making processes from the concept of influence and social networks. In order to do so, we present a novel model that gathers the experts’ initial opinions and provides a framework to represent the influence of a given expert over the other(s). With this proposal it is feasible to estimate both the evolution of the group decision making process and the final solution before carrying out the group discussion process and consequently foreseeing possible actions.

Keywords

Group decision making Aggregation operators Social network Influence 

References

  1. Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2009) Group decision making with incomplete fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Int J Intell Syst 24(2):201–222CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2010) A web based consensus support system for group decision making problems and incomplete preferences. Inf Sci 180(23):4477–4495MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bezdek JC, Spillman B, Spillman R (1978) A fuzzy relation space for group decision theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1(4):255–268MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Cabrerizo F, Chiclana F, Al-Hmouz R, Morfeq A, Balamash A, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Fuzzy decision making and consensus: challenges. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 29(3):1109–1118MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabrerizo F, Moreno J, Pérez I, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) Analyzing consensus approaches in fuzzy group decision making: advantages and drawbacks. Soft Comput 14(5):451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calza F, Gaeta M, Loia V, Orciuoli F, Piciocchi P, Rarità L, Spohrer J, Tommasetti A (2015) Fuzzy consensus model for governance in smart service systems. Procedia Manuf 3:3567–3574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Herrera F (2007) Consistency of reciprocal preference relations. In: 2007 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, FUZZYGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Herrera F (2008) A note on the estimation of missing pairwise preference values: a uninorm consistency based method. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Syst 16(SUPPL.2):19–32Google Scholar
  9. Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Herrera F (2009) Cardinal consistency of reciprocal preference relations: a characterization of multiplicative transitivity. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 17(1):14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Alonso S (2007) Some induced ordered weighted averaging operators and their use for solving group decision-making problems based on fuzzy preference relations. Eur J Oper Res 182(1):383–399CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciasullo MV, Gaeta M, Monetta G, Rarità L (2015) E-cultural value co-creation. A proposed model for the heritage management. In: Proceedings of 18th Toulon-Verona International Conference, “Excellence in Services”, vol. U, pp 139–158Google Scholar
  12. Dubois DJ, Prade H (1980) Fuzzy sets and systems: theory and application. Academic Press, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. French JR (1956) A formal theory of social power. Psychol Rev 63(3):181–194MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC (1990) Social influence and opinions. J Math Sociol 15:193–206Google Scholar
  15. Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC (1999) Social influence networks and opinion change. Adv Gr Process 16:1–29Google Scholar
  16. Gong Z, Xu X, Zhang H, Ozturk UA, Herrera-Viedma E, Xu C (2015) The consensus models with interval preference opinions and their economic interpretation. Omega 55:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harary F (1959) A criterion for unanimity in French’s theory of social power. Studies in social power. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Oxford, pp 168–182Google Scholar
  18. Kacprzyk J (1986) Group decision making with a fuzzy linguistic majority. Fuzzy Sets Syst 18(2):105–118MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M, Nurmi H (1997) Consensus under fuzziness. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Kacprzyk J, Roubens M (1988) Non-conventional preference relations in decision making. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitainik L (1993) Fuzzy decision procedures with binary relations: towards a unified theory. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Klement EP, Mesiar R, Pap E (1996) On the relationship of associative compensatory operators to triangular norms and conorms. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowlege-Based Syst 4(2):129–144MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Luce RD, Suppes, P (1965) Preferences, utility and subject probability. Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol III. Wiley, New York, pp 249–410Google Scholar
  24. Massanet S, Riera JV, Torrens J, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) A new linguistic computational model based on discrete fuzzy numbers for computing with words. Inf Sci 258:277–290MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Mata F, Martínez L, Herrera-Viedma E (2009) An adaptive consensus support model for group decision making problems in a multi-granular fuzzy linguistic context. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 17(2):279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mata F, Pérez L, Zhou SM, Chiclana F (2014) Type-1 OWA methodology to consensus reaching processes in multi-granular linguistic contexts. Knowledge-Based Syst 58:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell HB, Estrakh DD (1997) A modified OWA operator and its use in lossless dpcm image compression. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Syst 5:429–436CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Morente-Molinera J, Pérez I, Ureña M, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Building and managing fuzzy ontologies with heterogeneous linguistic information. Knowl Based Syst 88:154–164Google Scholar
  29. Morente-Molinera J, Al-hmouz R, Morfeq A, Balamash A, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) A decision support system for decision making in changeable and multi-granular fuzzy linguistic contexts. J Mult Valued Logic Soft Comput (In press) Google Scholar
  30. Nurmi H (1981) Approaches to collective decision making with fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 6(3):249–259MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) A new consensus model for group decision making problems with non-homogeneous experts. Syst Man Cybern Syst IEEE Trans on 44(4):494–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2010) A mobile decision support system for dynamic group decision-making problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 40(6):1244–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pérez L, Mata F, Chiclana F (2014) Social network decision making with linguistic trustworthiness based induced OWA operators. Int J Intell Syst 29(12):1117–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pérez-Asurmendi P, Chiclana F (2014) Linguistic majorities with difference in support. Appl Soft Comput 18:196–208CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Roubens M (1997) Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 90(2):199–206MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New yorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott JP, Carrington PJ (2011) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. SAGE, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seo F, Sakawa M (1985) Fuzzy multiattribute utility analysis for collective choice. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 15(1):45–53Google Scholar
  39. Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12(2):117–131Google Scholar
  40. Tanino T (1988) Fuzzy preference relations in group decision making. Non-conventional preference relations in decision making. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 54–71Google Scholar
  41. Tanino T (1990) On group decision making under fuzzy preferences. Multiperson decision making using fuzzy sets and possibility theory. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp 172–185Google Scholar
  42. Ureña R, Chiclana F, Morente-Molinera J, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Managing incomplete preference relations in decision making: a review and future trends. Inf Sci 302:14–32MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu J, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Trust based consensus model for social network in an incomplete linguistic information context. Appl Soft Comput 35:827–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yager RR (1983) Quantifiers in the formulation of multiple objective decision functions. Inf Sci 31(2):107–139MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Yager RR (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 18(1):183–190MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Yager RR (1996) Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators. Int J Intell Syst 11(1):49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yager RR (2003) Induced aggregation operators. Fuzzy Sets Syst 137:59–69MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Yager RR, Filev D (1998) Operations for granular computing: mixing words and numbers. IEEE Int Conf Fuzzy Syst 1:123–128Google Scholar
  50. Yager RR, Filev D (1999) Induced ordered weighted averaging operators. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 29:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zadeh LA (1983) A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages. Comput Math Appl 9(1):149–184MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis G. Pérez
    • 1
  • Francisco Mata
    • 1
  • Francisco Chiclana
    • 2
  • Gang Kou
    • 3
  • Enrique Herrera-Viedma
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of JaénJaénSpain
  2. 2.Centre for Computational Intelligence (CCI), Faculty of TechnologyDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  3. 3.School of Business Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and EconomicsChengduChina
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations