Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Maximum Utility Consensus with Inequity Aversion in Social Network Group Decision Making

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Consensus is an essential topic in social network group decision making (SNGDM). In the consensus process, maximizing the group utility is conducive to allowing the moderator to efficiently consider the interests of all parties. However, this issue is neglected in most of the extant studies. Inequity aversion is a common behavior that the individuals often exhibit in the group context, which has a significant impact on the utility of individuals in the decision group. Motivated by this, in this paper we investigate the maximum utility consensus problem with inequity aversion in SNGDM. Firstly, we define the individuals’ utility functions with inequity aversion in the consensus process of SNGDM. Notably, in the proposed utility function, the envy and guilt degrees among individuals are determined by their node similarities. Afterward, we present a novel maximum utility consensus model in SNGDM based on inequity aversion (i.e., MUCM-IA) to maximize the utility of the whole network group. Additionally, some simulation studies and comparative analyses are carried out to explore how inequity aversion affects the outcomes of consensus reaching. Finally, an application in cooperation mode selection of supermarket alliance with real social network data is given to prove the validity of our proposal.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams JS (1963) Towards an understanding of inequity. J Abnorm Psychol 67(5):422–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris N, Karsu Ö, Yavuz M (2022) Fair resource allocation: using welfare-based dominance constraints. Eur J Oper Res 297(2):560–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Arieh D, Easton T (2007) Multi-criteria group consensus under linear cost opinion elasticity. Decis Support Syst 43(3):713–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Arieh D, Easton T, Evans B (2009) Minimum cost consensus with quadratic cost functions. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 39(1):210–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodily SE (1979) A delegation process for combining individual utility functions. Manag Sci 25(10):1035–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. Am Econ Rev 90(1):166–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondy JA, Murty USR (1976) Graph theory with applications. The Macmillan press Ltd., New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng D, Cheng FX, Zhou ZL, Wu Y (2020) Reaching a minimum adjustment consensus in social network group decision-making. Inf Fusion 59:30–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng D, Yuan YX, Wu Y, Hao TT, Cheng FX (2022) Maximum satisfaction consensus with budget constraints considering individual tolerance and compromise limit behaviors. Eur J Oper Res 297(1):221–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (1998) Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 97(1):33–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiclana F, Tapia Garcia JM, del Moral MJ, Herrera-Viedma E (2013) A statistical comparative study of different similarity measures of consensus in group decision making. Inf Sci 221:110–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Kress M (1985) Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference. Manag Sci 31(1):26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong YC, Xu YF, Li HY, Feng B (2010) The OWA-based consensus operator under linguistic representation models using position indexes. Eur J Oper Res 203:455–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong YC, Li CC, Xu YF, Gu X (2015) Consensus-based group decision making under multi-granular unbalanced 2-tuple linguistic preference relations. Group Decis Negot 24(2):217–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong YC, Li Y, He Y, Chen X (2021) Preference-approval structures in group decision making: axiomatic distance and aggregation. Decis Anal 18(4):273–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong YC, Wu SQ, Shi XP, Li Y, Chiclana F (2023) Clustering method with axiomatization to support failure mode and effect analysis. IISE Trans 55(7):657–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du JL, Liu SF, Liu Y (2022) A limited cost consensus approach with fairness concern and its application. Eur J Oper Res 298(1):261–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dula I, Grossler A (2021) Inequity aversion in dynamically complex supply chains. Eur J Oper Res 291(1):309–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erbeyoglu G, Bilge Ü (2020) A robust disaster preparedness model for effective and fair disaster response. Eur J Oper Res 280(2):479–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q J Econ 114:817–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fliessbach K, Phillipps CB, Trautner P, Schnabel M, Elger CE, Falk A, Weber B (2012) Neural responses to advantageous and disadvantageous inequity. Front Hum Neurosci 6:165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French S (1981) Consensus of opinion. Eur J Oper Res 7(4):332–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong ZW, Xu XX, Li LS, Xu C (2015a) Consensus modeling with nonlinear utility and cost constraints. Knowl Based Syst 88:210–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong ZW, Xu XX, Lu FL, Li LS, Xu C (2015b) On consensus models with utility preferences and limited budget. Appl Soft Comput 35:840–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong ZW, Xu C, Chiclana F, Xu XX (2017) Consensus measure with multi-stage fluctuation utility based on China’s urban demolition negotiation. Group Decis Negot 26(2):379–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong GC, Li K, Zha QB (2023) A maximum fairness consensus model with limited cost in group decision making. Comput Ind Eng 175:108891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo WW, Gong ZW, Xu XX, Krejcar O, Herrera-Viedma E (2021) Linear uncertain extensions of the minimum cost consensus model based on uncertain distance and consensus utility. Inf Fusion 70:12–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, Cabrerizo FJ, Kacprzyk J, Pedrycz W (2014) A review of soft consensus models in a fuzzy environment. Inf Fusion 14:4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, Palomares I, Li CC, Cabrerizo FJ, Dong YC, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2021) Revisiting fuzzy and linguistic decision making: scenarios and challenges for making wiser decisions in a better way. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 51(1):191–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn RA, Johnson CR (1985) Matrix analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley J, Mentzakis E, Walli-Attaei M (2020) Inequality aversion in income, health, and income-related health. J Health Econ 70:102276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jing FY, Chao XR (2021) Fairness concern: an equilibrium mechanism for consensus-reaching game in group decision-making. Inf Fusion 72:147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M (1988) A soft measure of consensus in the setting of partial (fuzzy) preferences. Eur J Oper Res 34(3):316–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacprzyk J, Zadrozny S (2016) On a fairness type approach to consensus reaching support under fuzziness via linguistic summaries. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE), 1999–2006

  • Keeney RL (1976) A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Manag Sci 23(2):140–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasnova H, Widjaja T, Buxmann P, Wenninger H, Benbasat I (2015) Why following friends can hurt you: an exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among college-age users. Inf Syst Res 26(3):585–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labella A, Liu Y, Rodriguez RM, Martinez L (2018) Analyzing the performance of classical consensus models in large scale group decision making: a comparative study. Appl Soft Comput 67:677–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Wang ZX (2018) A programming model for consistency and consensus in group decision making with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference relations. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20(8):2399–2414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li ZP, Fang X, Bai X, Sheng ORL (2017) Utility-based link recommendation for online social networks. Manag Sci 63(6):1938–1952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu YT, Dong YC, Liang HM, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) Multiple attribute strategic weight manipulation with minimum cost in a group decision making context with interval attribute weights information. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 49(10):1981–1992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez LG, Mata F, Chiclana F, Kou G, Herrera-Viedma E (2016) Modelling influence in group decision making. Soft Comput 20(4):1653–1665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pu CL, Li J, Wang J, Quek TQS (2022) The node-similarity distribution of complex networks and its applications in link prediction. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 34(8):4011–4023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen KH (2007) Discrete mathematics and its application. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RH, Kim SH (2007) Comprehending envy. Psychol Bull 133(1):46–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song HH, Gong ZW, Forrest JYL, Guo WW, Herrera-Viedma E (2023) Social network utility consensus model with empathic and fuzzy interactions. Comput Ind Eng 175:108904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun Q, Wu J, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (2022) A dynamic feedback mechanism with attitudinal consensus threshold for minimum adjustment cost in group decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 30(5):1287–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan X, Gong ZW, Chiclana F, Zhang N (2018) Consensus modeling with cost chance constraint under uncertainty opinions. Appl Soft Comput 67:721–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang ZY, Nie HF, Zhao HL (2023) Emergency decision-making method with utility and equity satisfaction under the fusion of multi-source heterogeneous data. Oper Res Manag Sci 32(2):97–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Chiclana F (2014) A social network analysis trust-consensus based approach to group decision-making problems with interval-valued fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. Knowl Based Syst 59:97–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Dai LF, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) A minimum adjustment cost feedback mechanism based consensus model for group decision making under social network with distributed linguistic trust. Inf Fusion 41:232–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu T, Liu XW, Qin JD, Herrera F (2019) Consensus evolution networks: a consensus reaching tool for managing consensus thresholds in group decision making. Inf Fusion 52:375–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao J, Wang XL, Zhang HJ (2020) Managing personalized individual semantics and consensus in linguistic distribution large-scale group decision making. Inf Fusion 53:20–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu WJ, Chen X, Dong YC, Chiclana F (2021) Impact of decision rules and non-cooperative behaviors on minimum consensus cost in group decision making. Group Decis Negot 30(6):1239–1260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaghoobi MA, Tamiz M (2007) A method for solving fuzzy goal programming problems based on MINMAX approach. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1580–1590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu WY, Zhang Z, Zhong QY (2021) Consensus reaching for MAGDM with multi-granular hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: a minimum adjustment-based approach. Ann Oper Res 300(2):443–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan YX, Cheng D, Zhou ZL, Cheng FX (2022) Minimum conflict consensus with budget constraint based on social network analysis. Comput Ind Eng 168:108098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang BW, Dong YC, Xu YF (2014) Multiple attribute consensus rules with minimum adjustments to support consensus reaching. Knowl Based Syst 67:35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang HJ, Dong YC, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) Consensus building for the heterogeneous large-scale GDM with the individual concerns and satisfactions. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(2):884–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang BW, Dong YC, Zhang HJ, Pedrycz W (2020a) Consensus mechanism with maximum-return modifications and minimum-cost feedback: a perspective of game theory. Eur J Oper Res 287(2):546–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Gao Y, Li ZL (2020b) Consensus reaching for social network group decision making by considering leadership and bounded confidence. Knowl Based Syst 204:106240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang YJJ, Chen X, Pedrycz W, Dong YC (2023) Minimum cost consensus with altruism utility constraints in social network group decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 53(8):5032–5045

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Xia Chen’s effort was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 72304199, the Humanities and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China under Grant No. 21YJC630011, and the Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province under Grant No. 2022NSFSC0889. Yucheng Dong’s effort was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 62350062 and 72271171.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Xihua University, Chengdu, 610039, China

    Yangjingjing Zhang

  2. School of Public Administration, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China

    Xia Chen & Mengting Gao

  3. Center for Network Big Data and Decision-Making, Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610065, China

    Yucheng Dong

Authors
  1. Yangjingjing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xia Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mengting Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yucheng Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Yangjingjing Zhang: Conceptualization, Software, Writing-original draft preparation. Xia Chen: Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-review and editing. Mengting Gao: Software, Writing-review and editing. Yucheng Dong: Supervision, Writing-review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xia Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author Yucheng Dong is currently serving as an associate editor for the Group Decision and Negotiation journal.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Chen, X., Gao, M. et al. Maximum Utility Consensus with Inequity Aversion in Social Network Group Decision Making. Group Decis Negot (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09887-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09887-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation