Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Risk mechanisms of large group emergency decision-making based on multi-agent simulation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are many critical sources of risk in large group emergency decision-making. In this paper, we systematically identify individual and group sources of risk in large group emergency decision-making and explore the relationship between each risk factor and two group effects, namely cognitive conflict and relationship conflict. Based on this analysis, we model a large group emergency decision-making risk-causing system. The model allows examination of the effect of key risk factors. These variables include individual acceptance, group structure, interaction mode, decision strategy, and decision-making environment, and variable values are set. A multi-agent simulation model of large group emergency decision-making risk-causing is developed using the Netlogo tool based on opinion dynamics. Through case simulation, we obtain the generalization rule of the causal mechanisms for each risk factor. The simulation shows that controlling the proportion of highly accepted decision-making subjects, increasing the interaction between clusters, and taking necessary anticipatory measures can noticeably reduce decision-making risks and help large teams function in highly dynamic decision-making environments. By highlighting the composition and collective influence of risk factors in large group emergency decision-making, this research offers reference and guidance for strategy selection in emergency decision-making.

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
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acemoglu D, Ozdaglar A (2011) Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks. Dyn Games Appl 1:3–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Adelman L, Miller SL, Henderson D, Schoelles M (2003) Using Brunswikian theory and a longitudinal design to study how hierarchical teams adapt to increasing levels of time pressure. Acta Psychol 112:181–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal I, Woolley AW (2013) Do you see what I see? The effect of members' cognitive styles on team processes and errors in task execution. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 122:92–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson T, Cäker M, Tengblad S, Wickelgren M (2019) Building traits for organizational resilience through balancing organizational structures. Scand J Manag 35:36–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J, Sprenger C (2012) Risk preferences are not time preferences. Am Econ Rev 102:3357–3376

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora P, Peterson ND, Krantz DH, Hardisty DJ, Reddy KS (2012) To cooperate or not to cooperate: using new methodologies and frameworks to understand how affiliation influences cooperation in the present and future. J Econ Psychol 33:842–853

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumann MR, Bonner BL (2004) The effects of variability and expectations on utilization of member expertise and group performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 93:89–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner BL (2004) Expertise in group problem solving: recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dyn Theor Res 8:277–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Bose T, Reinal A, Marshall JAR (2017) Collective decision-making. Curr Opin Behav Sci 16:30–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer TW (2006) The development of risk-taking: a multi-perspective review. Dev Rev 26:291–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown TM, Miller CE (2000) Communication networks in task-performing groups—effects of task complexity, time pressure, and interpersonal dominance. Small Group Res 31:131–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon JK (2010) A communication model of personal space violations: explication and an initial test. Hum Commun Res 4:129–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang J, Chen Z, Zhou G (2018) Emergency decision making considering group conflict and evaluation indexes correlation under the uncertain. Comput Integr Manuf Syst 12:3144–3156

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Iyengar G, Moallemi CC (2013) An axiomatic approach to systemic risk. Manag Sci 59:1373–1388

    Google Scholar 

  • Clearwater SH, Huberman BA, Hogg T (1991) Cooperative solution of constraint satisfaction problems. Science 254:1181–1183

    Google Scholar 

  • Conradt L, Roper TJ (2009) Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing. Philos Trans R Soc B 364:807–819

    Google Scholar 

  • Dezsӧ CL, Ross DG (2012) Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strateg Manag J 33:1072–1089

    Google Scholar 

  • Diederich A (2003) Decision making under conflict: decision time as a measure of conflict strength. Psychon B Rev 10:167–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon RL, Tinsley CH (2008) How near-misses influence decision making under risk: a missed opportunity for learning. Manag Sci 54:1425–1440

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans J (2002) Logic and human reasoning: an assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychol Bull 128:978–996

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischman EA, Mumford MD (1989) Abilities as causes of individual differences in skill acquisition. Hum Perform 3:201–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia A, Obeidi A, Hipel KW (2018) Strategic advice for decision-making under conflict based on observed behaviour. Appl Math Comput 332:96–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Han B, Schmidt U, Zank H (2009) Additive utility in prospect theory. Manag Sci 55:863–873

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig R (2012) Tapping into the wisdom of the crowd-with confidence. Science 336:303–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang ZH, Yan GG, Wang TL (2011) Decisions from experience: concept, researches and prospect. Adv Psychol Sci 19:1814–1821

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of secision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobus DA, Proctor S, Holste S (2001) Effects of experience and uncertainty during dynamic decision making. Int J Ind Ergon 28:275–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Koolhaas JM, Bartolomucci A, Buwalda B, de Boer SF, Fluegge G, Korte SM, Meerlo P, Murison R, Olivier B, Palanza P, Richter-Levin G, Sgoifo A, Steimer T, Stiedl O, van Dijk G, Woehr M, Fuchs E (2011) Stress revisited: a critical evaluation of the stress concept. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35:1291–1301

    Google Scholar 

  • Korte J (2003) Risk-based emergency decision support. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 82:235–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Kudielka BM, Hellhammer DH, Stefan W (2009) Why do we respond so differently? reviewing determinants of human salivary cortisol responses to challenge. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34:2–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer T, Weber M (2001) Prospect theory, mental accounting, and differences in aggregated and segregated evaluation of lottery portfolios. Manag Sci 47:716–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Massoni S, Roux N (2017) Optimal group decision: a matter of confidence calibration. J Math Psychol 79:121–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford MD, Connelly MS (1991) Leaders as creators: leader performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadersh Q 2:289–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, von Krogh G (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organ Sci 20:635–652

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor SC, Rosenblood LK (1996) Affiliation motivation in everyday experience: a theoretical comparison. J Pers Soc Psychol 70:513–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter FD (1993) Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices. HarperCollis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem RL, Harrison D, Muir N (1995) Structured conflict and consensus outcomes in group decision making. J Manag 21:691–710

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan HM, Colyvan M, Markovchick-Nicholls L (2006) A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management. J Environ Manag 80:167–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter R (1980) A logic for default reasoning. Artif Intell 13:81–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard LD (2010) Theory and design of organization, 10th edn. Tsinghua University Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt JP, Chabris CF, Woolley AW, Hackman JR (2017) Confidence in dyadic decision making: the role of individual differences. J Behav Decis Mak 30:168–180

    Google Scholar 

  • See KE (2009) Reactions to decisions with uncertain consequences: Reliance on perceived fairness versus predicted outcomes depends on knowledge. J Pers Soc Psychol 96:104–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow RE, Lohman DF (1984) Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. J Educ Psychol 76:347–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprenger J (2010) Probability, rational single-case decisions and the Monty Hall Problem. Synthese 174:331–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Starcke K, Brand M (2012) Decision making under stress: a selective review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:1228–1248

    Google Scholar 

  • Starcke K, Brand M (2016) Effects of stress on decisions under uncertainty: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 142:909–933

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun B, Ma W (2015) An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application. Omega Int J Manag Sci 51:83–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun XM, Wei C, Chen T, Fei LS, Xue G (2017) How would incompetent experts influence group interaction: group member compensation effect. Psychol Sci 40:181–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter RS, Pachur T, Hertwig R (2016) How affect shapes risky choice: distorted probability weighting versus probability neglect. J Behav Decis Mak 29:437–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamura H, Yamamoto K, Tomiyama S, Hatono I (2000) Modeling and analysis of decision making problem for mitigating natural disaster risks. Eur J Oper Res 122:461–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas-Hunt MC, Ogden TY, Neale MA (2003) Who's really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Manag Sci 49:464–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Toelch U, Bach DR, Dolan RJ (2014) The neural underpinnings of an optimal exploitation of social information under uncertainty. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 9:1746–1753

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Shafir E (1992) Choice under conflict: the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychol Sci 3:358–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Wakker P (1995) Risk attitudes and decision weights. Econometrica 63:1255–1280

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg R, Zylberberg A, Kiani R, Shadlen MN, Wolpert DM (2016) Confidence is the bridge between multi-stage decisions. Curr Biol 26:3157–3168

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicsek T (2002) Complexity—the bigger picture. Nature 418:131

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Huang GH (2016) Risk-based factorial probabilistic inference for optimization of flood control systems with correlated uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 249:258–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson WE, Michaelsen LK, Sharp W (1991) Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: a longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol 76:803–809

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U (1999) NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum GM (2000) The bias toward discussing shared information—why are high-status group members immune? Commun Res 27:379–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu XH, Chen XH (2008) Research of a kind of method of multi-attributes and multi-schemes large group decision making. J Syst Eng 23:137–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu XH, Zhong XY, Chen XH, Zhou YJ (2015) A dynamical consensus method based on exit-delegation mechanism for large group emergency decision making. Knowl Based Syst 86:237–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu XH, Du ZJ, Chen XH, Zhou YJ (2017) Conflict large group emergency decision-making method while protecting minority opinions. J Manag Sci China 20:10–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu XH, Yin XP, Chen XH (2019) A large-group emergency risk decision method based on data mining of public attribute preferences. Knowl Based Syst 163:495–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu LT, Bao JZ, Chen QH, Wang DH (2016) The effect of individual confidence on dyadic decision making. Acta Psychol Sin 48:1013–1025

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu JY, He GB (2016) Risk source matters much in decision-making: betrayal aversion and the role of need for affiliation. Acta Psychol Sin 48:733–745

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71671189, 71971217), the Key Project of Natural Science Foundation of China (71790615, 91846301), the High-end Technological Innovation Young think-tank Project of China Association of Science and Technology—Ph.D. Programmers (CXY-ZKQN-2019-016), and the Independent Exploration of Innovation Project for Postgraduate of Central South University (2017zzts045).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, Hunan, China

    Xuanpeng Yin, Xuanhua Xu & Xiaohong Chen

Authors
  1. Xuanpeng Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xuanhua Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaohong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuanhua Xu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yin, X., Xu, X. & Chen, X. Risk mechanisms of large group emergency decision-making based on multi-agent simulation. Nat Hazards 103, 1009–1034 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04023-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04023-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation