A Better Group Consensus Ranking via a Min-transitive Fuzzy Linear Ordering

Author(s):  
Sukhamay Kundu
2005 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Gaertner ◽  
P Baumann ◽  
C Hiemke ◽  
S Ulrich ◽  
G Eckermann ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Burnett ◽  
Shaugn O'Donnell

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Wesołowska

In social psychology the group polarization refers to the tendency for groups to make decisionsthat are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members. This phenomenon constitutesa potential obstacle to positive outcomes attributed to deliberative debates. A deliberative debateis a particular kind of a group discussion tasked with fi nding group consensus on controversialissues. The idea of deliberation originates from the writings of John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, AmyGutmann and Denis Thompson. Deliberative debate imposes numerous normative requirementson the communication, relationships among the disputants and their approach to the issue underdiscussion. These normative requirements make a big difference between deliberative debates andthe situations in which the phenomenon of polarization was observed. Thus, we presume that indeliberative debates conditions the phenomenon of group polarization may be limited.The paper investigates the following questions: would the normative conditions of deliberationlimit the occurrence of polarization in discussing groups? and What infl uence (if any) would thepolarization process have on the quality of group decision? In the light of the empirical data we concluded what follows: (1) In 50% of the analyzed casesof group discussion the phenomenon of group polarization was observed despite the normativeconditions of deliberation. (2) The occurrence of group polarization in some cases coincided withmaking the fi nal decisions which did not alter the initial preferences of the disputants (but did nottotally predestinated the fi nal outcome).


2021 ◽  
pp. 096366252110206
Author(s):  
Lyn M. van Swol ◽  
Emma Frances Bloomfield ◽  
Chen-Ting Chang ◽  
Stephanie Willes

This study examined if creating intimacy in a group discussion is more effective toward reaching consensus about climate change than a focus on information. Participants were randomly assigned to either a group that spent the first part of an online discussion engaging in self-disclosure and focusing on shared values (intimacy condition) or discussing information from an article about climate change (information condition). Afterward, all groups were given the same instructions to try to come to group consensus on their opinions about climate change. Participants in the intimacy condition had higher ratings of social cohesion, group attraction, task interdependence, and collective engagement and lower ratings of ostracism than the information condition. Intimacy groups were more likely to reach consensus, with ostracism and the emotional tone of discussion mediating this effect. Participants were more likely to change their opinion to reflect that climate change is real in the intimacy than information condition.


Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 2691
Author(s):  
Sławomira Hajduk ◽  
Dorota Jelonek

This paper presents the use of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) for the evaluation of smart cities. During the development of the method, the importance of the decision-making approach in the linear ordering of cities was presented. The method of using the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was proposed for the preparation of ranking. The method was verified by the application in the measurement of energy performance in smart cities. The authors conducted a literature review of research papers related to urban energy and MCDM published in the period from 2010 to 2020. The paper uses data from the World Council on City Data (WCCD). The research conducted allowed for the identification of the most popular MCDM techniques in the field of urban energy such as TOPSIS, AHP and DEA. The TOPSIS technique was used to organize and group the analyzed cities. Porto took the top position, whereas Buenos Aries was the last.


Author(s):  
Alfred B. Addison ◽  
Billy Wong ◽  
Tanzime Ahmed ◽  
Alberto Macchi ◽  
Iordanis Konstantinidis ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document