Effects of Group and Relationship on Perceptions of Stability

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue Foster ◽  
Svenn Lindskold
Keyword(s):  
Social Influence ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Psychology Students ◽  
Interaction Effects ◽  
Introductory Psychology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Equal Status

Introductory psychology students, 52 men and 52 women, made estimates of the consistency of a decision-maker in 24 hypothetical social influence situations. The decision-maker was either a group or an individual, and the petitioner who was attempting to influence a change in decisions was in either a weak or equal status relationship with the decision-maker. As hypothesized, subjects predicted that group decision-makers would be less likely to change than would individual decision-makers. Subjects also predicted greater consistency on the part of the decision-maker when the petitioner was weak than when he was equal in status with the decision-maker. There were interaction effects of sex of subject and sex of characters on stability predictions.

On Extending Power-Geometric Operators to Interval-Valued Hesitant Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications to Group Decision Making

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (05) ◽  
pp. 1055-1114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng-Hua Xiong ◽  
Zhen-Song Chen ◽  
Yan-Lai Li ◽  
Kwai-Sang Chin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Fuzzy Sets ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Aggregation Operators ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Hesitant Fuzzy Sets ◽  
Variable Power ◽  
Interval Valued

Developing aggregation operators for interval-valued hesitant fuzzy sets (IVHFSs) is a technological task we are faced with, because they are specifically important in many problems related to the fusion of interval-valued hesitant fuzzy information. This paper develops several novel kinds of power geometric operators, which are referred to as variable power geometric operators, and extends them to interval-valued hesitant fuzzy environments. A series of generalized interval-valued hesitant fuzzy power geometric (GIVHFG) operators are also proposed to aggregate the IVHFSs to model mandatory requirements. One of the important characteristics of these operators is that objective weights of input arguments are variable with the change of a non-negative parameter. By adjusting the exact value of the parameter, the influence caused by some “false” or “biased” arguments can be reduced. We demonstrate some desirable and useful properties of the proposed aggregation operators and utilize them to develop techniques for multiple criteria group decision making with IVHFSs considering the heterogeneous opinions among individual decision makers. Furthermore, we propose an entropy weights-based fitting approach for objectively obtaining the appropriate value of the parameter. Numerical examples are provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed techniques.

scholarly journals The Good Decision-Maker or Protecting the System

2020 ◽  
pp. 155-185
Author(s):  
Laura Affolter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Maker ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Good Decision ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Active Search ◽  
The Common

AbstractThis chapter explores how “digging deep”, which stands for the active “search for” inconsistencies in asylum seekers’ narratives in asylum interviews, becomes the morally correct thing for decision-makers to do. Building on Eckert (The Bureaucratic Production of Difference. transcript, Bielefeld, pp. 7–26, 2020) I challenge the depiction of bureaucracies as anethical and amoral. Ethics I understand not in a normative, but rather in an empirical sense, as the common good the administration is oriented towards. The chapter brings to light how particularly through fairness—both as a procedural norm and ethical value—digging deep is established as a routine, professionally necessary and desirable practice, which is connected to decision-makers’ role as “protectors of the system”. I argue that digging deep actively generates the “liars” and “false refugees” it sets out to “uncover”, thereby reinforcing the perception that, indeed, there “are” many false refugees which, again, strengthens the office’s and individual decision-makers’ endeavours to identify and exclude them from asylum.

scholarly journals Group Decision Support System Using The Analytic Network Process and Borda Methods for Selecting

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 333
Author(s):  
Beta Yudha Mahindarta ◽  
Retantyo Wardoyo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support System ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Support System ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Housing Development ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Group Decision Support System ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Selection Of

The amount of land for the current location of housing development has resulted in developers choosing the location of housing development regardless of the condition of the land, infrastructure, socio-economic. To overcome this problem a computer system is needed in the form of a GDSS that can assist in the selection of Housing Development Locations.This study aims to implement a GDSS with ANP and Borda methods to determine the selection of the right and fast housing development location. GDSS is needed because there are 3 Individual Decision Makers, DM-1  assessing based on Land Conditions, DM-2 assessing Infrastructure-based, DM-3 assess the Socio-Economic and Decision Maker based groups to make the final decision. The ANP method is used to weight the criteria from each alternative location, to the alternative ranking of housing construction locations for each individual Decision Maker. The Borda method is used to combine the results of ranking carried out by the Group Decision Maker so that it gets the final ranking as a determinant of the Location of Housing Development.The final result of this research is a decision support system that can help developers to get a priority recommendation according to the needs of the developer.

DETERMINING AGGREGATE CRITERIA WEIGHTS FROM CRITERIA RANKINGS BY A GROUP OF DECISION MAKERS

2008 ◽  
Vol 07 (04) ◽  
pp. 769-781 ◽  
Author(s):  
HESHAM K. ALFARES ◽  
SALIH O. DUFFUAA
Keyword(s):  
Decision Maker ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Simple Function ◽  
Decision Criteria ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Empirical Results ◽  
Criteria Weights ◽  
Empirical Methodology ◽  
Individual Rank

In this paper, we present an empirical methodology to determine aggregate numerical criteria weights from group ordinal ranks of multiple decision criteria. Assuming that such ordinal ranks are obtained from several decision makers, aggregation procedures are proposed to combine individual rank inputs into group criteria weights. In this process, we use previous empirical results for an individual decision maker, in which a simple function provides the weight for each criterion as a function of its rank and the total number of criteria. Using a set of experiments, weight aggregation procedures are proposed and empirically compared for two cases: (i) when all the decision makers rank the same set of criteria, and (ii) when they rank different subsets of criteria. The proposed methodology can be used to determine relative weights for any set of criteria, given only criteria ranks provided by several decision makers.

Effects of Authoritarian, Anti-Authoritarian, and Egalitarian Legal Attitudes on Mock Juror and Jury Decisions

1982 ◽  
Vol 51 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1067-1074 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramsey McGowen ◽  
Glen D. King
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Economic Status ◽  
Introductory Psychology ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Socio Economic Status ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Salient Factor ◽  
Jury Decisions ◽  
Legal Attitudes

The effects of authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, and egalitarian legal attitudes on verdicts by simulated jurors and juries were investigated. 360 undergraduate students in introductory psychology were classified as authoritarian, anti-authoritarian, or egalitarian in their legal attitudes on the basis of responses to the Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. An equal number (120) of each juror type was selected. They were grouped into six-person homogeneous mock juries and asked to render an individual decision prior to deliberation, an individual post-deliberation verdict, and a group decision. Prior to deliberation the authoritarian student jurors responded more punitively toward a defendant to whom they were similar. The deliberation process exerted a moderating influence, and the egalitarian student jurors were especially susceptible to this influence. Finally similarity to the defendant was the most salient factor in determining the decision, and student juries were significantly more punitive toward a defendant who was similar to them in race and socio-economic status.

Doubly Extended Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Group Decision Making

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-50
Author(s):  
Dariusz Kacprzak
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Fuzzy Topsis ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Topsis Method ◽  
Decision Matrix

Multiple Criteria Decision Making methods, such as TOPSIS, have become very popular in recent years and are frequently applied to solve many real-life situations. However, the increasing complexity of the decision problems analysed makes it less feasible to consider all the relevant aspects of the problems by a single decision maker. As a result, many real-life problems are discussed by a group of decision makers. In such a group each decision maker can specialize in a different field and has his/her own unique characteristics, such as knowledge, skills, experience, personality, etc. This implies that each decision maker should have a different degree of influence on the final decision, i.e., the weights of decision makers should be different. The aim of this paper is to extend the fuzzy TOPSIS method to group decision making. The proposed approach uses TOPSIS twice. The first time it is used to determine the weights of decision makers which are then used to calculate the aggregated decision matrix for all the group decision matrices provided by the decision makers. Based on this aggregated matrix, the extended TOPSIS is used again, to rank the alternatives and to select the best one. A numerical example illustrates the proposed approach.

scholarly journals Influence Analysis in Consensus Search — A Multi Criteria Group Decision Making Approach in Environmental Management

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (04) ◽  
pp. 791-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Ivan Romero-Gelvez ◽  
Monica Garcia-Melon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Similarity Measures ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Decision Making Model ◽  
Environmental Decision

The environmental decision problems often are divisive, even in a technical realm, decision makers with strong personalities influence outcomes. The purpose of this study is to define and quantify the factors that affect the conservation objectives of a national natural park located in Colombia, South America adding the judgments of six decision makers with different knowledge (every decision maker is also a stakeholder representative). This paper uses a hybrid multiple criteria group decision-making model (MCDM), combining the social network analysis (SNA), analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and similarity measures to solve the consensus and anchoring problem among environmental decision makers. The SNA technique is used to build an influential network relation map among decision makers and to obtain their weights for applying a weighted AHP. Then, the final decision matrices for every decision maker are compared between them in order to identify the consensus level of the problem.

scholarly journals GROUP INTERVAL WEIGHTS BASED ON CONJUNCTION APPROXIMATION OF INDIVIDUAL INTERVAL WEIGHTS

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoe Entani
Keyword(s):  
Decision Maker ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Interval Weight

<p>The individual and group decisions in this study are denoted as the normalized interval weights of alternatives as in Interval AHP. It assumes that a decision maker uses crisp values in the interval weights in giving comparisons. The interval weights reflect uncertainty in a decision maker’s mind. Then, the group interval weight is obtained as a conjunction approximation of the individual interval weights. For a consensus, the group interval weight is obtained so as to intersect with all the individual interval weights. In other words, the group interval weight has something in common with each individual interval weight. The group decision depends on how much the decision makers are satisfied or dissatisfied with it. The satisfaction of a decision maker is measured by the ranges of the group interval weights which s/he can support. Similarly, the decision maker’s dissatisfaction is defined by the ranges which are out of his/her decision. It is better to maximize the satisfaction and simultaneously to minimize the dissatisfaction. However, there is a trade-off between these two objectives. In the proposed model, the importance of the satisfaction or dissatisfaction is given. Then, the decision makers find not only the group decision but also their satisfaction and dissatisfaction with it. </p>

scholarly journals Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making for Green Supply Chain Management under Uncertainty

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 3150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hepu Deng ◽  
Feng Luo ◽  
Santoso Wibowo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Supply Chain Management ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Green Supply Chain Management ◽  
Green Supply Chain ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Chain Management

This paper presents a multi-criteria group decision making model for effectively evaluating the performance of green supply chain management (GSCM) practices under uncertainty in an organization. The subjective assessments of individual decision makers are appropriately represented with the use of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for better tackling the uncertainty existent. An algorithm is developed to assist individual decision makers in evaluating the performance of alternative GSCM practices across all the evaluation criteria. An example is presented for demonstrating the applicability of the proposed model in solving similar problems in the real-world setting.

Agreement options for negotiation on material location decision of housing development

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiono Utomo ◽  
Yani Rahmawati
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Coalition Formation ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Housing Development ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Best Fit

Purpose Different housing development stakeholders need to cooperate and collaborate to perform various project activities. Housing development requires infrastructure development, which includes preparation of sand material embankment as much as ± 200,000 m3. The objectives are to find a model for agreement options and coalition, to validate the algorithms of the best fit for material locations and to determine how much the proposed agreement option was achieved. This study provides a structured methodology that can lead to systematic support system and automated negotiation for decision-making on housing development process. Design/methodology/approach Agreement option on group decision techniques was applied to determine the relative value of the alternative solutions for performing the function of project solutions. Analytical hierarchy process based on satisficing option was applied for decision process and game theory-based agent system for coalition formation. It is conducted in two stages that determine the decision preference and decision process consisting of four steps. The steps are constructing decision hierarchy, making judgment and synthesis, determining payoff optimum and analyzing the best fit option for all decision-makers. Findings The proposed model enables each decision-maker to select individually its coalition. It will improve the value of strategic decision. All solutions are chosen by more than one decision-maker and coalitions, where all decision-makers agree with the result. It becomes possible location for the material of a housing development. A support model enables negotiation process in group decision. Decision algorithms are based on the cooperative game theory to develop the agreement options and coalition formation. Similar research studies were carried out in this area, but this research is – to the knowledge of the authors – the first to apply the satisficing of value-based on desirable and considerable. Research limitations/implications The result is limited to the first-round negotiation of collaborative decision. A trade-off algorithm among decision-maker preference is needed for negotiation process. Future research is to continue working on multi-attribute decision-making, specifically on the process of eliciting user preference models such as neural network application and value function, and on establishing expert quantitative data from qualitative description of the feature of the alternative solution. It will need the development of trade-off algorithms to analyze value of technical solution in real time. Practical implications The support model can be extended to an automated negotiation and in different strategic decision on all stages of housing development. Social implications The satisficing algorithm of the coalition will satisfy all stakeholders. This will reduce any potential conflict. Originality/value Combination of value-based decision, group decision and collaborative support. Application of coalition formation for agreement options is used to select the best fit material location. It is based on satisficing game theory rather than optimization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document