IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v32y2023i4d10.1007_s10726-023-09830-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A novel assessment approach based on group evidential reasoning and risk attitude

Author

Listed:
  • Chaoyu Zheng

    (Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology
    Singapore University of Technology and Design)

  • Benhong Peng

    (Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)

  • Xuan Zhao

    (Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)

  • Anxia Wan

    (Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology)

  • Mu Yue

    (Singapore University of Technology and Design)

Abstract

In the multi-attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) analysis, besides the weight of the expert, reliability is another important concept bound up with experts despite it receiving little attention. In addition, the risk attitude of decision-makers is particularly important to decision-making. Considering these two important factors simultaneously, the uncertain evidential reasoning (ER) MAGDM approach based on expert reliability and risk attitude is proposed. In this approach, the best worst method (BWM) is used to determine each attribute weight. The expert reliability is determined by integrating similarity measures between the assessments provided before and after group analysis and discussion (GAD) and optimizing the drawbacks of the reliability model of the original interval-value under global ignorance. The prospect function of assessment grades is introduced to rank alternatives by considering the risk attitude of decision-makers. Taking the risk assessment of public health emergencies as an example, the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed methods are analyzed.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaoyu Zheng & Benhong Peng & Xuan Zhao & Anxia Wan & Mu Yue, 2023. "A novel assessment approach based on group evidential reasoning and risk attitude," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 925-964, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:32:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09830-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-023-09830-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-023-09830-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-023-09830-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Guo, Min & Yang, Jian-Bo & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Wang, Hongwei, 2007. "Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1294-1312, November.
    5. Fu, Chao & Yang, Jian-Bo & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2015. "A group evidential reasoning approach based on expert reliability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 886-893.
    6. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.
    7. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    8. Zhang, Mei-Jing & Wang, Ying-Ming & Li, Ling-Hui & Chen, Sheng-Qun, 2017. "A general evidential reasoning algorithm for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 1005-1015.
    9. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ran Fang & Huchang Liao, 2021. "Emergency material reserve location selection by a time-series-based evidential reasoning approach under bounded rationality," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1397-1417, August.
    2. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    3. Zhang, Mei-Jing & Wang, Ying-Ming & Li, Ling-Hui & Chen, Sheng-Qun, 2017. "A general evidential reasoning algorithm for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 1005-1015.
    4. Fu, Chao & Yang, Jian-Bo & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2015. "A group evidential reasoning approach based on expert reliability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 886-893.
    5. Chao Fu & Dong-Ling Xu, 2016. "Determining attribute weights to improve solution reliability and its application to selecting leading industries," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 401-426, October.
    6. Dong-Ling Xu, 2012. "An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 163-187, May.
    7. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    8. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    9. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    10. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    11. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    12. Siegfried Berninghaus & Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Jianying Qiu, 2006. "Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-32, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    13. Yang, Bijou & Lester, David, 1995. "New directions for economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 433-446.
    14. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    15. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Schilirò, Daniele & Graziano, Mario, 2011. "Scelte e razionalità nei modelli economici: un'analisi multidisciplinare [Choices and rationality in economic models: a multidisciplinary analysis]," MPRA Paper 31910, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "Modeling personalized cognition of customers in online shopping," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    18. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    19. Ary José A. de Souza-Jr. & Flávio Terto, 2021. "The propensity to adaptation under the new era of climate changes," Working Papers REM 2021/0167, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    20. Felipe A. Csaszar & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2016. "Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(10), pages 2031-2049, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:32:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09830-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.