IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v33y2024i1d10.1007_s10726-023-09858-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous Opinion Dynamics Considering Consensus Evolution in Social Network Group Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Tong Wu

    (Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
    Ministry of Industrial and Information Technology)

Abstract

Social network group decision-making (SNGDM) is a new type of group decision-making (GDM) paradigm that has emerged in recent years. The traditional consensus feedback adjustment model for GDM is difficult to adapt to the characteristics of SNGDM, with a large number of participants, unrestricted by time and space, and unfixed decision-making rules. Opinion dynamics is an important tool for predicting the evolution of group opinions based on established opinion evolution rules, relying solely on the initial opinions of participants. The combination of opinion dynamics and SNGDM is natural. However, this combination still faces many problems, such as the current opinion dynamics models having difficulty handling the common heterogeneous preferences in GDM, and little consideration being given to the interaction between social relationships and opinion evolution. This paper studies heterogeneous opinion dynamics phenomena considering consensus evolution in SNGDM. We process heterogeneous preferences based on the measurement of distance and similarity, improve Friedkin and Johnsen model considering the stubbornness of the decision-makers with respect to their own latest opinions dynamically, and mainly focus on the interaction between opinion evolution and social relationships. A case study on enterprise team risk management is given to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Through comparative analysis, we find that when the group is in a connected network with consistent goals, the interaction between opinion evolution and social relationships can achieve consensus faster than in other situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Tong Wu, 2024. "Heterogeneous Opinion Dynamics Considering Consensus Evolution in Social Network Group Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 159-194, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:33:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09858-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-023-09858-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-023-09858-6
    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/s10726-023-09858-6?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. Sabrina Artinger & Nir Vulkan & Yotam Shem-Tov, 2015. "Entrepreneurs’ negotiation behavior," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 737-757, April.
    2. Ningning Lang & Lin Wang & Quanbo Zha, 2022. "Targeted Allocation of Marketing Resource in Networks Based on Opinion Dynamics," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Meng, Fanyong & Tang, Jie & An, Qingxian, 2023. "Cooperative game based two-stage consensus adjustment mechanism for large-scale group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. Guillaume Deffuant & David Neau & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2000. "Mixing beliefs among interacting agents," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01n04), pages 87-98.
    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. Sven Banisch & Eckehard Olbrich, 2021. "An Argument Communication Model of Polarization and Ideological Alignment," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(1), pages 1-1.
    2. Shang, Lihui & Zhao, Mingming & Ai, Jun & Su, Zhan, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the Sznajd model on interdependent chains," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 565(C).
    3. Floriana Gargiulo & José J Ramasco, 2012. "Influence of Opinion Dynamics on the Evolution of Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-7, November.
    4. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    5. Serge Galam, 2016. "The invisible hand and the rational agent are behind bubbles and crashes," Papers 1601.02990, arXiv.org.
    6. Gani Aldashev & Timoteo Carletti & Simone Righi, 2010. "Adaptive Expectations, Confirmatory Bias, and Informational Efficiency," Papers 1009.5075, arXiv.org.
    7. Leonie Geyer & Patrick Mellacher, 2024. "Simulating Party Competition in Dynamic Voter Distributions," Graz Economics Papers 2024-19, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    8. Huang, Changwei & Hou, Yongzhao & Han, Wenchen, 2023. "Coevolution of consensus and cooperation in evolutionary Hegselmann–Krause dilemma with the cooperation cost," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    9. María Cecilia Gimenez & Luis Reinaudi & Ana Pamela Paz-García & Paulo Marcelo Centres & Antonio José Ramirez-Pastor, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the presence of constant propaganda: homogeneous and localized cases," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(1), pages 1-11, January.
    10. Benedikt V Meylahn & Janusz M Meylahn, 2024. "How social reinforcement learning can lead to metastable polarisation and the voter model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Muslim, Roni & Mulya, Didi Ahmad & Akbar, Zulkaida & NQZ, Rinto Anugraha, 2024. "The impact of social noise on the majority rule model across various network topologies," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 189(P2).
    12. Guillaume Deffuant & Ilaria Bertazzi & Sylvie Huet, 2018. "The Dark Side Of Gossips: Hints From A Simple Opinion Dynamics Model," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Gérard Weisbuch & Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Jean Pierre Nadal, 2001. "Interacting Agents and Continuous Opinions Dynamics," Working Papers 01-11-072, Santa Fe Institute.
    14. Toth, Gabor & Galam, Serge, 2022. "Deviations from the majority: A local flip model," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    15. Patrick Gregori & Zulaicha Parastuty, 2021. "Investigating the process of entrepreneurial team member exits: a systematic review and future research directions," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 847-878, May.
    16. G Jordan Maclay & Moody Ahmad, 2021. "An agent based force vector model of social influence that predicts strong polarization in a connected world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-42, November.
    17. Yao Li & Wenhao Lin & Yucheng Dong & Cong-Cong Li & Francisco Herrera, 2024. "Consensus Reaching with Dynamic Trust Relationships and Cost-Learning in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 1269-1300, October.
    18. Emanuel Wittberg & Gissur Ó. Erlingsson & Karl Wennberg, 2024. "Does local government corruption inhibit entrepreneurship?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 775-806, February.
    19. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    20. Tiwari, Mukesh & Yang, Xiguang & Sen, Surajit, 2021. "Modeling the nonlinear effects of opinion kinematics in elections: A simple Ising model with random field based study," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).

    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:33:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09858-6. 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.