IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v34y2025i2d10.1007_s10726-024-09914-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Third-Party Conflict Mediation Model Considering the Differences in Preference Concessions Within the GMCR Paradigm

Author

Listed:
  • Zilong Huang

    (Jiangsu University of Science and Technology)

  • Shinan Zhao

    (Jiangsu University of Science and Technology)

  • Jun Wu

    (Jiangsu University of Science and Technology)

  • Sharafat Ali

    (Government Graduate College Kot Sultan)

Abstract

In conflict mediation, guiding stakeholders to make concessions among the three preference relations (more preferred, less preferred, and equally preferred) presents varying degrees of difficulty. This study proposes a novel algebraic expression where a specific numerical value can represent all scenarios of transitions among preference relations to accurately quantify the differences in preference concessions made by decision-makers. Furthermore, considering the degrees of difficulty in preference relation transitions, an enhanced third-party conflict mediation model is purposefully constructed to determine the minimal preference concessions needed to achieve the target state of mediation. Finally, we implement the proposed third-party conflict resolution approach in mediating the doctor–patient dispute to demonstrate its practical application.

Suggested Citation

  • Zilong Huang & Shinan Zhao & Jun Wu & Sharafat Ali, 2025. "A Third-Party Conflict Mediation Model Considering the Differences in Preference Concessions Within the GMCR Paradigm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 297-328, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:34:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-024-09914-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-024-09914-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-024-09914-9
    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/s10726-024-09914-9?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. He, Shawei & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W., 2017. "A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 919-932.
    2. Wang, Junjie & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Dang, Yaoguo, 2018. "Matrix representations of the inverse problem in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 282-293.
    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. Wu, Nannan & Xu, Yejun & Kilgour, D. Marc & Fang, Liping, 2023. "The graph model for composite decision makers and its application to a water resource conflict," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 308-321.
    2. Liangyan Tao & Xuebi Su & Saad Ahmed Javed, 2021. "Inverse Preference Optimization in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution based on the Genetic Algorithm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1085-1112, October.
    3. Huang, Yuming & Ge, Bingfeng & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Zhao, Bin & Yang, Kewei, 2023. "Solving the inverse graph model for conflict resolution using a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 806-819.
    4. Zhu, Yan & Dong, Yucheng & Zhang, Hengjie & Fang, Liping, 2025. "Exploring the minimum cost conflict mediation path to a desired resolution within the inverse graph model framework," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 321(2), pages 543-564.
    5. He, Shawei, 2022. "A time sensitive graph model for conflict resolution with application to international air carbon negotiation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 652-670.
    6. Yu Han & Haiyan Xu & Ginger Y. Ke, 2020. "Construction and application of hyper-inverse conflict models based on the sequential stability," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 8(3), pages 237-259, November.
    7. Yu Han & Haiyan Xu & Liping Fang & Keith W. Hipel, 2022. "An Integer Programming Approach to Solving the Inverse Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Two Decision Makers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 23-48, February.
    8. Ming Tang & Huchang Liao, 2022. "A graph model for conflict resolution with inconsistent preferences among large-scale participants," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 455-478, September.
    9. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Xiufen Gu & Lailei Gu & Dayong Wang & Sajad Jamshidi, 2023. "Resolving Trans-Boundary Water Conflicts: Third-Party Mediation Using an Inverse Approach of GMCR Under Incomplete Preference Environments," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 37(15), pages 6071-6088, December.
    11. Sean B. Walker & Keith W. Hipel, 2017. "Strategy, Complexity and Cooperation: The Sino-American Climate Regime," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1027, September.
    12. Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & D. Marc Kilgour, 2020. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Reflections on Three Decades of Development," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 11-60, February.
    13. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & France E. G. Oliveira, 2020. "Higher-order Sequential Stabilities in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution for Bilateral Conflicts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 601-626, August.
    14. Wang, Junjie & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping & Dang, Yaoguo, 2018. "Matrix representations of the inverse problem in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 282-293.
    15. Zhao, Shinan & Xu, Haiyan & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping, 2019. "Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 621-632.
    16. Rêgo, Leandro Chaves & Silva, Hugo Victor & Rodrigues, Carlos Diego, 2021. "Optimizing the cost of preference manipulation in the graph model for conflict resolution," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 392(C).
    17. Samaniego Rascón, Danyela & Ferreira, Almerindo D. & Gameiro da Silva, Manuel, 2017. "Cumulative and momentary skin exposures to solar radiation in central receiver solar systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 336-349.
    18. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & Giannini Italino Alves Vieira, 2021. "Matrix Representation of Solution Concepts in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Probabilistic Preferences and Multiple Decision Makers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 697-717, June.

    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:34:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-024-09914-9. 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.