IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jnljam/v2013y2013i1n656879.html

Interval‐Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multicriteria Group Decision Making Based on VIKOR and Choquet Integral

Author

Listed:
  • Chunqiao Tan
  • Xiaohong Chen

Abstract

An effective decision making approach based on VIKOR and Choquet integral is developed to solve multicriteria group decision making problem with conflicting criteria and interdependent subjective preference of decision makers in a fuzzy environment where preferences of decision makers with respect to criteria are represented by interval‐valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. First, an interval‐valued intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator is given. Some of its properties are investigated in detail. The extended VIKOR decision procedure based on the proposed operator is developed for solving the multicriteria group decision making problem where the interactive criteria weight is measured by Shapley value. An illustrative example is given for demonstrating the applicability of the proposed decision procedure for solving the multi‐criteria group decision making problem in interval‐valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Chunqiao Tan & Xiaohong Chen, 2013. "Interval‐Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multicriteria Group Decision Making Based on VIKOR and Choquet Integral," Journal of Applied Mathematics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2013(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jnljam:v:2013:y:2013:i:1:n:656879
    DOI: 10.1155/2013/656879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/656879
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2013/656879?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    2. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    3. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    4. Liou, James J.H. & Tsai, Chieh-Yuan & Lin, Rong-Ho & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2011. "A modified VIKOR multiple-criteria decision method for improving domestic airlines service quality," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 57-61.
    5. Grabisch, Michel, 1996. "The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 445-456, March.
    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. Barnett, William A. & Han, Qing & Zhang, Jianbo, 2021. "Monetary services aggregation under uncertainty: A behavioral economics extension using Choquet expectation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 437-447.
    2. Feng, Yang & Siu, Tak Kuen & Zhu, Jinxia, 2025. "How might model uncertainty and transaction costs impact retained earning & dividend strategies? An examination through a classical insurance risk model," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 131-158.
    3. Mei Cai & Stephen M. Marson, 2021. "A regional Natech risk assessment based on a Natech-prone facility network for dependent events," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 107(3), pages 2155-2174, July.
    4. Brice Mayag & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2011. "A representation of preferences by the Choquet integral with respect to a 2-additive capacity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 297-324, September.
    5. William A. Barnett & Kangzheng Ding, 2024. "Expected Utility Maximization Under Weakened Assumptions Consistent With Behavioral Economics," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 202418, University of Kansas, Department of Economics.
    6. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2001. "Search under the Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-112, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    7. André Lapied & Thomas Rongiconi, 2013. "Ambiguity as a Source of Temptation: Modeling Unstable Beliefs," Working Papers halshs-00797631, HAL.
    8. Vassili Vergopoulos, 2014. "A Behavioral Definition of States of the World," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 14047, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    9. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    10. Florian Mudekereza, 2025. "Robust Aggregation of Preferences," Papers 2504.07401, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    11. Claudio A. Bonilla & Pablo A. Gutiérrez Cubillos, 2021. "The effects of ambiguity on entrepreneurship," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, February.
    12. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    13. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    14. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 669-677, October.
    15. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    16. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    17. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-03005107 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2002. "Coping with imprecise information: a decision theoretic approach," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04056, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised May 2004.
    19. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    20. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P., 2002. "Dutch books: avoiding strategic and dynamic complications, and a comonotonic extension," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 135-149, March.
    21. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jnljam:v:2013:y:2013:i:1:n:656879. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/4185 .

    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.