Advertisement

Soft Pedal and Influence-Based Decision Modelling

  • Asma KhalidEmail author
  • Ismat Beg
Article
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Soft pedalling is a real-world problem and it is used to understate the intensity of an issue at hand. Influence models are currently studied by researchers working in the field of social network analysis but they do not incorporate for soft pedalling. The aim of this work is to study the impact of truthfulness of each expert on the final outcome. If the expert is truthful, she will state her opinions in their original form but if she is not truthful, she will soft pedal the situation by understating the intensity of the issue. In underdeveloped countries, real problems are soft pedalled by the powerful to divert attention of the masses. We assert that an expert is truthful if he does not alter his or her initial opinion over a social problem. However, we cater for the realistic problem of soft pedalling by experts and people of power. It is assumed that experts improve and revise their initial opinions over alternatives as they interact with other experts in a group setting. Soft pedalling has an important part to play as this may change the final opinion achieved by experts after the interactive process.

Keywords

Soft pedalling Truthfulness Social network analysis Additive reciprocal 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their time and valuable suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    Beg, I., Rashid, T.: Modelling uncertainties in multi-criteria decision making using distance measure and TOPSIS for hesitant fuzzy sets. J. Artif. Intell. Soft Comput. Res. 7(2), 103–109 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bezdek, J.C., Spillman, B., Spillman, R.: A fuzzy relation space for group decision theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1(4), 255–268 (1978)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blau, P.M., Schwartz, J.E.: Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations. Routledge, London (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Capuano, N., Chiclana, F., Fujita, H., Herrera-Viedma, E., Loia, V.: Fuzzy group decision making with incomplete information guided by social influence. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2017.2744605
  5. 5.
    Chaudhry, H., Rahim, M.S.M., Khalid, A.: Multi scale entropy based adaptive fuzzy contrast image enhancement for crowd images. Multimed. Tools Appl. 1–20 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeGroot, M.H.: Reaching a consensus. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69(345), 118–121 (1974)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedkin, N., Johnsen, E.: Social influence network and opinion change. Adv. Group Process. 16(1), 1–29 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F., Luque, M.: Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 154(1), 98–109 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, J., Hastak, M.: Social network analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. J. Inf. Prof. 38(1), 86–96 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liang, Q., Liao, X., Liu, J.: A social ties-based approach for group decision-making problems with incomplete additive preference relations. Knowl. Based Syst. 119, 68–86 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mezirow, J.: Transformative learning theory. In: Contemporary Theories of Learning, pp. 114–128. Routledge, London (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nurmi, H.: Approaches to collective decision making with fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 6(3), 249–259 (1981)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prez, L.G., Mata, F., Chiclana, F., Kou, G., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Modelling influence in group decision making. Soft Comput. 20(4), 1653–1665 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scott, J., Carrington, P.J.: The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tanino, T.: Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 12(2), 117–131 (1984)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tanino, T.: Fuzzy preference relations in group decision making. In: Non-conventional Preference Relations in Decision Making, pp. 54–71. Springer, Berlin (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turner, S.P.: The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge and Prepositions. Wiley, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, vol. 8. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yager, R.R.: On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 18(1), 183–190 (1988)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yager, R.R.: Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 11(1), 49–73 (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yager, R.R.: Quantifiers in the formulation of multiple objective decision functions. Inf. Sci. 31(2), 107–139 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zadeh, L.A.: A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages. Comput. Math. Appl. 9(1), 149–184 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwan Fuzzy Systems Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Mathematics and Statistical SciencesLahore School of EconomicsLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations