Advertisement

Reflecting Emotional Aspects and Uncertainty in Multi-expert Evaluation: One Step Closer to a Soft Design-Alternative Evaluation Methodology

  • Jan StoklasaEmail author
  • Tomáš Talášek
  • Jana Stoklasová
Chapter

Abstract

We introduce an emotion-based, linguistic, multi-expert evaluation method for the evaluation of less tangible (and difficult to measure) aspects of design alternatives. We build on the basic-emotion semantic differential method proposed by Huang Chen and Khoo in 2012 and utilize the ideas of Kansei engineering and semantic-differential-type scales to obtain inputs and apply the concepts of strong and weak E-consensus. The proposed method registers information on the perceived relevance of the evaluation scales and the confidence of the evaluators’ answers and transforms it into uncertainty represented by interval values. We introduce modified computation formulas required to compute the overall multidimensional-block evaluations from the interval-valued evaluations and define the variability of the group evaluation in terms of the dissensus of evaluators.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the grant IGA_FF_2018_002 of the internal grant agency of Palacký University Olomouc.

References

  1. Brill, E. D., Chang, S.-Y., & Hopkins, L. D. (1982). Modeling to generate alternatives: The HSJ approach and an illustration using a problem in land use planning. Management Science, 28(3), 221–235.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.3.221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Heise, D. R. (1969). Some methodological issues in semantic differential research. Psychological Bulletin, 72(6), 406–422.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 375–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00026-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huang, Y., Chen, C. H., & Khoo, L. P. (2012). Products classification in emotional design using a basic-emotion based semantic differential method. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(6), 569–580. Elsevier Ltd.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jiao, J., Zhang, Y., & Helander, M. (2006). A Kansei mining system for affective design. Expert Systems with Applications, 30(4), 658–673.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2005.07.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jindo, T., Hirasago, K., & Nagamachi, M. (1995). Ergonomics development of a design support system for office chairs using 3-D graphics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5), 361–372.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kobayashi, M., & Kinumura, T. (2017). A method of gathering, selecting and hierarchizing Kansei words for a hierarchized Kansei model. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 14(4), 464–471. Taylor & Francis.  https://doi.org/10.1080/16864360.2016.1257188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2009). Middle category endorsement in odd-numbered Likert response scales: Associated item characteristics, cognitive demands, and preferred meanings. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 489–493. Elsevier Inc.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 5–55.Google Scholar
  12. Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: A new consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Osgood, C. E. (1964). Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. American Anthropologist, 66(3), 171–200.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215687.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  15. Stoklasa, J. (2014). Linguistic models for decision support. Lappeenranta: Lappeenranta University of Technology.Google Scholar
  16. Stoklasa, J., & Talášek, T. (2015). Linguistic modelling in economics and management practice – Some open issues. In Proceedings of the international scientific conference knowledge for market use (pp. 959–969). Olomouc: Societas Scientiarum Olomucensis II.Google Scholar
  17. Stoklasa, J., & Talášek, T. (2016). On the use of linguistic labels in AHP: Calibration, consistency and related issues. In Proceedings of the 34th international conference on mathematical methods in economics (pp. 785–790). Liberec: Technical University of Liberec.Google Scholar
  18. Stoklasa, J., Talašová, J., & Holeček, P. (2011). Academic staff performance evaluation – Variants of models. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 8(3), 91–111.Google Scholar
  19. Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T., & Musilová, J. (2014). Fuzzy approach – A new chapter in the methodology of psychology? Human Affairs, 24(2), 189–203.  https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0219-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T., & Stoklasová, J. (2016). Semantic differential and linguistic approximation – Identification of a possible common ground for research in social sciences. In Proceedings of the international scientific conference knowledge for market use (pp. 495–501). Olomouc: Societas Scientiarum Olomucensis II.Google Scholar
  21. Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T., Kubátová, J., & Seitlová, K. (2017). Likert scales in group multiple-criteria evaluation. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, 29(5), 425–440.Google Scholar
  22. Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T., & Luukka, P. (2018a). Fuzzified Likert scales in group multiple-criteria evaluation. In M. Collan & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Soft computing applications for group decision-making and consensus modeling (Vol. 357, pp. 165–185).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60207-3_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T., & Stoklasová, J. (2018b). Attitude-based multi-expert evaluation of design. (unpublished).Google Scholar
  24. Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T., & Stoklasová, J. (2018c). Semantic differential for the twenty-first century: Scale relevance and uncertainty entering the semantic space. Quality & Quantity.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0762-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Talašová, J., Stoklasa, J., & Holeček, P. (2014). HR management through linguistic fuzzy rule bases – A versatile and safe tool? In Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on mathematical methods in economics (pp. 1027–1032). Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
  26. Xu, R., & Wunsch, D. C. (2009). Clustering. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Yeomans, J. S. (2011). Efficient generation of alternative perspectives in public environmental policy formulation: Applying co-evolutionary simulation-optimization to municipal solid waste management. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 19(4), 391–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-011-0190-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yeomans, J. S., & Gunalay, Y. (2011). An efficient modelling to generate alternatives approach for addressing unmodelled issues and objectives in public environmental planning. Asian Journal of Information Technology, 10(3), 122–128.  https://doi.org/10.3923/ajit.2011.122.128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Information Sciences, 8(3), 199–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Stoklasa
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tomáš Talášek
    • 2
  • Jana Stoklasová
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Business and ManagementLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  2. 2.Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of ArtsPalacký University OlomoucOlomoucCzech Republic
  3. 3.Marital and Family Counseling Centre ProstějovProstějovCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations