The Decision Making Method Based on the New Distance Measure and Similarity Measure

  • Zhinan HaoEmail author
  • Zeshui Xu
  • Hua Zhao
Part of the Uncertainty and Operations Research book series (UOR)


The distance measure is an important part of the intuitionistic fuzzy set theory. Previous research of the distance measures mainly focuses on aggregating the intuitionistic fuzzy information of the weighted attributes while ignores the influence of the relationships between different attributes. This chapter aims at proposing a more appropriate distance measure which considers not only the importance of different weighted attributes but also the competition of them. Then a novel similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy information and the decision-making method are developed based on the new distance measure. A practical case study is presented to demonstrate the validity of the proposed methods in this chapter.


  1. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atanassov KT (1999) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Springer, HeidlbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baccour L, Alimi AM, John RI (2013) Similarity measures for intuitionistic fuzzy sets: state of the art. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 24(1):37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkowitsch NAJ, Scheibehenne B, Rieskamp J, Matthaeus M (2015) A generalized distance function for preferential choices. Br J Math Stat Psychol 68(2):310–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen LH, Tu CC (2014) Dominance-based ranking functions for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Cybernet 44(8):1269–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Das S, Guha D, Mesiar R (2018) Information measures in the intuitionistic fuzzy framework and their relationships. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(3):1626–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dong JY, Lin LL, Wang F, Wan SP (2016) Generalized Choquet integral operator of triangular Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and application to multi-attribute group decision making. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 24(5):647–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Du WS, Hu BQ (2015) Aggregation distance measure and its induced similarity measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Pattern Recogn Lett 60–61:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feng F, Fujita H, Ali MI, Yager RR, Liu XY (2019) Another view on generalized intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets and related multiattribute decision making methods. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 27(3):474–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grzegorzewski P (2004) Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets and/or interval-valued fuzzy sets based on the Hausdorff metric. Fuzzy Sets Syst 148(2):319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halamish V, Liberman N (2017) How much information to sample before making a decision? It’s a matter of psychological distance. J Exp Soc Psychol 71:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hao ZN, Xu ZS, Zhao H, Zhang R (2019) Psychological distance measures for intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application in marine energy transportation route decision making. Tech RepGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang B, Li HX, Wei DK (2012) Dominance-based rough set model in intuitionistic fuzzy information systems. Knowl-Based Syst 28:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang B, Wei DK, Li HX, Zhuang YL (2013) Using a rough set model to extract rules in dominance-based interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information systems. Inf Sci 221:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang N, Burtch G, Hong YL, Polman E (2016) Effects of multiple psychological distances on construal and consumer evaluation: a field study of online reviews. J Consum Psychol 26(4):474–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives—violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J Consum Res 9(1):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshi R, Kumar S (2019) A dissimilarity measure based on Jensen Shannon divergence measure. Int J Gen Syst 48(3):280–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ke D, Song Y, Quan W (2018) New distance measure for Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application in decision making. Symmetry 10(10)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li DF, Cheng CT (2002) New similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and application to pattern recognitions. Pattern Recogn Lett 23(1–3):221–225Google Scholar
  20. Luo X, Li WM, Zhao W (2018) Intuitive distance for intuitionistic fuzzy sets with applications in pattern recognition. Appl Intell 48(9):2792–2808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nosofsky RA, Zaki SR (2002) Exemplar and prototype models revisited: Response strategies, selective attention, and stimulus generalization. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 28(5):924–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nosofsky RM (1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. J Experiment Psychol General 115(1):39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roe RM, Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (2001) Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychol Rev 108(2):370–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rooderkerk RP, Van Heerde HJ, Bijmolt THA (2011) Incorporating context effects into a choice model. J Mark Res 48(4):767–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soderberg CK, Callahan SP, Kochersberger AO, Amit E, Ledgerwood A (2015) The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychol Bull 141(3):525–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Song YF, Wang XD, Quan W, Huang WL (2019) A new approach to construct similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Soft Comput 23(6):1985–1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J (2000) Distances between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114(3):505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas M, Tsai CI (2012) Psychological distance and subjective experience: how distancing reduces the feeling of difficulty. J Consum Res 39(2):324–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang WQ, Xin XL (2005) Distance measure between intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Pattern Recogn Lett 26(13):2063–2069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wedell DH (1991) Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 17(4):767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams LE, Stein R, Galguera L (2014) The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. J Consum Res 40(6):1123–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu ZS (2005) An overview of methods for determining OWA weights. Int J Intell Syst 20(8):843–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xu ZS (2007a) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(6):1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xu ZS (2007b) Some similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their applications to multiple attribute decision making. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 6(2):109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu ZS, Cai XQ (2012) Intuitionistic fuzzy information aggregation. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  36. Xu ZS, Chen J (2008) An overview of distance and similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 16(4):529–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yu XH, Xu ZS, Liu SS, Chen Q (2014) On ranking of intuitionistic fuzzy values based on dominance relations. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 22(2):315–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Command and Control Engineering CollegeArmy Engineering University of PLANanjingChina
  2. 2.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  3. 3.Department of General EducationArmy Engineering University of PLANanjingChina

Personalised recommendations