Novel Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision Making Models in the Framework of Decision Field Theory

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


Most of the existing intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making methods depend on various aggregation operators that provide collective intuitionistic fuzzy values of alternatives to be ranked. Such collective information only depicts the overall characteristics of the alternatives but ignores the detailed contrasts among them. Most important of all, the current decision making procedure is not in accordance with the way that the decision-makers think about the decision making problems. This chapter studies a novel intuitionistic fuzzy decision making model in the framework of decision field theory. The decision making model emphasizes the contrasts among alternatives concerning each attribute that competes and influences each other, and thus, the preferences for alternatives can dynamically evolve and provide the final optimal result.


  1. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atanassov KT (2012) On intuitionistic fuzzy sets theory. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol 283. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrenechea E, Fernandez J, Pagola M, Chiclana F, Bustince H (2014) Construction of interval-valued fuzzy preference relations from ignorance functions and fuzzy preference relations application to decision making. Knowl-Based Syst 58:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkowitsch NAJ, Scheibehenne B, Rieskamp J (2014) Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. J Exper Psychol-General 143(3):1331–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busemeyer JR (1985) Decision making under uncertainty: a comparison of simple scalability, fixed-sample, and sequential-sampling models. J Exper Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 11(3):538–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busemeyer JR, Diederich A (2002) Survey of decision field theory. Math Soc Sci 43(3):345–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (1993) Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychol Rev 100(3):432–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dymova L, Sevastjanov P (2010) An interpretation of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in terms of evidence theory: Decision making aspect. Knowl-Based Syst 23(8):772–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dymova L, Sevastjanov P (2012) The operations on intuitionistic fuzzy values in the framework of Dempster-Shafer theory. Knowl-Based Syst 35:132–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hao ZN, Xu ZS, Zhao H, Zhang R (2017) Novel intuitionistic fuzzy decision making models in the framework of decision field theory. Inf Fusion 33:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hotaling JM, Busemeyer JR, Li JY (2010) Theoretical developments in decision field theory: comment on Tsetsos, Usher, and Chater. Psychol Rev 117(4):1294–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huber J, Puto C (1983) Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. J Consum Res 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Shepard RN (1987) Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science 237(4820):1317–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simonson I (1989) Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J Consum Res 158–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simonson I, Tversky A (1992) Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J Market Res 29(3):281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sjoberg L (1977) Choice frequency and similarity. Scand J Psychol 18(2):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects—theory of choice. Psychol Rev 79(4):281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Manag Sci 39(10):1179–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Unit TEI (2015) Prospects and challenges on China’s “one belt, one road”: a risk assessment report. Accessed 13 Mar 2016
  21. Wedell DH (1991) Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. J Exper Psychol Learn Memory Cogn 17(4):767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Xu ZS (2007a) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(6):1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Xu ZS (2007b) Models for multiple attribute decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 15(3):285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Xu ZS (2010) Choquet integrals of weighted intuitionistic fuzzy information. Inf Sci 180(5):726–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Xu ZS, Cai XQ (2012) Intuitionistic fuzzy information aggregation. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Xu ZS, Xia MM (2011) Induced generalized intuitionistic fuzzy operators. Knowl-Based Syst 24(2):197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xu ZS, Yager RR (2006) Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J General Syst 35(4):417–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xu ZS, Yager RR (2011) Intuitionistic fuzzy Bonferroni means. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 41(2):568–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhao H, Xu ZS, Ni MF, Liu SS (2010) Generalized aggregation operators for intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle 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