4.7 Article

A group decision method based on prospect theory for emergency situations

Journal

INFORMATION SCIENCES
Volume 418, Issue -, Pages 119-135

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2017.07.037

Keywords

Group decision making; Emergency response; Prospect theory

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71371053]
  2. Young Doctoral Dissertation Project of the Social Science Planning Project of Fujian Province [FJ2016C202]
  3. Humanities and Social Science Foundation of the Ministry of Education [14YJC630056]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [LY15G030021]
  5. [TIN2015-66524-P]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Urgent and critical situations or so-called emergency events, such as terrorist attacks and natural disasters, often require crucial decisions. When an emergency event occurs, emergency decision making plays an important role in dealing with it, and hence, its importance nowadays is increasing. In the real world, it is difficult for only one decision maker to take a comprehensive decision for coping with an emergency event. Consequently, many practical emergency problems are often characterized by a group emergency decision making (GEDM) scheme. Different studies show that human beings are usually bounded rational under risk and uncertainty, and their psychological behavior is very important in the decision-making process. However, such behavior is neglected in current GEDM studies. Therefore, this study proposes a novel GEDM method that considers experts' psychological behavior in the GEDM process. The method is then applied to a case study and compared with other related approaches. Finally, discussions are presented to illustrate the novelty, feasibility, and validity of the proposed GEDM method, showing the importance of experts' psychological behavior in GEDM. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available