基于三支冲突感知分析的群决策共识模型

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2023.0901

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在复杂的群体决策中，冲突是不可避免的问题。不同专家面临冲突的感知和反应也各不相同。因此，本文借鉴符号-意义-价值（Symbol-meaning-value SMV）空间的思想，将感知-认知-行动（perception-cognition-action PCA）概念整合到冲突空间中，构建了一个以识别冲突感知-识别认知冲突-消除冲突策略为指导的三支群共识模型，该模型旨在解决冲突问题并促进共识达成。对于冲突感知，本文基于群体共识的特点提出感知冲突度的衡量方法，并基于专家之间的冲突感知，进一步识别冲突发起者和冲突接收者。对于认知冲突，本文采用三支冲突分析（three-way conflict analysis TCA）方法，解决专家和群体之间的认知冲突识别问题。对于消除冲突策略，本文基于感知冲突，设计了消除认知冲突的共识指导规则，解决群体共识问题。最后，本文进行了数值实验和稳健性检验，以证明本文提出的模型的可行性和有效性。本研究为解决群体协作过程中的冲突问题提供了系统性的解决方法，有助于提高群体协作效率，促进群体共识达成和改善冲突问题。

关键词: 三支冲突分析, 三支决策, 群决策, 意见动力学, 感知冲突

Abstract:

In complex group decision making， conflicts are an inevitable issue. Conflicts often arise due to divergence in background and knowledge among experts. While the experts may face the same conflict within a given context， their distinct backgrounds and knowledge lead to varying perceptions and cognitions regarding it. At present， there has been a growing focus on the analysis and resolution of conflicts. However， limited research has considered the influence of conflict perception on group decision making. Therefore， drawing on the idea of symbol-meaning-value （SMV） space， the perception-cognition-action （PCA） concept is integrated into conflict space to construct a three-way group consensus model. Guided by conflict perception， cognitive conflict identification， and conflict resolution strategies， this model is designed to address conflict issues and facilitate consensus reaching. For conflict perception， a method for measuring conflict perception based on the characteristics of group consensus is proposed. Based on the conflict perception among experts， conflict initiators and receivers are further identified. Regarding cognitive conflicts， the Three-Way Conflict Analysis （TCA） method is employed to address the issue of cognitive conflict identification between experts and the group. Finally， for conflict resolution strategies， direction rules are designed to eliminate cognitive conflicts and facilitate the group consensus based on perceived conflicts. Furthermore， numerical experiments and robustness tests are conducted to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed model. Through the numerical experiments and robustness tests， the following results are drawn： firstly， when considering conflict perception， the proposed method can effectively reduce the overall adjustment while shortening the required time to reach the consensus. Secondly， the decision results remain stable under different situations with our proposed method. Finally， the robustness tests show the stability of our proposed model in facilitating the group consensus. Overall， it contributes to the field of group decision-making in this paper by providing a systematic approach integrating opinion dynamics and the three-way conflict analysis with conflict perception. The proposed method enhances group collaboration efficiency， facilitates consensus building， and mitigates conflict problems.

Key words: three-way conflict analysis, three-way decision, group decision making, opinion dynamics, conflict perception

中图分类号:

C934

郑强,梁德翠,付园园, 等. 基于三支冲突感知分析的群决策共识模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2026, 34(1): 85-93.

Qiang Zheng,Decui Liang,Yuanyuan Fu, et al. Consensus Model of Group Decision Making Based on Three-way Conflict Analysis Considering Conflict Perception[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2026, 34(1): 85-93.

图/表 14

图1

图2

表 1

不同冲突的意见调整策略设计"

级别	$S C E A c , c $	$W C E A c , c $	$N C E A c , c $
$S C M A c ., c . → S C M A c ., c .$	—	—	—
$S C M A c ., c . → W C M A c ., c .$	—	—	—
$S C M A c ., c . → N C M A c ., c .$	策略 3.a	策略2.a	—
$W C M A c ., c . → S C M A c ., c .$	策略 3.a	—	—
$W C M A c ., c . → W C M A c ., c .$	—	—	—
$W C M A c ., c . → N C M A c ., c .$	策略 1	策略2.b	—
$N C M A c ., c . → S C M A c ., c .$	策略 3.b	策略2.a	—
$N C M A c ., c . → W C M A c ., c .$	策略 1	策略2.b	—
$N C M A c ., c . → N C M A c ., c .$	—	—	—

表 1

表2

第一组数据下影响阈值为0.85的比较结果"

$I D = 0.85$	考虑冲突调整策略
结束条件触发时间	3	1
是否达成共识	是	否
意见整体调整度	170.5	13.5

表2

表3

第一组数据下影响阈值为0.75的比较结果"

$I D = 0.75$	考虑冲突调整策略
结束条件触发时间	3	6
是否达成共识	是	是
意见整体调整度	173.9	198.9

表3

表4

第一组数据的决策结果"

对象	$0.75 + C P$	0.75	$0.85 + C P$	0.85
$a 1$	-1	-1	-1	-1
$a 2$	-1	-1	-1	0
$a 3$	1	1	1	0
$a 4$	0	0	0	0
$a 5$	1	1	1	0
$a 6$	0	-1	0	0
$a 7$	-1	-1	-1	0
$a 8$	-1	-1	-1	0
$a 9$	1	1	1	1
$a 10$	0	0	0	0
$a 11$	1	1	1	1
$a 12$	1	1	1	1
$a 13$	1	1	1	1
$a 14$	1	1	1	1
$a 15$	-1	-1	-1	0
$a 16$	1	1	1	1
$a 17$	1	1	1	1
$a 18$	0	0	0	0
$a 19$	-1	-1	-1	-1
$a 20$	0	0	0	0

表4

表5

第二组数据下影响阈值为0.85的比较结果"

$I D = 0.85$	考虑冲突调整策略
结束条件触发时间	3	2
是否达成共识	是	否
意见整体调整度	187.1	13.6

表5

表6

第二组数据下影响阈值为0.75的比较结果"

$I D = 0.75$	考虑冲突调整策略
结束条件触发时间	3	7
是否达成共识	是	是
意见整体调整度	187.4	200.1

表6

图3

图4

表7

第二组数据的决策结果"

对象	$0.75 + C P$	0.75	$0.85 + C P$	0.85
$a 1$	-1	-1	-1	-1
$a 2$	-1	-1	-1	-1
$a 3$	0	0	0	0
$a 4$	-1	-1	-1	0
$a 5$	1	1	1	1
$a 6$	1	1	1	1
$a 7$	-1	-1	-1	-1
$a 8$	1	1	1	1
$a 9$	0	0	0	0
$a 10$	0	1	1	0
$a 11$	1	1	1	1
$a 12$	-1	-1	-1	0
$a 13$	-1	-1	-1	0
$a 14$	0	0	0	0
$a 15$	-1	-1	-1	-1
$a 16$	1	1	1	1
$a 17$	-1	-1	-1	-1
$a 18$	-1	-1	-1	0
$a 19$	1	1	1	1
$a 20$	0	0	0	0

表7

图5

图6

图7

参考文献 30

[1]	Gou X J， Xu Z S， Liao H C. Hesitant fuzzy linguistic possibility degree-based linear assignment method for multiple criteria decision-making［J］. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making （IJITDM）， 2019， 18（1）： 35-63.
[2]	Liao H C， Gou X J， Xu Z S， et al. Hesitancy degree-based correlation measures for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications in multiple criteria decision making［J］. Information Sciences， 2020， 508： 275-292.
[3]	Ren Z L， Xu Z S， Wang H. Multi-criteria group decision-making based on quasi-order for dual hesitant fuzzy sets and professional degrees of decision makers［J］. Applied Soft Computing， 2018， 71： 20-35.
[4]	高俊山，谷冬元，徐章艳，等. 一个Pawlak粗糙集冲突分析模型的改进［J］. 中国管理科学， 2008， 16（2）： 150-156.
	Gao J S， Gu D Y， Xu Z Y， et al. New conflict analysis model based on rough set theory［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2008， 16（2）： 150-156.
[5]	朱建军，王翯华，胡宏宇，等. 群决策中指标冲突问题的证据推理决策模型［J］. 中国管理科学， 2012， 20（S1）： 101-107.
	Zhu J J， Wang H H， Hu H Y， et al. Evidence reasoning model of index conflict problem in group decision［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2012， 20（S1）： 101-107.
[6]	张慧敏，李小南. 基于冲突分析的犹豫模糊多属性决策［J］. 模式识别与人工智能， 2020， 33（7）： 610-618.
	Zhang H M， Li X N. Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on conflict analysis［J］. Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence， 2020， 33（7）： 610-618.
[7]	Wu J， Dai L F， Chiclana F， et al. A minimum adjustment cost feedback mechanism based consensus model for group decision making under social network with distributed linguistic trust［J］. Information Fusion， 2018， 41： 232-242.
[8]	Wang M W， Liang D C， Xu Z S. Sequential three-way multiple attribute group decisions with individual attributes and its consensus achievement based on social influence［J］. Information Sciences， 2020， 518： 286-308.
[9]	Gou X J， Xu Z S， Wang X X， et al. Managing consensus reaching process with self-confident double hierarchy linguistic preference relations in group decision making［J］. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making， 2021， 20（1）： 51-79.
[10]	Zhang Z， Gao Y， Li Z L. Consensus reaching for social network group decision making by considering leadership and bounded confidence［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems， 2020， 204： 106240.
[11]	熊国强，张婷，王海涛. 情绪影响下群体性冲突的RDEU博弈模型分析［J］. 中国管理科学， 2015， 23（9）： 162-170.
	Xiong G Q， Zhang T， Wang H T. The RDEU game model analysis of group conflict influenced by emotion［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2015， 23（9）： 162-170.
[12]	Pessoa L， Medina L， Desfilis E. Refocusing neuroscience： Moving away from mental categories and towards complex behaviours［J］. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B： Biological Sciences， 2022， 377（1844）： 20200534.
[13]	Holley R A， Liggett T M. Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting infinite systems and the voter model［J］. The Annals of Probability， 1975，3（4）： 643-663.
[14]	Berger R L. A necessary and sufficient condition for reaching a consensus using DeGroot’s method［J］. Journal of the American Statistical Association， 1981， 76（374）： 415-418.
[15]	DeGroot M H. Reaching a consensus［J］. Journal of the American Statistical Association， 1974， 69（345）： 118-121.
[16]	Friedkin N E， Johnsen E C. Social influence and opinions［J］. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology， 1990， 15（3-4）： 193-206.
[17]	Friedkin N E， Proskurnikov A V， Tempo R， et al. Network science on belief system dynamics under logic constraints［J］. Science， 2016， 354（6310）： 321-326.
[18]	Hegselmann R， Krause U. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence： Models， analysis and simulation［J］. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation， 2002， 5： 8130429.
[19]	Hegselmann R， König S， Kurz S， et al. Optimal opinion control： The campaign problem［J］. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation， 2015， 18（3）： 18.
[20]	Weisbuch G， Deffuant G， Amblard F， et al. Meet， discuss， and segregate！［J］. Complexity， 2002， 7（3）： 55-63.
[21]	Pawlak Z. An inquiry into anatomy of conflicts［J］. Information Sciences， 1998， 109（1-4）： 65-78.
[22]	Yao Y Y. Three-way conflict analysis： Reformulations and extensions of the Pawlak model［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems， 2019， 180： 26-37.
[23]	Lang G M， Miao D Q， Cai M J. Three-way decision approaches to conflict analysis using decision-theoretic rough set theory［J］. Information Sciences， 2017， 406： 185-207.
[24]	Lang G M， Miao D Q， Fujita H. Three-way group conflict analysis based on Pythagorean fuzzy set theory［J］. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems， 2020， 28（3）： 447-461.
[25]	Sun B Z， Chen X T， Zhang L Y， et al. Three-way decision making approach to conflict analysis and resolution using probabilistic rough set over two universes［J］. Information Sciences， 2020， 507： 809-822.
[26]	Yao Y Y. Symbols-Meaning-Value （SMV） space as a basis for a conceptual model of data science［J］. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning， 2022， 144： 113-128.
[27]	Nanay B. Perception， cognition， action［J］.Oxford Bibliographies，2016，DOI：10.1093/OBO/9780195396577-0326 .
[28]	Liang D C， Yi B C， Xu Z S. Opinion dynamics based on infectious disease transmission model in the non-connected context of Pythagorean fuzzy trust relationship［J］. Journal of the Operational Research Society， 2021， 72（12）： 2783-2803.
[29]	Yao Y Y. Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets［J］. Information Sciences， 2010， 180（3）： 341-353.
[30]	Yao Y Y. Three-way decision and granular computing［J］. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning， 2018， 103： 107-123.