DOI: 10.18503/1995-2732-2024-22-3-140-151
Abstract
The difficulty of formalizing the negotiation process leads to the search for theoretical models to draw generalized conclusions. The theoretical study on consensus provides for analyzing various situations faced by groups involved in the collective decision making process, abstracting from its specific characteristics. The paper considers a mathematical model of consensus based on regular Markov chains. It includes the determined theoretical factors influencing the quality of a consensus decision and reflected in social and psychological studies. Non-linear regression models reflecting the contribution of the group size and authoritarianism of its members to the structure of a consensus decision are compiled based on the results of modeling. It has been shown that not always the opinion of the most authoritarian person (or the one who is most trusted) outweighs the opinions of the other group members in the final decision. The equations are worked out to predict the probability of maximum consideration of the opinion of the most authoritarian group member (or the member with the highest trust of the group) in the final decision only by the authoritarian’s range of the members of the group of the fixed size. It has been shown that in cases of high group trust in a homogeneous group to an individual member, as well as in case of a member with high authoritarianism, the final decision will be with a preponderance of the opinion of this group member. This, in turn, can lead to a consensus far from being a wise solution, if that group member is not an expert on the issue under consideration. High trust and authoritarianism serve as blocking factors in making an equilibrium final decision. It has been found that in large groups, unlike small groups, in conditions of lack of homogeneity and presence of highly authoritarian members, the role of these factors is weakened and the consensus decision is close to an equilibrium one. Equilibrium points are calculated to show where authoritarianism and high trust are no longer decisive in shaping weight of the opinion in the final decision. The obtained theoretical results of revealing the factors influencing the preponderance of an opinion in the consensus decision will prevent situations when it is possible to use the classical consensus process to manipulate the outcome of decision making.
Keywords
consensus, consensus decision, modeling, Markov chains, authoritarianism, group trust
For citation
Maksimova O.V. Influence of Authoritarianism and Trust on the Structure of a Consensus Decision. Vestnik Magnitogorskogo Gosudarstvennogo Tekhnicheskogo Universiteta im. G.I. Nosova [Vestnik of Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University]. 2024, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 140-151. https://doi.org/10.18503/1995-2732-2024-22-3-140-151
1. Aymautova N.E., Ushnev S.V. Specific character of group decision making. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Sotsiologiya [Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Sociology]. 2003;(4-5):213-218. (In Russ.)
2. Hertzberg M., Smith R., Westphal R. A consensus handbook: Co-operative decision-making for activists, co-ops and communities. Seeds for Change Lancaster Cooperative Ltd, 2013, 228 p.
3. Polyakova M.A., Izvekov Yu.A., Dryagun E.P. Using mathematical model in practical standardization. Kachestvo. Innovatsii. Obrazovanie [Quality. Innovation. Education]. 2023;(5(187)):69-77. (In Russ.)
4. Maksimova O.V., Aronov I.Z. Mathematical consensus model of loyal experts based on regular Markov chains. Kompyuternye issledovaniya i modelirovanie [Computer Research and Modeling]. 2023;15(5):1381-1393. (In Russ.)
5. DeGroot M.H. Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1974;69:Article ID 345.
6. Zazhigalkin A. V., Aronov I. Z., Maksimova O.V., Papic L. Control of consensus convergence in technical committees of standardization on the basis of regular Markov chains model. Springer India: International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management. 2019;(1):1-8.
7. Maksimova O.V., Aronov I.Z. Achieving consensus in groups with low authoritarianism of participants in decision making. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences. 2024;9(1):71-89.
8. Jackson M., Golub B. Naïve learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. 2010;2(1):112-149.
9. Slovokhotov Yu.L., Novikov D.A. Distributed intelligence of multi-agent systems. Part 2. Group intelligence of social systems. Problemy upravleniya [Control Sciences]. 2023;(6):3-21. (In Russ.)
10. Orlov A.I. A statistical test method in applied statistics. Zavodskaya laboratoriya. Diagnostika materialov [Industrial Laboratory. Diagnostics of Materials]. 2019;85(5):67-79. (In Russ.)
11. Cook J., van der Linden S, Maibach E., Lewandowsky S. The consensus handbook: Why the scientific consensus on climate change is important. 2018.
12. Chebotarev P.Yu. Setevye mnogoagentnye sistemy. Teoriya upravleniya (dopolnitelnye glavy): ucheb. posobie [Network multi-agent systems. Theory of control (additional chapters): study guide]. Novikov D.A. (Ed.). Moscow: Lenand, 2019, pp. 303-322. (In Russ.)
13. Gubanov D.A., Novikov D.A., Chkhartishvili A.G. Models of reputation and information control in social media. Matematicheskaya teoriya igr i ee prilozheniya [Mathematical Game Theory and Applications]. 2009;(1):209-234. (In Russ.)
14. Akiyama Y., Nolan J.J., Darrah M., Rahem M.A., Wang L. A method for measuring consensus within groups: An index of disagreement via conditional probability. Information Sciences. 2016;(345):116-128.
15. Del Moral M.J., Chiclana F., Tapia J.M.R., Herrera‐Viedma E. A comparative study on consensus measures in group decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2018;33(8):1624-1638.
16. Hua Z., Jing X. A generalized Shapley index-based interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy PROMETHEE method for group decision-making. Soft Computing. 2023;27(10):6629-6652.
17. De Vreede T., Reiter‐Palmon R., De Vreede G. The effect of shared mental models on consensus. The 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2013, pp. 263-272.
18. Myers D.G., Twenge J.M. Social psychology. New York: McGraw Hill, 2021, 742 p.
19. Lewin K. Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. London: Souvenir Press (Educational & Academic), 1973, 230 p.
20. Mitchell T.W. The psychology of medicine. USA: Leopold Classic Library, 2017, 600 p.
21. Agaev R.P., Chebotarev P.Yu. Laplace spectra of orgraphs and their applications. Avtomatika i telemekhanika [Automation and remote control]. 2005;(5):47-62. (In Russ.)
22. Altshuller G.S. Nayti ideyu. Vvedenie v TRIZ – teoriyu resheniya izobretatelskikh zadach [Finding an idea. Introduction to TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving]. 4th ed. Moscow: Alpina Publishers, 2011, 400 p. (In Russ.)
23. Helmer O. Problems in futures research. Futures. 1977;9(1):17-31.
24. Rowe G., Wright G. Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi technique. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, 2001, pp. 125-144.
25. Taylor E. We agree, don’t we? The Delphi method for health environments research. Herd: Health Environments Research & Design Journal. 2019;13(1):11-23.
26. Kemeny J. G., Snell J. L. Finite Markov chains. Princeton: The University Series in Undergraduate Mathematics, 1960, 238 p.
27. Pereverzeva I.A. Problem with trust in business. Inostrannaya psikhologiya [Foreign Psychology]. 2000;(12):84-93. (In Russ.)
28. Kupreychenko A.B. Psikhologiya doveriya i nedoveriya [Psychology of trust and distrust]. Moscow: Psychology Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2008, 564 p. (In Russ.)
29. Robbins S.P. Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, applications. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International Inc., 1998.
30. School W. Gruppenarbeit: Die Kluft zwischen sozialpsychologisher Theoriebildung und organisationspsychologisher Anwendung. Gruppendynamik. 1997;28(4):381-403.
31. Adorno T.W. The authoritarian personality. SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks, 2001, pp. 81-90.
32. Efron B., Tibshirani R. Statistical data analysis in the computer age. Sci.New Ser. 1991;253(5018):390-395.
33. Aronov Iosif Z., Maksimova Olga V. Study of factors influence on the variability of time for consensus building in coalitions based on regular Markov chains. International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences. 2021;6(4):1076-1088.
34. Aronov I.Z., Maksimova O.V. A mathematical model of consensus in a social group where there is a leader and a head. Informatsionno-ekonomicheskie aspekty standartizatsii i tekhnicheskogo regulirovaniya [Information and Economic Aspects of Standardization and Technical Control]. 2022;(2(66)):12-21. (In Russ.)