The risk assessment of construction project investment based on prospect theory with linguistic preference orderings

References

• Abdellaoui, M. (2000). Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Science, 46(11), 1497–1512. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.11.1497.12080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birnbaum, M. H. (2005). Three new tests of independence that differentiate models of risky decision making. Management Science, 51(9), 1346–1358. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt, H., Schmidt, U., & Zank, H. (2009). Additive utility in prospect theory. Management Science, 55(5), 863–873. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0978
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer, C. (1998). Bounded rationality in individual decision making. Experimental Economics, 1(2), 163–183. 96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10099443261
   Google Scholar
• Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (1998). Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 97 (1), 33–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00339-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong, Y. C., Luo, N., & Liang, H. M. (2015). Consensus building in multiperson decision making with heterogeneous preference representation structures: A perspective based on prospect theory. Applied Soft Computing, 35, 898–910. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.03.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong, Y. C., Xu, Y. F., Li, H. Y., & Feng, B. (2010). The OWA-based consensus operator under linguistic representation models using position indexes. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(2), 455–463. 2009.08.013. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, Z. P., Ma, J., Jiang, Y. P., Sun, Y. H., & Ma, L. (2006). A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(1), 311–321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, Z. P., Zhang, X., Chen, F. D., & Liu, Y. (2013). Multiple attribute decision making considering aspiration-levels: a method based on prospect theory. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 65(2), 341–350. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu, Z. G., & Liao, H. C. (2019). Unbalanced double hierarchy linguistic term set: The TOPSIS method for multi-expert qualitative decision making involving green mine selection. Information Fusion, 51, 271–286. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.04. 002. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38(1), 129–166. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0710
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou, X. J., Liao, H. C., Wang, X. X., Xu, Z. S., & Herrera, F. (2020a). Consensus based on multiplicative consistent double hierarchy linguistic preferences: Venture capital in real estate market. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 24 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2019.10431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou, X. J., Liao, H. C., Xu, Z. S., & Herrera, F. (2017). Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and MULTIMOORA method: A case of study to evaluate the implementation status of haze controlling measures. Information Fusion, 38, 22–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou, X. J., Liao, H. C., Xu, Z. S., & Herrera, F. (2020b). Consensus model handling minority opinions and non-cooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision-making under double hierarchy linguistic preference relations. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 51(1), 283–296. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.2985069.
   Google Scholar
• Gou, X. J., Liao, H. C., Xu, Z. S., Min, R., & Herrera, F. (2019). Group decision making with double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations: Consistency based measures, index and repairing algorithms and decision model. Information Sciences, 489, 93–112. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.03.037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou, X. J., Xu, Z. S., & Herrera, F. (2018a). Consensus reaching process for large-scale group decision making with double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Knowledge-Based Systems, 157, 20–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.03.037. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou, X. J., Xu, Z. S., Liao, H. C., & Herrera, F. (2018b). Multiple criteria decision making based on distance and similarity measures with double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126, 516–530. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou, X. J., Xu, Z. S., & Zhou, W. (2020c). Managing consensus by multi-stage optimization models with linguistic preference orderings and double hierarchy linguistic preferences. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(3), 642–674. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.12013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou, X. J., Xu, Z. S., & Zhou, W. (2020d). Identification critical factors in developing lung cancer based on interval consistency repairing method for double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1801485.
   Google Scholar
• Hervés-Beloso, C., & Cruces, H. V. (2018). Continuous preference orderings representable by utility functions. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(1), 179–194. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, Y., & Xu, Z. S. (2018). A consensus framework with different preference ordering structures and its applications in human resource selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 118, 80–88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.02.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, X. D., & Zhou, X. Y. (2011). Portfolio choice under cumulative prospect theory: an analytical treatment. Management Science, 57(2), 315–331. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1479580
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juang, C. F., & Chen, C. Y. (2013). Data-driven interval type-2 neural fuzzy system with high learning accuracy and improved model interpretability. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 43(6), 1781–1795.https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB. 2012.2230253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishankumar, R., Subrajaa, L. S., Ravichandran, K. S., Kar, S., & Saeid, A. B. (2019). A framework for multi-attribute group decision-making using double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 21(4), 1130–1143. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-019-00618-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., Fan, Z. P., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Risk decision analysis in emergency response: a method based on cumulative prospect theory. Computers & Operations Research, 42, 75–82. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2012.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, N. N., He, Y., & Xu, Z. S. (2019a). Evaluate public-private-partnership’s Advancement using double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic PROMETHEE with subjective and objective information from stakeholder perspective. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(3), 386–420. 2019.7588. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3846/tede
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Z. M., Zhao, X. H., Li, L., Wang, X. Y., & Wang, D. (2019b). A novel multi-attribute decision making method based on the double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic generalized power aggregation operator. Information, 10, 339. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/info10110339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, J. P., He, T. T., Wei, G. W., Wu, J., & Wei, C. (2020). Performance evaluation of government purchases of home-based elderly-care services using the Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic TODIM method. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 1939. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17061939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pang, Q., Wang, H., & Xu, Z. S. (2016). Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Information Sciences, 369, 128–143. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.06.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, R. M., Martínez, L., & Herrera, F. (2012). Hesitant fuzzy linguistic terms sets for decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 20(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2170076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanino, T. (1984). Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 12(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(84)90032-0. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(84)90032-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, X. L., Niu, M. L., Zhang, W. K., Li, L. H., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2020). A Novel TODIM based on Prospect Theory to Select Green Supplier with Q-rung Orthopair Fuzzy Set. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 0(0), 1–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.12736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, X. L., Xu, Z. S., & Fujita, H. (2018). Sequential funding the venture project or not? A prospect consensus process with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy preference information. Knowledge-Based Systems, 161, 172–184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.08. 002. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, X. D., Gou, X. J., & Xu, Z. S. (2020). Assessment of traffic congestion with ORESTE method under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment. Applied Soft Computing, 86, 105864. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, H., Xu, Z. S., & Zeng, X. J. (2018). Linguistic terms with weakened hedges: A model for qualitative decision making under uncertainty. Information Sciences, 433–434, 37–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.12.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, L., Zhang, Z. X., & Wang, Y. M. (2015). A prospect theory-based interval dynamic reference point method for emergency decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(23), 9379–9388. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, G. W., & Gao, H. (2020). Pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic power aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), 904–933. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1670712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, G., Lei, F., Lin, R., Wang, R., Wei, Y., Wu, J., & Wei, C. (2020). Algorithms for probabilistic uncertain linguistic multiple attribute group decision making based on the GRA and CRITIC method: application to location planning of electric vehicle charging stations. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1), 828–846. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1734851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Nonlinear decision weights in choice under uncertainty. Management Science, 45(1), 74–85. 45.1.74. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, Z. S., & Wang, H. (2017). On the syntax and semantics of virtual linguistic terms for information fusion in decision making. Information Fusion, 34, 43–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2016.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan, S. L., & Liu, S. F. (2014). Group grey target decision making based on prospect theory. Control Decision, 29(4), 673–678. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13195/j.kzyjc.2012.1901.
   Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. (2012). Computing with Words: What is computing with words (CWW)?. Springer. 1–40.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, B. W., Liang, H. M., Zhang, G. Q., & Xu, Y. F. (2018). Minimum deviation ordinal consensus reaching in GDM with heterogeneous preference structures. Applied Soft Computing, 67, 658–676. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.06.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, X. Y., Wang, L. Q., Liao, H. C., Wang, S. Y., Lev, B., & Fujita, H. (2019). A prospect theory-based group decision approach considering consensus for portfolio selection with hesitant fuzzy information. Knowledge-Based Systems, 168, 28–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.12.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar