Context-aware emotion-based model for group decision making

Involving groups in important management processes such as decision making has several advantages. By discussing and combining ideas, counter ideas, critical opinions, identified constraints, and alternatives, a group of individuals can test potentially better solutions, sometimes in the form of new products, services, and plans. In the past few decades, operations research, AI, and computer science have had tremendous success creating software systems that can achieve optimal solutions, even for complex problems. The only drawback is that people don’t always agree with these solutions. Sometimes this dissatisfaction is due to an incorrect parameterization of the problem. Nevertheless, the reasons people don’t like a solution might not be quantifiable, because those reasons are often based on aspects such as emotion, mood, and personality. At the same time, monolithic individual decisionsupport systems centered on optimizing solutions are being replaced by collaborative systems and group decision-support systems (GDSSs) that focus more on establishing connections between people in organizations. These systems follow a kind of social paradigm. Combining both optimization- and socialcentered approaches is a topic of current research. However, even if such a hybrid approach can be developed, it will still miss an essential point: the emotional nature of group participants in decision-making tasks. We’ve developed a context-aware emotion based model to design intelligent agents for group decision-making processes. To evaluate this model, we’ve incorporated it in an agent-based simulator called ABS4GD (Agent-Based Simulation for Group Decision), which we developed. This multiagent simulator considers emotion- and argument based factors while supporting group decision-making processes. Experiments show that agents endowed with emotional awareness achieve agreements more quickly than those without such awareness. Hence, participant agents that integrate emotional factors in their judgments can be more successful because, in exchanging arguments with other agents, they consider the emotional nature of group decision making