{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01859229747675963, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026560424966799467, 'mean_word_length': 5.151020408163265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessing false consensus effect in a consensus enhancing procedure

A model for multi‐expert multi‐criteria decision making (ME‐MCDM) is proposed and defined in a consensus‐reaching process. A decision problem is considered, in which a group of experts are involved in the evaluation of the performances of a set of alternatives with respect to a predefined set of criteria. The main novelty of the present consensus model is that of being guided by both consensus and false consensus effects. One finding in studies examining intuitive predictions of the preference is the false consensus effect, which represents the tendency to overestimate consensus for one's attitudes and behaviors. The purpose is to evaluate a consensual judgement whether the consensus degree is partly due to expert's failure to recognize that their choices not only depend on the “objective” response alternatives but also on their subjective structure. In this context, expert's own beliefs, values, and habits tend to bias their perception of how widely they are shared. Our study contributes by investigating the impact of the description of the choice option and the form of the judgement task on the magnitude of the agreement in the case of the presence of the false consensus effect. The consensus reaching process is modeled within fuzzy set theory by ordered weighted averaging operators. Our study contributes by investigating the magnitude of the presence of the false consensus effect. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.