• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Maximum Group Perceived Utility Consensus Models Considering Regret Aversion

    2022-05-09 07:00:08XUEYuqin薛雨沁CHENGDong

    XUE Yuqin(薛雨沁),CHENG Dong(程 棟)

    Glorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University, Shanghai 200051, China

    Abstract: In the consensus-reaching process (CRP), the actual utility of decision-makers (DMs) is often influenced by the psychological behavior of regret aversion. However, the influence of regret aversion on DMs’ utilities is rarely taken into account in the existing consensus models. The consensus-reaching problem of DMs with regret aversion is explored to maximize their perceived utilities under a limited budget. Firstly, three basic types of perceived utility functions are constructed based on the regret theory to describe the perceived utility of DMs with various preferences. Then, considering the limited budget and individual regret aversion, the maximum perceived utility consensus models based on types of left-skewed, right-skewed, middle-skewed, and heterogeneous utility preferences are proposed to achieve the consensus that maximizes the group perceived utility. After that, an example of land-transfer price negotiation in China is given to illustrate the validity of the proposed models. Finally, the model comparison and the sensitivity analysis are presented to reveal the influence of DMs’ regret aversion on the CRP. The results suggest that the DMs’ regret aversion will not affect left-skewed and right-skewed groups, but will affect the consensus results of middle-skewed and heterogeneous groups.

    Key words: regret aversion; consensus model; interval preference; maximum perceived utility

    Introduction

    The consensus-reaching process (CRP) aims to draw on the opinions of all decision-makers (DMs) in a group so as to agglomerate agreement. It generally requires the assistance of a moderator, who uses cost compensation and other means to convince DMs to modify their opinions[1-2]. For the moderator’s interest, he/she always hopes to reach a consensus at the lowest cost, so the minimum cost consensus model (MCCM) is proposed[3-6]. Since the MCCM can improve consensus efficiency and reduce costs, it has been widely applied to various important group decision-making (GDM) issues, such as commercial negotiations, demolition compensation, and pollution control consultations[1]. However, the MCCM only considers the feelings of the moderator and ignores the effect of DMs’ utilities on the CRP[7-8]. Fully preserving the utility preferences of all DMs is the key to ensure the effectiveness of consensus opinion and its successful implementation in the GDM[9-10]. As the main body of the CRP, each DM hopes that his/her opinion will be given enough attention. In other words, the moderator needs to pay more attention to the utility of each DM, rather than just considering the compensation cost in the CRP. Therefore, the utility consensus models are required to be constructed in order to obtain the consensus that can be supported and satisfied by the DMs.

    Regret aversion, or the feeling of avoiding regret, is a common psychological phenomenon among DMs and may affect their utilities in the CRP[11-12]. Each DM will compare the consensus opinion with his/her own opinion, which may result in two kinds of psychology behavior: one is that the DM will feel regret if he/she finds that the individual opinion can better satisfy his/her preference than the consensus opinion; otherwise, he/she will feel joyful. When the DM anticipates the potential regret after the decision, his/her regret aversion will affect his/her decision to avoid making decisions that make him/her feel regretful. This expectation of regret or rejoicing about the decision results will affect both their utilities and opinions. The regret theory, proposed by Bell[13], and Loomes and Sugden[14], is used to measure the influence of the regret aversion on individual utility. In recent years, it has been successfully applied to GDM problems. For example, Zhouetal.[15]obtained the regret value of the alternatives by constructing a regret function to select the best alternative. Peng and Yang[16]took the DMs’ regret aversion and prospect preference into consideration, and proposed two algorithms to solve stochastic multi-criteria decision-making problem. These models work well to solve the GDM problem of alternative selection, but they pay little attention to the CRP, which usually reaches the consensus by means of an optimization method. Yang and Sen[17]built a multi-objective optimization model considering utility functions to obtain the best solution. Hoetal.[18]considered DMs’ utilities and risk attitudes, and proposed a fuzzy goal programming model in order to improve DMs’ satisfaction. Researchers[8-9]constructed the maximum utility consensus model based on linear and non-linear utility functions under limited budget constraints. Subsequently, based on the risk preference of DMs, Gongetal.[19]adopted piecewise linear utility functions to establish a utility consensus model so as to describe the dynamic preference and the consensus level.

    Maximum group perceived utility consensus models consider regret aversion of DMs. However, the psychology of DMs’ regret aversion is often neglected in the current utility consensus model, which uses the expected utility function to measure the DMs’ utilities. This may lead to the consensus result deviating from the solution recommendation obtained by applying the extant utility consensus theory. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the impact of DMs’ regret aversion when constructing the utility consensus model.

    This paper aims to explore how to obtain the optimal consensus that maximizes the group perceived utility considering DMs’ regret aversion. To portray the perceived utility of DMs with different psychological preferences, we first define three kinds of perceived utility functions based on regret theory, namely, left-skewed, right-skewed, and middle-skewed types. Then, the maximum group perceived utility consensus models under different preference structures are constructed, which improve and extend the current utility consensus theory. The main contributions of the study are as follows.

    (1) Considering the influence of DMs’ regret aversion, a consensus model of maximum group perceived utility under limited cost is proposed. Although Gongetal.[8]explored the problem of maximum group epxected utility consensus models for the first time, they did not consider DMs’ regret aversion.

    (2) Three types of perceived utility functions incorporating DMs’ regret aversion are defined. Compared with the expected utility function, this article is based on the regret theory to construct the perceived utility function to reflect the actual utility of the DM as much as possible.

    (3) The influence of different individual preference types of DMs on the CRP is explored. Based on the case of land transfer, this paper presents future work of solving the GDM problem with different DMs’ preference types by constructing a heterogeneous maximum perceived utility model. The results show that group members with different preference types tend to set a neutral land-transfer price, which is beneficial to the long-term cooperation between farmers and companies.

    The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 1 describes in detail the research problem and explains the parameters to be used in the subsequent modeling. Section 2 focuses on the construction of three types of perceived utility functions based on regret theory. Then, four types of maximum group perceived utility consensus models are constructed in section 3. Section 4 gives an application example to verify the validity of the proposed models. To further illustrate the influence of regret aversion on the proposed consensus models, a comparative analysis and a sensitivity analysis are included in section 5. Finally, section 6 concludes the whole paper and presents the future work.

    1 Problem Description

    2 Construction of Perceived Utility Function Based on Regret Theory

    This section briefly introduces the knowledge related to regret theory, and then constructs three types of perceived utility functions accordingly: left-skewed, right-skewed, and middle-skewed regret utility functions. According to the individual perceived utility measurement formula, this section provides a basis for the following construction of the maximum group perceived utility consensus model.

    2.1 Regret theory

    The basic idea of regret theory is that the DM not only pays attention to the results that can be obtained from the selected option, but also compares the possible results under various options. When the DM finds that the results of choosing other options are better, he/she will feel regret. Otherwise, he/she will feel delighted. In regret theory, the perceived utility of the DM is composed of the expected utility function of the current result and the regret-rejoice function. Suppose that there are two decision resolutionsxandy, anduxanduyrepresent the expected utility value obtained by the decision resolutionsxandy, respectively. Then, the perceived utilityUxyobtained by the user for the decision resolutionxcan be expressed as

    Uxy=ux+R(ux-uy),

    (1)

    whereR(ux-uy) represents the regret-rejoice value generated by the DM who abandons the resolutionybecause of the choice of the resolutionx. Regret-rejoice functionR(ux-uy)is a monotonically increasing concave function, satisfyingR(0)=0,R′(ux-uy)>0, andR″(ux-uy)<0[21], which usually is presented as a negative exponential function formgR(ux-uy)[22]:

    gR(ux-uy)=1-exp[-δ(ux-uy)],

    (2)

    where the parameterδ∈[0, +∞] is the regret coefficient of the DM. The larger the value ofδis, the more impact of regret aversion on the DM will have.

    2.2 Construction of perceived utility function

    Considering the complexity of GDM, individuals prefer interval numbers to a crisp number to express their views more comprehensively. Unlike the crisp number, DMs often have different preferences for the values in the interval. In the CRP, the utility function is usually used to reflect the individual preference structure of DMs. According to different types of interval preferences, these functions are usually divided into left-skewed, right-skewed, and middle-skewed types[8]. The traditional utility functions only demonstrate the expected utility of DMs, which ignore the impact of DMs’ psychology on themselves and cannot reflect the real DMs’ utilities in the CRP. Therefore, the perceived utility functions are constructed to not only measure the impact of DMs’ regret aversion on utility, but also reflect the real utility as much as possible.

    We use the utility function in Gongetal.[8]to obtain the expected utility of three types of individual preference. A DM of a left-skewed type prefers the lower bound of his/her opinion interval, and his/her expected utility value will decrease with the increase of the opinion value.

    Definition1Letoibe the individual opinion value of the left-skewed DMdi, and then the perceived utility function ofdiis defined as

    (3)

    (4)

    Similarly, a DM belongs to the right-skewed type if he/she is inclined to the upper bound of the opinion interval and gains more utility when increasing the value of his/her opinion.

    Definition2Letoibe the individual opinion value of the right-skewed DMdi, and then his/her perceived utility function is defined as

    (5)

    (6)

    If the DM gains the largest utility when his/her individual opinion is equal to the median value of the opinion interval, his/her personal preference is called the middle-skewed type.
    Definition3Letoibe the individual opinion value of the middle-skewed DMdi, andΔκibe the utility difference between the consensus opinion and his/her opinion, and then the perceived utility function ofdiis defined as

    (7)

    Since the expected utility function of middle-skewed DMs is piecewise linear, we will discuss the utility difference caused by the comparison of consensus opinions and individual opinions in the following four situations.

    (8)

    (9)

    (10)

    (11)

    The utility difference reflects the closeness covering the individual opinion, the consensus opinion, and the median of the interval. When the utility difference is positive, the consensus opinion is closer to the median of the interval than the individual opinion. Otherwise, the individual opinion is closer than the consensus opinion to the median of the interval.

    3 Construction of Maximum Group Perceived Utility Consensus Models

    After constructing the perceived utility function based on the regret theory, three kinds of DMs’ perceived utilities can be obtained. On the base of section 2, this section will discuss the construction of homogeneous and heterogeneous maximum group perceived utility consensus models. Homogeneity means that DMs in the group have the same type of individual preference, while heterogeneity means that their preferences are not exactly the same. Considering DMs’ regret psychology and limited consensus budget, the maximum group perceived utility consensus models can be constructed based on homogeneous (left-skewed, right-skewed, and middle-skewed types) and heterogeneous utility preferences.

    3.1 Homogeneous maximum group perceived utility consensus model

    3.1.1 Left-skewedmaximumgroupperceivedutilityconsensusmodel

    When the DMs’ preferences are all left-skewed, the group can be defined as a left-skewed group. Based on the left-skewed regret perceived utility function defined in section 2.2, a left-skewed maximum group perceived utility consensus model under the constraints of limited cost and interval opinions is constructed.

    (12)

    Lemma1If the feasible region of a convex optimization problem is a continuous non-empty set, then there must be an optimal solution.

    ProofPlease refer to Ref. [23].

    Theorem1Left-skewed regret perceived utility model (12) is convex optimization and has an optimal solution.

    ProofThe standard form of the model is

    (13)

    (14)

    3.1.2 Right-skewedmaximumgroupperceivedutilityconsensusmodel

    If all DMs in the group belong to the same preference type with the right-skewed type, we call them a right-skewed group. Similar to section 3.1.1, the construction of right-skewed maximum group perceived utility consensus model is

    (15)

    Theorem2Right-skewed regret perceived utility model (15) is convex optimization and has an optimal solution.

    ProofThe standard form of the model is

    (16)

    which is similar to model (13). The proof that the inequality constraint is a convex function is the same as Theorem 1. Thus by proving that the objective function is convex, it is possible to prove that model (16) is convex optimization.

    (17)

    3.1.3 Middle-skewedmaximumgroupperceivedutilityconsensusmodel

    The middle-skewed group means that all the DM’s preference tends to the median of the interval. The construction of middle-skewed maximum group perceived utility consensus model is similar to section 3.1.1, which is constructed as follows.

    (18)

    Theorem3Middle-skewed maximum group perceived utility consensus model (18) is convex optimization and has an optimal solution.

    ProofThe standard form of the model is

    (19)

    which is similar to model (13). The proof that the inequality constraint is a convex function is the same as Theorem 1. Thus by proving that the objective function is convex, it is possible to prove that model (19) is convex optimization.

    (20)

    (21)

    (22)

    (23)

    3.2 Heterogeneous maximum group perceived utility consensus model

    In many practical decision-making issues, the goals of DMs are not always the same, which may result in their individual preference being different and often contradictory. The above three models only consider the situation of the single personal preference in the decision group, which is relatively simple and it is difficult to fully reflect the actual complex decision-making behavior. Therefore, the construction of maximum group perceived utility model in the situation of the various individual preferences is discussed in this section.

    The definition of a heterogeneous group is that the types of DMs’ personal preferences are not exactly the same and may be any of the left-skewed, the right-skewed and the middle-skewed types. Based on the three perceived utility functions, under the constraints of limited cost, a heterogeneous maximum group perceived utility consensus model is constructed.

    (24)

    4 Case Study of Land-Transfer Price Negotiation

    Since reform and opening up in 1978, China has experienced great economic growth and rapid urbanization. The ongoing economic development, and urbanization have been found to lead to land fragmentation in rural areas[25-26]. The fragmentation of rural land management not only affects mechanized operations, but also reduces production efficiency and increases production costs. To solve this problem, farmers are encouraged to transfer their land management rights, which is called land transfer, hoping to increase the utilization rate of land[27]. Many farmers are willing to circulate the land contract management right. To improve circulation efficiency and maintain sustainable land transfer, a proper land-transfer price is the core issue. Too low land-transfer prices may cause farmers to be unwilling to transfer their lands, while too high prices may cause contractors to be unwilling to contract the farmers’ lands. Therefore, the land-transfer price negotiation is an indispensable part during the transfer process. The land-transfer price negotiation usually involves the psychological expectations of government departments, contractors, farmers, and village committee members whose interests are closely related to the price. They have their own expected range for land-transfer price and their utility preferences are different. Contractors are left-skewed DMs, and they hope that the transfer price is as low as possible. Farmers are right-skewed DMs and hope that the transfer price is as high as possible. In order to promote rural land transfer, the village committee member always hopes that the transfer price is as moderate as possible, who is a middle-skewed DM. The government can be regarded as a moderator. If they fail to reach a consensus on the land-transfer price during the negotiation, it will be difficult to carry out land-transfer activities effectively. Therefore, how to coordinate the different utility preference types of contractors, farmers and village committee members on land-transfer price is a key issue related to the success or failure of rural land transfer. So, in this section four types of regret perceived utility consensus models proposed in the previous section are used to deal with rural land-transfer price problem, aiming to achieve the most suitable price for all of DMs.

    Suppose there are four DMs, {d1,d2,d3,d4}, whered1is a contractor,d2andd3are farmers, andd4is a village committee member. Liu and Han[28]used the rural land transfer price model to calculate the land-transfer price in Liaoning Province, Jiangsu Province, Hubei Province, and Sichuan Province reasonably. In 2016, among four regions, the highest circulation price was 150 RMB/(m2·d) and the lowest circulation price was 40 RMB/(m2·d). Based on this interval[40, 150], the initial opinion intervals of four DMs about the land-transfer price are generated randomly, which areo1=[54, 67],o2=[75, 90],o3=[60, 88], ando4=[40, 98].o′is the final land-transfer price. The unit subsidies that the government gives to four DMs arec1=15,c2=5,c3=5, andc4=2, respectively. In this instance, it is assumed that the weights of four DMs are equal, that is,w1=w2=w3=w4=0.25. The regret coefficient represents the degree of each DM’s regret aversion, of which the value range is [0, +∞]. For the convenience of calculation, the regret coefficient of four DMs is unified to be equal to random numbers within the interval, which isδ=1.5. Using the MCCM[8]for reference, the minimum cost is 40. Therefore, the limited cost budget in the model should be larger than the minimum consensus cost, and we takeB=50.

    In the case of land-transfer price negotiation, the decision group is a heterogeneous group, so the heterogeneous consensus model needs to be constructed. According to section 3.2, the maximum group perceived utility consensus model is as follows.

    (25)

    In order to demonstrate the feasibility of homogeneous consensus models, the values in the case are substituted into three types of proposed homogeneous models as a numerical example in the CRP.

    The left-skewed maximum group perceived utility consensus model is

    (26)

    The right-skewed maximum group perceived utility consensus model is

    (27)

    The middle-skewed maximum group perceived utility consensus model is

    (28)

    Using the Matlab optimization toolbox, the optimal solutions to the above models can be obtained (shown in Table 1). For a homogeneous group, the consensus opinion is determined by the group’s common utility preference. The left-skewed group has the smallest consensus opinion, while the right-skewed group has the largest one. For a heterogeneous group, the consensus opinion tends to the utility preference of the most similar DMs in the group. The heterogeneous group is composed of two farmers, a contractor and a village committee member. Among them, the number of farmers is the largest, and the land-transfer price is more in line with farmers’ left-skewed preference. The group perceived utility of the heterogeneous group is negative, representing the uncomfortable or painful feelings that the consensus opinion brings to the group.

    Table 1 Results of four types of maximum perceived utility consensus models

    5 Model Discussion

    5.1 Comparative analysis

    This section further analyzes the impact of DMs’ regret aversion on consensus. First, we construct the maximum utility consensus model without considering regret aversion in the same way as the maximum group perceived utility consensus model (see Appendix A). The only difference between these two models is that the utility constraint in the model not considering regret aversion obtains the expected utility rather than the perceived utility. Then the data in the example of land-transfer price negotiation are substituted into these models, and the results are shown in Table 2.

    Table 2 Results of the consensus model without considering regret aversion

    By comparing Table 1 and Table 2, we could obtain the following conclusions.

    (1) Regret avoidance psychology may make one DM feel regretful as well as joyful. For the left-skewed and the middle-skewed groups, the group perceived utility with considering regret (0.950 and 2.146, respectively) is greater than the expected utility without considering regret (0.791 and 1.929, respectively). At this time, most of DMs in the group are joyful. For the right-skewed and the heterogeneous groups, the group perceived utility with considering regret (0.129 and -0.080, respectively) is lower than the expected utility without considering regret (0.355 and 0.197, respectively) and most of DMs in the group feel regret for the consensus result.

    (2) The consensus of the middle-skewed and the heterogeneous groups affected by regret aversion will be slight, while the consensus of the left-skewed and the right-skewed groups will not be influenced. For a heterogeneous group composed of farmers, contractors, and village committee members, the regret aversion will make DMs pay attention to the type of preference of the minority in the group. In this instance, the contractor with the left-skewed preference is the minority in the group and prefers the price to be as low as possible. Therefore, the land-transfer price of the heterogeneous group considering regret aversion is lower than that without considering regret.

    5.2 Sensitivity analysis

    In this section, the cost and the regret coefficient of the DM are taken as variables, respectively. With other factors remaining unchanged, we will explore the impact of different costs and regret coefficients on the consensus results of four consensus models. The specific results of the impact on group perceived utility and consensus opinion are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, and the specific results of different regret coefficients are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.

    Fig. 1 Influence of budget on group perceived utility

    Fig. 2 Influence of budget on consensus opinion

    Fig. 3 Influence of regret coefficient on group perceived utility

    Fig. 4 Influence of regret coefficient on consensus opinion

    It can be seen from Fig. 2 that the movement direction of consensus opinions under the change of budget is related to the type of utility preference. For the left-skewed and the middle-skewed groups, the consensus opinion decreases with the increase of budget. While, for the right-skewed and the heterogeneous groups, the consensus opinion gradually increases. From Fig. 1, as budget changes, the increase or decrease of the group perceived utility level is independent of the type of utility preference. For four types of regret-perceived utility models, the group perceived utility increases with the increase of the budget. The larger budget the moderator gives, the more DMs can be compensated, and the group perceived utility will be greater.

    From Figs. 3 and 4, it can be found that the negative effect of regret has greater impact on the group perceived utility than the positive effect of rejoicing. With the increase of the regret coefficient, the impact of regret aversion will be greater. The perceived utilities of the left-skewed and the middle-skewed groups under the impact of rejoicing gradually increase, while the perceived utilities of the right-skewed and the heterogeneous groups gradually decrease. Also, the increase in perceived utility is significantly less than the decrease in utility. Moreover, the influence of the DMs’ regret aversion on the CRP is limited. When the regret coefficient increases to a certain level, the consensus opinion will no longer change.

    6 Conclusions

    Since the regret aversion of DMs has an important impact on the utility, the purpose of this study is to determine how to obtain the consensus opinion that maximizes the group perceived utility when considering regret aversion. Based on regret theory, three perceived utility functions are defined to obtain the perceived utility of DMs with different individual preference types. Then, under the constraint of limited cost, homogeneous and heterogeneous maximum group perceived utility consensus models are constructed based on perceived utility functions. The main conclusions are as follows.

    (1) For a homogeneous group, the consensus opinion is determined by common utility preference of the group. The left-skewed group has the smallest consensus opinion, while the right-skewed group has the largest one. For a heterogeneous group, the consensus opinion tends to the utility preference of the most similar DMs in the group.

    (2) The regret aversion brings both regret and rejoicing to the DMs. When most of the DMs in the group feel regret, the group perceived utility will be less than the expected utility of the group without considering the regret. Otherwise, the group perceived utility will be larger than the expected utility. Also, the negative effect produced by regret will have a greater impact on the group perceived utility than the positive effect produced by rejoicing.

    (3) The consensus of the middle-skewed and the heterogeneous groups affected by regret aversion will be more neutral, while the consensus of the left-skewed and the right-skewed groups will not be influenced. For a middle-skewed group, the consensus opinion and the individual opinion will be larger under the influence of regret aversion. For a heterogeneous group, the regret aversion will make DMs pay attention to the preference needs of the minority in the group. In the case of land-transfer price negotiation, the impact of regret aversion caused by different kinds of individual preferences will lead to a neutral land-transfer price, which helps to the long-term cooperation between farmers and companies.

    (4) As the compensation cost changes, the movement direction of consensus opinions is related to the type of group preferences, while the increase or decrease of the group utility level has nothing to do with the type of individual preferences. The consensus opinions of the left-skewed and the middle-skewed maximum group perceived utility consensus models decrease with the increase of the cost, while the consensus opinions of the right-skewed and the heterogeneous models increase. The group perceived utility of the above four types of models all gradually increase with the increase of the cost.

    Although this article provides a consensus method considering the bounded rationality of DMs, we assume that the regret coefficients of DMs are consistent, ignoring the impact of different perceptions of regret among individuals. Therefore, the maximum group perceived utility consensus model under different circumstances of regret coefficients is an interesting direction in future study.

    50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 日本一二三区视频观看| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 日韩欧美免费精品| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 极品教师在线免费播放| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 长腿黑丝高跟| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产av不卡久久| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 日本五十路高清| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 草草在线视频免费看| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 免费av毛片视频| 99热只有精品国产| 久久精品影院6| 亚洲无线在线观看| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 国产成人精品无人区| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 男女视频在线观看网站免费 | 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 曰老女人黄片| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 男人舔奶头视频| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 午夜免费观看网址| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 免费看十八禁软件| 欧美色视频一区免费| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 成人欧美大片| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 精品久久久久久,| 丰满的人妻完整版| 美女黄网站色视频| 天堂动漫精品| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| av在线天堂中文字幕| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 日韩有码中文字幕| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 91老司机精品| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 中文资源天堂在线| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 午夜福利在线在线| 国产成人系列免费观看| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 大型av网站在线播放| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 99久久国产精品久久久| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 美女大奶头视频| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 国产精品久久视频播放| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 国产69精品久久久久777片 | 国产视频内射| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区| 国产熟女xx| 午夜两性在线视频| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 日本一二三区视频观看| 久久草成人影院| 中文字幕久久专区| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 国产成人av教育| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻 | 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 99热只有精品国产| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 99热6这里只有精品| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 日韩高清综合在线| 久久久久性生活片| 观看免费一级毛片| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 午夜a级毛片| 91成年电影在线观看| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 日本成人三级电影网站| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 美女黄网站色视频| 大型av网站在线播放| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 搞女人的毛片| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 国产真实乱freesex| 日本三级黄在线观看| 超碰成人久久| 91字幕亚洲| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 热99re8久久精品国产| 精品第一国产精品| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 成人精品一区二区免费| 日本黄大片高清| 亚洲激情在线av| 日本a在线网址| 热99re8久久精品国产| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 久久国产精品影院| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 色综合站精品国产| 禁无遮挡网站| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产 | 精品日产1卡2卡| 看黄色毛片网站| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看 | 亚洲av美国av| 夜夜爽天天搞| 精品日产1卡2卡| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| tocl精华| 男女那种视频在线观看| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 高清在线国产一区| 亚洲色图av天堂| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 一级黄色大片毛片| 亚洲国产看品久久| 我要搜黄色片| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 脱女人内裤的视频| 欧美日韩黄片免| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看 | 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 亚洲片人在线观看| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 色综合婷婷激情| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 国产精品久久视频播放| 国产久久久一区二区三区| av免费在线观看网站| www日本黄色视频网| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 男人舔奶头视频| 九色成人免费人妻av| 国产av又大| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 在线观看www视频免费| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 一级片免费观看大全| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 久久久久久久久中文| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| av片东京热男人的天堂| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 久久久久久大精品| 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| aaaaa片日本免费| 欧美日本视频| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 99re在线观看精品视频| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 国产激情久久老熟女| av免费在线观看网站| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 成人精品一区二区免费| 午夜免费成人在线视频| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 国产激情久久老熟女| 欧美成人午夜精品| 亚洲av美国av| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻 | 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 色av中文字幕| 小说图片视频综合网站| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 女警被强在线播放| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 国产三级在线视频| 日本a在线网址| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 天堂√8在线中文| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 国产精品九九99| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 国产三级中文精品| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 全区人妻精品视频| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 久久中文看片网| 在线观看日韩欧美| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 久久久久九九精品影院| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 久久精品成人免费网站| 怎么达到女性高潮| 国产野战对白在线观看| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 最好的美女福利视频网| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 男女那种视频在线观看| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 亚洲 国产 在线| 国产高清有码在线观看视频 | 身体一侧抽搐| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 国产精品永久免费网站| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 国产精品av久久久久免费| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 国产精品久久视频播放| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 亚洲片人在线观看| 国产真实乱freesex| www日本在线高清视频| 美女黄网站色视频| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 一级黄色大片毛片| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 国产av在哪里看| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 国产精品影院久久| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 黄色成人免费大全| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 不卡av一区二区三区| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 久久久久久人人人人人| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 色av中文字幕| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 无限看片的www在线观看| 天堂√8在线中文| 日本在线视频免费播放| 免费看a级黄色片| tocl精华| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 亚洲av电影在线进入| xxx96com| av欧美777| 国产97色在线日韩免费| 久久婷婷成人综合色麻豆| 久久亚洲真实| 91在线观看av| 免费高清视频大片| 国产精品永久免费网站| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 一个人免费在线观看电影 | 超碰成人久久| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 老司机靠b影院| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 无限看片的www在线观看| 国产精品九九99| 中文在线观看免费www的网站 | 女人被狂操c到高潮| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 禁无遮挡网站| 国产精品免费视频内射| 亚洲九九香蕉| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 天堂动漫精品| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 色在线成人网| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 国产99白浆流出| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 无限看片的www在线观看| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看 | 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 搞女人的毛片| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 成人精品一区二区免费| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 日本一本二区三区精品| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 国产激情久久老熟女| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| av片东京热男人的天堂| www.自偷自拍.com| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 不卡一级毛片| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 小说图片视频综合网站| 久久亚洲真实| 亚洲色图av天堂| 大型av网站在线播放| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 久久精品影院6| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看 | 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 国产精品一及| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 一a级毛片在线观看| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 美女大奶头视频| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 午夜两性在线视频| 午夜免费激情av| 全区人妻精品视频| 俺也久久电影网| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 在线a可以看的网站| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 不卡av一区二区三区| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 不卡av一区二区三区| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 特级一级黄色大片| 一夜夜www| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| av视频在线观看入口| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 色播亚洲综合网| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 黄色成人免费大全| 一本久久中文字幕| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 男人舔奶头视频| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 精品日产1卡2卡| 99久久精品热视频| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 看片在线看免费视频| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 亚洲色图av天堂| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 身体一侧抽搐| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产精品,欧美在线| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 久久 成人 亚洲| av在线天堂中文字幕| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 大型av网站在线播放| 小说图片视频综合网站| 国产av又大| 此物有八面人人有两片| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| avwww免费| 制服人妻中文乱码| 99热只有精品国产| 国产1区2区3区精品| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 全区人妻精品视频| bbb黄色大片| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 香蕉av资源在线| 日日夜夜操网爽| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 成年版毛片免费区| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 91国产中文字幕| 男人舔奶头视频| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 久久精品91蜜桃| 久久久久性生活片| 美女大奶头视频| 观看免费一级毛片| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费|