A normative interpretation of expected utility theory
Journal of Value Inquiry 39 (3-4):431-441 (2005)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAmos Tversky (1975). A Critique of Expected Utility Theory: Descriptive and Normative Considerations. Erkenntnis 9 (2):163 - 173.
Marc le Menestrel (2001). A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling. Theory and Decision 50 (3):249-262.
Robin Pope (2000). Reconciliation with the Utility of Chance by Elaborated Outcomes Destroys the Axiomatic Basis of Expected Utility Theory. Theory and Decision 49 (3):223-234.
Martin Peterson (2011). A New Twist to the St Petersburg Paradox. Journal of Philosophy 108 (12):697-699.
Jack Vromen (2010). On the Surprising Finding That Expected Utility is Literally Computed in the Brain. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (1):17-36.
Olav Gjelsvik (2002). Paradox Lost, but in Which Envelope? Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):353-362.
David Teira (2006). On the Normative Dimension of St. Petersburg Paradox. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37 (2):210-23.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Hans Lottenbach (1994). Expected Utility and Constrained Maximization: Problems of Compatibility. Erkenntnis 41 (1):37 - 48.
Pradier Pierre-Charles, David Teira & Jallais Sophie (2008). Facts, Norms and Expected Utility Functions. History of the Human Sciences 21 (2):45-62.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads21 ( #58,767 of 549,122 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,122 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
