Switch to: References

Citations of:

Decision processes

New York,: Wiley (1954)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk.Pavlo Blavatskyy - 2018 - Theory and Decision 84 (1):29-60.
    This paper presents a new decision theory for modelling choice under risk. The new theory is a two-parameter generalization of expected utility theory. The proposed theory assumes that a decision maker: behaves as if maximizing expected utility; but may experience disappointment when the utility of a lottery’s outcome falls short of the expected utility of the lottery; and may have a preference for gambling. The proposed theory can rationalize the fourfold pattern of risk attitudes; the common ratio effect and the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Life and death.Ken Binmore - 2016 - Economics and Philosophy 32 (1):75-97.
  • Theory Construction in Psychology: The Interpretation and Integration of Psychological Data.Gordon M. Becker - 1981 - Theory and Decision 13 (3):251.
  • 'Explicating ways of consensus-making: Distinguishing the academic, the interface and the meta-consensus.Laszlo Kosolosky & Jeroen Van Bouwel - 2014 - In Martini Carlo (ed.), Experts and Consensus in Social Science. Springer. pp. 71-92.
  • Bibliography Patrick Suppes.Maria Sojka - 2016 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 47 (1):11-35.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Rational choice and the structure of the environment.Herbert A. Simon - 1956 - Psychological Review 63 (2):129-138.
  • Comparison and choice.M. R. Sertel & A. V. D. Bellen - 1982 - Theory and Decision 14 (1):35-50.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Discovering Warrants in Political Argumentation.Irmtraud Gallhofer & Willem Saris - 2021 - Informal Logic 42 (4):641-676.
    Philosophers deny a proposal for actions can be deduced from arguments for or against the proposal because they may be incompatible. Nevertheless, people in general, and politicians especially, make decisions and present arguments they believe are convincing. We studied politicians who made decisions in complex situations. They spoke about possible actions, their consequences, the probabilities of these consequences and their evaluations, but rarely indicated why their arguments led to their choice. We hypothesized implicit argumentation rules involved and checked whether they (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations