The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Subjectively weighted utility: A descriptive extension of the expected utility model
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A theory of anticipated utility
Quiggin, J. (1982) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7 · Cited by 3,129
Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk
Starmer, C. (2000) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.38.2.332 · Cited by 1,899
Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1985) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.92.4.433 · Cited by 816
Zhang, H., & Maloney, L. T. (2012) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00001 · Cited by 679
Decision Making Over Time and Under Uncertainty: A Common Approach
Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1991) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.37.7.770 · Cited by 594
Metadata
- Authors
- Karmarkar, U. S.
- Venue
- Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1978-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-72
- ISSN
- 0030-5073 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003917847
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Subjectively weighted utility: A descriptive extension of the expected utility model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90039-9
- The paper
- Karmarkar, U. S. (1978). Subjectively weighted utility: A descriptive extension of the expected utility model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90039-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
