The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unreliable probabilities, risk taking, and decision making
Abstract
The limitations of strict Bayesianism A central part of Bayesianism is the doctrine that the decision maker's knowledge in a given situation can be represented by a subjective probability measure defined over the possible states of the world. This measure can be used to determine the expected utility for the agent of the various alternatives open to him. The basic decision rule is then that the alternative which has the maximal expected utility should be chosen. A fundamental assumption for this strict form of Bayesianism is that the decision maker's knowledge can be represented by a unique probability measure. The adherents of this assumption have produced a variety of arguments in favor of it, the most famous being the so-called Dutch book arguments. A consequence of the assumption, in connection with the rule of maximizing expected utility, is that in two decision situations which are identical with respect to the probabilities assigned to the relevant states and the utilities of the various outcomes the decisions should be the same. It seems to us, however, that it is possible to find decision situations which are identical in all the respects relevant to the strict Bayesian, but which nevertheless motivate different decisions. As an example to illustrate this point, consider Miss Julie who is invited to bet on the outcome of three different tennis matches.
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
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Cited by
Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity
Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122575 · Cited by 1,795
Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty
Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00057884 · Cited by 1,654
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
Frisch, D., & Baron, J. (1988) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.3960010303 · Cited by 451
Consequentialist foundations for expected utility
Hammond, P. J. (1988) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/bf00129168 · Cited by 368
Metadata
- Authors
- Gärdenfors, P., & Sahlin, N.-E.
- Venue
- Decision, Probability and Utility
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1988-03-25
- Pages
- 313-334
- OpenAlex
- W2177045884
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.74
- Type
- book chapter
- 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: Unreliable probabilities, risk taking, and decision making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511609220.020
- The paper
- Gärdenfors, P., & Sahlin, N.-E. (1988). Unreliable probabilities, risk taking, and decision making. Decision, Probability and Utility. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511609220.020
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.