CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 224Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryGame Theory and Voting Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Team preferences.

Sugden, Robert·2000·Economics and Philosophy
DOI 10.1017/s0266267100000213
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When my family discusses how we should spend a summer holiday, we start from certain common understandings about our preferences. We prefer self-catering accommodation to hotels, and hotels to campsites. We prefer walking and looking at scenery and wildlife to big-city sightseeing and shopping. When it comes to walks, we prefer walks of six miles or so to ones which are much shorter or much longer, and prefer well-marked but uncrowded paths to ones which are either more rugged or more popular. And so on. These common understandings greatly simplify the task of choosing between holiday destinations and activities, by allowing us quickly to eliminate many options. But what does it mean to say that we prefer one thing to another?

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0266267100000213

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 224

Related

Metadata

Authors
Sugden, R.
Affiliations
University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Sugden, Robert
ORCID
Sugden, Robert
Venue
Economics and Philosophy
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2000-10
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
175-204
ISSN
  • 0266-2671 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-0028
DOI
10.1017/s0266267100000213
OpenAlex
W4239546423
Cited by
224
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 16
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 39 d)
Locations
  • Economics and Philosophy (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
Keywords
preference aggregation, group decision making, decision making under uncertainty

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