The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Causal decision theory
Abstract
Newcomb's problem and similar cases show the need to incorporate causal distinctions into the theory of rational decision; the usual noncausal decision theory, though simpler, does not always give the right answers. I give my own version of causal decision theory, compare it with versions offered by several other authors, and suggest that the versions have more in common than meets the eye.
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
Fraassen, B. C. V. (1989) · doi:10.1093/0198248601.001.0001 · Cited by 1,821
Evolution of the Social Contract
Skyrms, B. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139924825 · Cited by 743
Accuracy and the Laws of Credence
Pettigrew, R. (2016) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732716.001.0001 · Cited by 473
Modality and Explanatory Reasoning
Kment, B. (2014) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604685.001.0001 · Cited by 395
Rational Decision and Causality
Eells, E. (2016) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316534823 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewis, D.
- Venue
- Australasian Journal of Philosophy
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1981-03
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-30
- ISSN
- 0004-8402 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6828
- OpenAlex
- W2038908222
- Cited by
- 515
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.31
- 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: Causal decision theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00048408112340011
- The paper
- Lewis, D. (1981). Causal decision theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048408112340011
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.
