The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity
Abstract
An act maps states of nature to outcomes: deterministic outcomes, as well as random outcomes, are included. Two acts f and g are comonotonic, by definition, if it never happens that f(s) > f(t) and g(t) > g(s) for some states of nature s and t. An axiom of comonotonic independence is introduced here. It weakens the von Neumann-Morgenstern axiom of independence as follows: If f > g and if f, g and h are comonotonic then $f + (1 - $)h > $g + (1 - $)h. If a nondegenerate, continuous, and monotonic (state independent) weak order over acts satisfies comonotonic independence, then it induces a unique non-(necessarily-) additive probability and a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility. Furthermore, one can compute the expected utility of an act with respect to the nonadditive probability, using the Choquet integral. This extension of the expected utility theory covers situations, such as the Ellsberg paradox, which are inconsistent with additive expected utility. The concept of uncertainty aversion and interpretation of comonotonic independence in the context of social welfare functions are included. Copyright 1989 by The Econometric Society.(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
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
Do Investors Value Sustainability? A Natural Experiment Examining Ranking and Fund Flows
HARTZMARK, S. M., & SUSSMAN, A. B. (2019) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/jofi.12841 · Cited by 1,711
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
Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making
Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Camerer, C. F. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1115327 · Cited by 1,411
Metadata
- Authors
- Schmeidler, D.
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1989-05
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 571
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3121172931
- Cited by
- 2,303
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.49
- 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: Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1911053
- The paper
- Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911053
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.