Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Models of individual preference and choice

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams, E. W. (1965), ‘Elements of a theory of inexact measurement’, Philosophy of Science 32, 205–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allais, M. (1953), ‘Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole Americaine’, Econometrica 21, 503–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, W. E. (1950), ‘A note on the theory of consumer's behaviour’, Oxford Economic Papers 2, 119–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1959), ‘Rational choice functions and orderings’, Economica 26, 121–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, R. J. (1962), ‘Utility theory without the completeness axiom’, Econometrica 30, 445–462; 32 (1964), 210–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., and Marschak, J. (1963), ‘Probabilities of choices among very similar objects’, Behavioral Science 8, 306–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, D. and Girshick, M. A. (1954), Theory of Games and Statistical Decisions, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, J. S. (1960a), ‘The foundations of utility’, Econometrica 28, 193–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, J. S. (1960b), ‘Stochastic choice and subjective probability’, in D. Willner (ed.), Decisions, Values and Groups, Vol. 1, 70–95, Pergamon Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, J. S. (1971a), ‘On the lexicographic representation of preference orderings’, Chapter 14 in Chipman, et al. (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, J. S. (1971b), ‘Consumption theory without transitive indifference’, Chapter 11 in Chipman, et al. (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, J. S., Hurwicz, L., Richter, M. K., and Sonnenschein, H. F. (eds.) (1971), Preferences, Utility, and Demand, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. H. (1958), ‘On the use of inconsistency of preferences in psychological measurement’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 55, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, R. and Marley, A. A. J. (1974), ‘Random utility models with equality: an apparent, but not actual, generalization of random utility models’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 11, 274–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, G. (1959), Theory of Value, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, G. (1960a), ‘Topological methods in cardinal utility theory’, in K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes (eds.), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, G. (1960b), Review of Luce (1959). American Economic Review 50, 186–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGroot, M. H. (1970), Optimal Statistical Decisions, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1954), ‘The theory of decision making’, Psychological Bulletin 51, 380–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1967), ‘Bounded expected utility’, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38, 1054–1060.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1968), ‘Utility theory’, Management Science 14, 335–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970a), Utility Theory for Decision Making, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970b), ‘Intransitive indifference in preference theory: a survey’, Operations Research 18, 207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970c), ‘Intransitive indifference with unequal indifference intervals’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7, 144–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970d), ‘Suborders on commodity spaces’, Journal of Economic Theory 2, 321–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1972a), Mathematics of Decision Theory, Mouton, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1972b), ‘Alternative axiomatizations of one-way expected utility’, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 43, 1648–1651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1973a), The Theory of Social Choice, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1973b), ‘Binary choice probabilities: on the varieties of stochastic transitivity’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 10, 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1974a), ‘Lexicographic orders, utilities and decision rules: a survey’, Management Science 20, 1442–1471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1974b), ‘Choice functions on finite sets’, International Economic Review 15, 729–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1975a). ‘Bounded one-way expected utility’, Econometrica 43, 867–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1975b), Semiorders and choice functions’, Econometrica 43, 975–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1975c), ‘Representable choice functions’, mimeographed, The Pennsylvania State University.

  • Houthakker, H. S. (1950), ‘Revealed preference and the utility function’, Econometrica 17, 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houthakker, H. S. (1961), ‘The present state of consumption theory’, Econometrica 29, 704–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurwicz, L. and Richter, M. K. (1971), ‘Revealed preference without demand continuity assumptions’, Chapter 3 in Chipman, et al. (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamison, D. T. and Lau, L. J. (1973), ‘Semiorders and the theory of choice’, Econometrica 41, 901–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R. C. (1965), The Logic of Decision, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, N. E. (1967), ‘An introduction to Bernoullian utility theory’, I. ‘Utility functions’, Swedish Journal of Economics 69, 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H. (1967), ‘Rational distance functions for multidimensional scaling’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 4, 226–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H. (1968), ‘A survey of measurement theory’, in G. B. Dantzig and A. F. Veinott (eds.), Mathematics of decision sciences, part 2, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P. and Tversky, A. (1971), Foundations of Measurement, Volume I, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1956), ‘Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination’, Econometrica 24, 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1959), Individual Choice Behavior, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. and Suppes, P. (1965), ‘Preference, utility, and subjective probability’, in R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. III, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. and Tukey, J. W. (1964), ‘Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marley, A. A. J. (1965), ‘The relation between discard and regularity conditions for choice probabilities’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2, 242–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marley, A. A. J. (1968), ‘Some probabilistic models of simple choice and ranking’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 5, 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschak, J. (1960), ‘Binary-choice constraints and random utility indicators’, in K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes (eds.), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, K. O. (1954), ‘Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns’, Econometrica 22, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, B. J. T. (1974), ‘On Luce's choice axiom’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 11, 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P. and Read, R. (1961), ‘Representation problems for preference orderings’, Journal of Economic Behavior 1, 149–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfanzagl, J. (1968), Theory of Measurement, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott, C. R. (1973), ‘Path independence, rationality, and social choice’, Econometrica 41, 1075–1091.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, M. K. (1966), ‘Revealed preference theory’, Econometrica 34, 635–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, M. K. (1971), ‘Rational choice’, chapter 2 in Chipman, et al. (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1970), ‘On nontransitive indifference’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7, 243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1971), ‘Homogeneous families and the theory of probabilistic consistency’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 8, 248–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. L. and Greeno, J. G. (1971), ‘Similarity between stimuli: an experimental test of the Luce and Restle choice models’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 8, 370–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakai, Y. (1974), ‘Equivalence of the weak and strong axioms of revealed preference without demand continuity assumptions: a “regularity condition” approach’, Journal of Economic Theory 8, 292–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1938), ‘A note on the pure theory of consumer's behaviour’, Economica 5, 61–71 and 353–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1948), ‘Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference’, Economica 15, 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattath, S. and Tversky, A. (1976). ‘Unite and conquer, a multiplicative inequality for choice probabilities’, Econometrica 44, 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, T. (1972), ‘Rationality and the myth of the maximum’, Noûs 6, 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. (1964). ‘Measurement structures and linear inequalities’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1, 233–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. and Suppes, P. (1958), ‘Foundational aspects of theories of measurement’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 23, 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, W. J. (1974), ‘The nontransitive consumer’, Econometrica 42, 913–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skvoretz, J., Windell, P., and Fararo, T. J. (1974), ‘Luce's axiom and occupational prestige: test of a measurement model’, Journal of Mathematical Sociology 3, 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenschein, H. F. (1971), ‘Demand theory without transitive preferences, with applications to the theory of competitive equilibrium’, chapter 10 in Chipman, et al. (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigum, B. P. (1973), ‘Revealed preference — a proof of Houthakker's theorem’, Econometrica 41, 411–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. and Zinnes, J. L. (1963), ‘Basic measurement theory’, in R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. I, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1964), ‘Finite additive structures’, Michigan Mathematical Psychology Program MMPP 64-6, University of Michigan.

  • Tversky, A. (1969), ‘Intransitivity of preferences’, Psychological Review 76, 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972a), ‘Choice by elimination’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 9, 341–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972b), ‘Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice’, Psychological Review 79, 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Russo, J. E. (1969), ‘Substitutability and similarity in binary choices’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 6, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1947), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd Ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, A. A. (1968), ‘Individual preference intransitivity’, Southern Economic Journal 34, 335–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wold, H. O. A. (1943), ‘A synthesis of pure demand analysis’, I, II, III, Skandinavisk Aktuarietidskrift 26, 85–118; 26, 220–263; 27 (1944), 69–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yokoyama, T. (1956), ‘Continuity conditions of preference ordering’, Osaka Economic Papers 4, 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, USA

    Peter C. Fishburn

Authors
  1. Peter C. Fishburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fishburn, P.C. Models of individual preference and choice. Synthese 36, 287–314 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486023

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486023

Keywords

Search

Navigation