Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:33:00.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF DECISION THEORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2015

Samir Okasha
Samir Okasha*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Bristol BS6 6JL, UK. Email: [email protected]. URL: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/school-of-arts/people/samir-okasha.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This paper explores the contrast between mentalistic and behaviouristic interpretations of decision theory. The former regards credences and utilities as psychologically real, while the latter regards them as mere representations of an agent's preferences. Philosophers typically adopt the former interpretation, economists the latter. It is argued that the mentalistic interpretation is preferable if our aim is to use decision theory for descriptive purposes, but if our aim is normative then the behaviouristic interpretation cannot be dispensed with.

Keywords

Decision theoryexpected utilitybehaviourismmentalism
Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , November 2016 , pp. 409 - 433
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, K. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Bermudez, J. L. 2009. Decision Theory and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernoulli, D. 1738. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Reprinted in Econometrica 22: 23–26, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. 2008. Rational Decisions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 2004. Ramsey's representation theorem. Dialectica 58: 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, R. 2010. Decision-theoretic paradoxes as voting paradoxes. Philosophical Review 119: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buchak, L. 2013. Risk and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. 2008. The case for mindful economics. In The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A., 43–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caplin, A. and Schotter, A.. 2008. The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2001. Preference-based arguments for probabilism. Philosophy of Science 68: 356–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, C. 2012. The Role of Psychology in Economics. Unpublished PhD dissertation, submitted to the University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Clarke, C. 2014. Neuroeconomics and confirmation theory. Philosophy of Science 81: 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekel, E. and Lipman, B.. 2010. How (not) to do decision theory. Annual Review of Economics 2: 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. Forthcoming. Mentalism versus behaviourism in economics: a philosophy-of-science approach. Economics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Eriksson, L. and Hájek, A.. 2007. What are degrees of belief? Studia Logica 86: 183–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. and Savage, L.J.. 1948. Utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy 56: 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I. 2009. Theory of Decision under Uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glimcher, P. W. 2003. Decisions, Uncertainty and the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glimcher, P. W., Dorris, M. C. and Bayer, H. M.. 2005. Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice. Games and Economic Behaviour 52: 213–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2008. The case for mindless economics. In The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A., 3–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. 1994. The failure of expected utility theory as a theory of reason. Economics and Philosophy 10: 195–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, B. 1988. Risk aversion as a problem of conjoint measurement. In Decision, Probability and Utility, ed. Gärdenfors, P. and Sahlin, N. E., 136–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1977. On the rationale of the Bayesian approach: comments on Professor Watkins’ paper. In Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, ed. Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, J., 381–392. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. 1990. The Logic of Decision, 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. 1999. The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1974. Radical interpretation. Synthese 23: 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1981. Causal decision theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59: 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H.. 1957. Games and Decisions. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Machina, M. J. 1987. Choice under uncertainty: problems solved and unsolved. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1: 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschak, J. 1950. Rational behavior, uncertain prospects, and measurable utility. Econometrica 18: 111–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mas-Collel, A., Whinston, M. D. and Green, J. R.. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meacham, C. J. G. and Weisberg, J.. 2011. Representation theorems and the foundations of decision theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89: 641–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, D. H. 2005. What does subjective decision theory tell us? In Ramsey's Legacy, ed. Lillehammer, H. and Mellor, D. H., 137–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. 1969. Newcomb's problem and two principles of choice. In Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, ed. Rescher, N., 114–146. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S. 2011. Optimal choice in the face of risk: decision theory meets evolution. Philosophy of Science 78: 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, J. 1982. A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3: 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. 1931. Truth and probability. In The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, ed. Braithwaite, R., 156–198. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Schmeidler, D. 1989. Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57: 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1971. Choice functions and revealed preference. Review of Economic Studies 38: 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starmer, C. 2000. Developments in non-expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Literature 38: 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O.. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wakker, P. 2010. Prospect Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar