Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty

506 indexed citations

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 1989, received 506 indexed citations. Written by Mark J. Machina covering the research area of General Decision Sciences and Economics and Econometrics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on General Decision Sciences (369 citations), Economics and Econometrics (330 citations) and Management Science and Operations Research (153 citations). Published in Journal of Economic Literature.

In The Last Decade

doi.org/w9334886 →

Countries where authors are citing Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty

Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty

Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

This paper is also available at doi.org/w9334886.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026