On the shoulders of giants: from Lange (1934) to Samuelson (1938) on the “unique” measure of utility

References

• Alchian, Armen A. 1953. “The Meaning of Utility Measurement.” The American Economic Review 43 (1): 26–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, Roy G. D. 1935. “A Note on the Determinateness of the Utility Function.” The Review of Economic Studies 2 (2): 155–158. doi:10.2307/2967563.
   Google Scholar
• Alt, Franz. [1936]1971. “On the Measurability of Utility.” In Preference, Utility and Demand, edited by J. S. Chipman, 424–431. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Arrow, Kenneth J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Bargh, John A, and Tanya L. Chartrand. 1999. “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 54 (7): 462–479. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basu, Kaushik. 1982. “Determinateness of the Utility Function: Revisiting a Controversy of the Thirties.” The Review of Economic Studies 49 (2): 307–311. doi:10.2307/2297277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardelli, Harro. 1934. “Notes on the Determinateness of the Utility Function: II.” The Review of Economic Studies 2 (1): 69–75. doi:10.2307/2967553.
   Google Scholar
• Bruni, Luigino, and Francesco Guala. 2001. “Vilfredo Pareto and the Epistemological Foundations of Choice Theory.” History of Political Economy 33 (1): 21–49. doi:10.1215/00182702-33-1-21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chipman, John S. 1960. “The Foundations of Utility.” Econometrica 28 (2): 193–224. doi:10.2307/1907717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coombs, Clyde H. 1950. “Psychological Scaling without a Unit of Measurement.” Psychological Review 57 (3): 145–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debreu, Gerard. 1954. “Representation of a Preference Ordering by a Numerical Function.” In Decision Process, edited by R. M. Thrall, C. H. Coombs, and R. L. Davis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Edgeworth, Francis Y. 1911. “Contributions to the Theory of Railway Rates, Economic Journal, 21(83), pp. 346-370 [Partially Republished as the Laws of Increasing and Diminishing Returns.” In Papers Relating to Political Economy, edited by F. Y. Edgeworth, Vol. I, 61–99. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Ellingsen, Tore. 1994. “Cardinal Utility: A History of Hedonimetry.” In Cardinalism, edited by M. Allais and O. Hagen, 105–165. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Ellsberg, Daniel. 1954. “Classic and Current Notions of “Measurable Utility".” The Economic Journal 64 (255): 528–556. doi:10.2307/2227744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiévet, Amélie. 2022. “Decision over Time as a by-Product of a Measure of Utility: A Reappraisal of Paul Samuelson’s “a Note on Measurement of Utility” (1937).” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 29 (3): 438–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishburn, Peter C. 1976. “Cardinal Utility: An Interpretative Essay.” Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciale 13: 1102–1113.
   Google Scholar
• Frisch, Ragnar. 1926. “Sur Un Problème D’Economie Pure, Norsk Matematisk Forening Skrifter, Séries I, 16, pp. 1-40, Republished in Metroeconomica, 9(2), 1957, English Translation: On a Problem in Pure Economics.” In Preferences, Utility and Demand, edited by J. Chipman, L. Hurwicz, M. Richter, & H. Sonnenschein. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Giocoli, Nicola. 2003. Modeling Rational Agents: From Interwar Economics to Early Modern Game Theory, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Hands, D. Wade. 2011. “Back to the Ordinalist Revolution: Behavioral Economic Concerns in Early Modern Consumer Choice Theory.” Metroeconomica 62 (2): 386–410. doi:10.1111/j.1467-999X.2010.04115.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks, John R., and Roy G. D. Allen. 1934. “A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value.” Economica 1 (1): 52–76. 196–219. doi:10.2307/2548574.
   Google Scholar
• Hudik, Marek. 2014. “Reference-Dependence and Marginal Utility: Alt, Samuelson, and Bernardelli.” History of Political Economy 46 (4): 677–693.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jevons, William S. 1871[1888]. The Theory of Political Economy. 3th ed. London: Macmillan and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange, Oskar. 1934. “The Determinateness of the Utility Function.” The Review of Economic Studies 1 (3): 218–225. doi:10.2307/2967485.
   Google Scholar
• Lapidus, André. 2019. “Bringing Them Alive.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25 (6): 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Lenfant, Jean-Sébastien. 2012. “Indifference Curves and the Ordinalist Revolution.” History of Political Economy 44 (1): 113–155. doi:10.1215/00182702-1504077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, Robert D., and Patrick Suppes. 1965. “Preference, Utility and Subjective Probability.” In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, edited by R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter, Vol. III. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Luchins, Abraham S. 1942. “Mechanization in Problem-Solving.” Psychological Monographs 54 (6): i–95. doi:10.1037/h0093502.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, Alfred. 1890[1920]. Principles of Economics. 8th ed. London: Macmillan and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Moscati, Ivan. 2013. “How Cardinal Utility Entered Economic Analysis: 1909-1944.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 20 (6): 906–939. doi:10.1080/09672567.2013.825001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscati, Ivan. 2019. From the Marginal Revolution to Behavioral Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pareto, Vilfredo. 1906. Manual of Political Economy, a Critical and Variorum Edition [English Translation]. Edited by A. Montesano, A. Zanni, L. Bruni, J. Chipman, and M. McLure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps Brown, Ernest H. 1934. “Notes on the Determinateness of the Utility Function: I.” The Review of Economic Studies 2 (1): 66–69. doi:10.2307/2967552.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, Arthur S. 1996. Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge: An Essay on the Cognitive Unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rorty, Richard. 1984. “On the Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres.” In Philosophy in History: Essays on the Historiography of Philosophy, edited by R. Rorty, J. B. Schneewind, and Q. Skinner, 49–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelson, Paul A. 1937. “A Note on Measurement of Utility.” The Review of Economic Studies 4 (2): 155–161. doi:10.2307/2967612.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelson, Paul A. 1938. “The Numerical Representation of Ordered Classifications and the Concept of Utility.” Review of Economic Studies 1 (6): 65–70.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, Walter, and Richard M. Shiffrin. 1977. “Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: I. Detection, Search and Attention.” Psychological Review 84 (1): 1–66. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiffrin, Richard M., and Walter Schneider. 1977. “Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: II Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending and a General Theory.” Psychological Review 84 (2): 127–190. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, Stanley S. 1946. “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement.” Science 103 (2684): 677–680.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stigler, George J. 1950. “The Development of Utility Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 58 (5): 373–396. doi:10.1086/256980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1991. “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (4): 1039–1061. doi:10.2307/2937956.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, Christian E. 2001. “Pareto and the 53 Percent Ordinal Theory of Utility.” History of Political Economy 33 (3): 541–576. doi:10.1215/00182702-33-3-541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar