1.Allais, Maurice. “The foundations of a positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulated and axioms of the American School, ’in M. Allais and O. Hagen, Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais paradox, Dordecht: Reidel, 1979a. (English translation of Allais (1953a)).
2.Allais,Maurice. "The so-called Allais paradox and rational decisions under uncertainty. "in M. Allais and O. Hagen Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais paradox, Dordecht: Rejdel.1979b.
3.Allais,Maurice. "Fondements d*une theorie positive des choix comportant un risque et critique des postulatset axiomes de l*ecole americaine,*Econometrie (Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique, Paris) 40, 1953a, pp.257-332.
4.Bell, D. E., H. Raiffa and A. Tversky. "Descriptive, Normative , and Prescriptive Interactions in Decision Making." In D. E. Bell, H. Raiffa, and A. Tversky (Eds.), Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative , and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp.9-32.
5.Bernoulli, Daniel."Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk," translated by Louise Sommer, Econometrica 22, 1954, pp23-36.
6.Duncan, R. L. and H. Raiffa. “Utility Theory” Games and Decisions. 1989, pp12-38.
7.Edwards, W. “Preface” In Edwards(Ed.) Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, pp.1-7
8.Fishburn, Peter. Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1988.
9.Hammond, Peter. “Consequential behavior in decision trees and expected utility”. Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences Working Paper no. 112. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University.1985
10.Howard, R.A., “The Praise of the Old Time Religion.” In Edwards(Ed.) Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, pp.27-55.
11.Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, “prospect theory：An Analysis of Decision under Risk” Econometrica, vol. 47, March, 1979.
12.Keeney, R. L. and H. Raiffa. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York , 1976, pp. 174-179.
13.Keeney, R. L., “On the Foundations of Prescriptive Decision Analysis, ” In Edwards(Ed.) Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, pp. 57-72.
14.Keller, L. R. "The Effects of Problem Representation in the Sure-thing and Substitution Principles." Management Science, 31(6), 1985a, pp.738-751.
15.Keller, L. R. "Testing the *Reduction of Compound Alternatives* Principle." OMEGA, The International Journal of Management Science, 13(4), 1985b, pp.349-358.
16.Keller, L.R., “Properties of Utility Theories and Related Empirical Phenomena” In Edwards(Ed.) Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, pp.3-23.
17.Lin, H.Y and Sheng, C.L., “Causes of the Allais Choice,” A Critique of Political Economy, volume 15 Nos, 1 & 2.,199718.Lin, H.Y and Sheng, C.L., “Revised Utility Functions, Allias'' Choice, and Their Application to Investment Decision Making,” International Journal of Management, 1998.
19.MacCrimmon, K. and S. Larsson. “Utility Theory: Axioms Versus Paradoxes. ” In M. Allais and O. Hagen(Eds.), Expected Utility Hypotheses and Allais paradox. Dordrecht : Reidel, 1979, pp.333-410.
20.Machina, M. J., “Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Model of Choice under uncertainty.” Journal of Economic Literature. XXVII, December, pp1622-1668. 1989.
21.Machina, Mark J. "The economic theory of individual behavior toward risk: theory, evidence and new directions," Thechnical Report, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University. 1983b.
22.Markowitz, H., “The Utility of Wealth” Journal of Political Economy. 60, pp. 151-158. 1952.
23.McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., Jr., and Tversky, A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine 306, 1259-62. 1982.
24.Pratt, John W, "Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large," Econometrica, Vol.32, No. 1-2, 1964, pp.122-136
25.Quiggin, J., ”Generalized expected utility theory- The Rank-Dependent Model” Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA., 1993, p36
26.Savage, L.J. The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York.1954.
27.Segal, U., “The Independence Axiom Versus the Reduction Axiom: Must we have Both?” In Edwards(Ed.) Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, pp.165-183.
28.Sheng, C. L. “An Explanation of the Allais paradox” presented at Sixth International Conference on Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk, and Decision Theory, Paris, France, June 15-18, 1992, also publish In Sheng Philosophical Papers. TamKang University Press, 1993.
29.Sheng, C. L. “Some Quantitative Concepts of Value and Utility from a Utilitarian Point of View”, Theory and Decision, Vol. 26, No.2, 1989, pp.175-195.
30.Sheng, C. L. A New Approach to Utilitarianism: A Unified Utilitarian Theory and Its Application to Distributive Justice. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991.
31.Sheng, C.L.:1992, “An Explanation of the Allais paradox” presented at Sixth International Conference on Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk, and Decision Theory, Paris, France, June 15-18, also publish In Sheng Philosophical Papers. TamKang University Press, 1993
32.Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel,"The framing of decisions and the rationality of choices," Science 211, 1981, pp.453-458.
33.Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel,"Rational choice and the framing of decisions," Journal of Business 59, 1986, pp.250-278.
34.von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern "Theory of Game and Economic Behavior"(2nd ed.). Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ. 1947
35.盛慶, 林宏諭” 以修正性期望效用理論為基礎的個人投資決策模式”. 管理與系統, 1998年.
36.盛慶, 林宏諭” 修正性期望效用理論中「正常操作點」與「最低生活所需值」間的關係”. 1998海峽兩岸管理科學研討會, 西安, 交通大學, 1998,3/ 30~3/31.