Reconciliating Support Theory And The Book-Making Principle
Support theory postulates that probability judgments for uncertain events depend on the description of events. The authors show that the theory violates basic consistency requirements for subjective probabilities and normative decision under uncertainty. The authors illustrate how support theory's incoherence stems from its assumption of non-extensionality rather than subadditivity. The authors propose a relaxation of the book-making principle, a famous consistency argument, and bridge the descriptively appealing support theory with normative criteria. In this manner, the authors derive a unique way for using probability judgments from support theory as a consistent input for decision theory.