The conjunction fallacy: A test of averaging hypotheses

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 96-101

  Fantino, Edmund ^a   Kulik, James ^a   Stolarz Fantino, Stephanie ^a   Wright, William ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0006138081     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03210779     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. ABELSON, R. P., LEDDO, J., & GROSS, P. H. (1987). The strength of conjunctive explanations. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 141-155.
2. ANDERSON, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 394-400.
3. ANDERSON, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
4. BIRNBAUM, M. H., ANDERSON, C. J., & HYNAN, L. G. (1990). Theories of bias in probability judgment. In J. P. Caverni, J. M. Fabre, & M. Gonzalez (Eds.), Cognitive biases (pp. 477-498). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
5. EINHORN, H. J. (1985). A model of the conjunction fallacy. Chicago: University of Chicago, Center for Decision Research.
6. FANTINO, E., & STOLARZ-FANTINO, S. (1991). Rational analysis and illogical inference. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 14, 494.
7. GAVANSKI, I., & ROSKOS-EWOLDSON, D. R. (1991). Representativeness and conjoint probability. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 181-194.
8. GIGERENZER, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahnemen and Tversky (1996). Psychlogical Review, 103, 592-596.
9. HERTWIG, R. (1995). Why Dr. Gould's homunculus doesn't think like Dr. Gould: The "conjunction fallacy" reconsidered. Konstanz: Hartung-Gorre.
10. MASSARO, D. W. (1994). A pattern recognition account of decision making. Memory & Cognition, 22, 616-627.
11. ODEN, G. C., & ANDERSON, N. H. (1971). Differential weighting in integration theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 152-161.
12. SHANTEAU, J. (1975). Averaging versus multiplying combination rules of inference judgment. Acta Psychologica, 39, 83-89.
13. STOLARZ-FANTINO, S., & FANTINO, E. (1990). Cognition and behavior analysis: A review of Rachlin's Judgment, decision and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 317-322.
14. STOLARZ-FANTINO, S., FANTINO, E., & KULIK, J. (1996). The conjunction fallacy: Differential incidence as a function of descriptive frames and educational context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 208-218.
15. TAYLOR, S. E., & FISKE, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249-288). New York: Academic Press.
16. TVERSKY, A., & KAHNEMAN, D. (1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 84-98). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. TVERSKY, A., & KAHNEMAN, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.
18. WELLS, G. L. (1985). The conjunction error and the representativeness heuristic. Social Cognition, 3, 266-279.
19. WYER, R. S., JR. (1976). An investigation of the relations among probability estimates. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 15, 1-18.
20. YATES, J. F., & CARLSON, B. W. (1986). Conjunction errors: Evidence for multiple judgment procedures, including "signed summation." Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 37, 230-253.