Component probabilities and the conjunction fallacy: Resolving signed summation and the low component model in a contingent approach

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 94, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 1-20

  Fisk, John E ^a   Pidgeon, Nick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conjunction fallacy; Heuristics; Signed summation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0011617246     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(95)00048-8     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Christensen, I.P., 1979. 'Distributional and non-distributional uncertainty'. In: C.R. Bell (Ed.), Uncertain outcomes. Lancaster: NTP Press.
2. Evans, J.St.B.T., 1984. Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology 75, 451-468.
3. Evans, J.St.B.T., 1989. Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Hove: Erlbaum.
4. Fisk, J.E., 1994. Information processing heuristics in probabilistic reasoning. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Birkbeck College, University of London.
5. Fisk, J.E. and N. Pidgeon, submitted. Conditional probabilities, potential suprise, and the conjunction fallacy. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6. Fisk, J.E. and N. Pidgeon, in press. The conjunction fallacy: The case for the existence of competing heuristic strategies. British Journal of Psychology.
7. Gigerenzer, G., 1991. 'How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond "heuristics and biases"'. In: W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Chichester: Wiley.
8. Gigerenzer, G., U. Hoffrage and H. Kleinbölting, 1991. Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian Theory of Confidence. Psychological Review 98, 506-528.
9. Kariyazono, A., 1991. The study of conjunction fallacy in the probability judgment task of compound event. Japanese Journal of Psychonomic Science 10, 57-64. (English Abstract.)
10. Mellers, B.A., L.D. Ordóñez and M.H. Birnbaum, 1992. A change of process theory for contextual effects and preference reversals in risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52, 331-369.
11. Montgomery, H., 1983. 'Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure'. In: P.C. Humphreys, O. Svenson and A. Vari (Eds.), Analyzing and aiding decision processes. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
12. Payne, J.W., 1982. Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin 92, 382-402.
13. Payne, J.W., J.R. Bettman and E.J. Johnson, 1993. The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: CUP.
14. Pidgeon, N., 1986. Strategies and heuristics in individual decision making. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol.
15. Shackle, G.L.S., 1969. Decision, order and time in human affairs. Cambridge: CUP.
16. Thorngate, W., 1980. Efficient decision heuristics. Behavioral Science 25, 215-229.
17. Thüring, M. and H. Jungermann, 1990. The conjunction fallacy: Causality vs. event probability. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 3, 61-74.
18. Tversky, A., 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84, 327-352.
19. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1983. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgement. Psychological Review 90, 293-315.
20. Wells, G.L., 1985. The conjunction error and the representativeness heuristic. Social Cognition 3, 266-279.
21. Yates, J.F. and B.W. Carlson, 1986. Conjunction errors: Evidence for multiple judgement procedures including 'Signed Summation'. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 37, 230-253.