The conjunction effect: New evidence for robustness

American Journal of Psychology

Volumn 116, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 15-34

  Stolarz Fantino, Stephanie ^a   Fantino, Edmund ^a   Zizzo, Daniel J ^b   Wen, Julie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; LOGIC; MOTIVATION; PROBABILITY; REWARD; UNITED STATES;

CALIFORNIA; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LOGIC; MOTIVATION; PROBABILITY; REWARD;

EID: 0037925327     PISSN: 00029556     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1423333     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Abelson, R. P., Leddo, J., & Gross, P. H. (1987). The strength of conjunctive explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 141-155.
2. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
3. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140.
4. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1990). Inclusion illusions: Fuzzy-trace theory and perceptual salience effects in cognitive development. Developmental Review, 10, 365-403.
5. Dulany, D., & Hilton, D. (1991). Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition, 9, 85-110.
6. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2000). Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers: The effect of recruitment method in dictator experiments. Experimental Economics, 3, 107-120.
7. Epstein, S., Donovan, S., & Denes-Raj, V. (1999). The missing link in the paradox of the Linda conjunction problem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 204-214.
8. Fantino, E., Kulik, J., Stolarz-Fantino, S., & Wright, W. (1997). The conjunction fallacy: A test of averaging hypotheses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 96-101.
9. Fantino, E., & Savastano, H. (1996). Humans' responses to novel stimulus compounds and the effects of training. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 204-207.
10. Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The "conjunction fallacy" revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 275-305.
11. Massaro, D. W. (1994). A pattern recognition account of decision making. Memory & Cognition, 22, 616-627.
12. Meilers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12, 269-275.
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. 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). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.
17. Zizzo, D. J. (2001). Choices between simple and compound lotteries: Experimental evidence and neural network modelling. Department of Economics Discussion Paper 57, University of Oxford.
18. Zizzo, D. J., Stolarz-Fantino, S., Wen, J., & Fantino, E. (2000). A violation of the monotonicity axiom: Experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 41, 263-276.