A Different Conjunction Fallacy

Mind and Language

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 199-210

  Bonini, Nicolao ^a   Tentori, Katya ^b   Osherson, Daniel ^b  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1942474541     PISSN: 02681064     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00254.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Dulany, D. E. and Hilton, D. J. 1991: Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition, 9, 85-110.
2. Gigerenzer, G. 1996: Reply to Tversky and Kahneman. Psychological Review, 103(3), 592-3.
3. Hacking, I. 2001: An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Hertwig, R. and Gigerenzer, G. 1999: The 'Conjunction Fallacy' revisited: how intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 275-305.
5. Hilton, D. J. 1995: The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248-271.
6. Idson, L. C., Krantz, D. H., Osherson, D., and Bonini, N. 2001: The relation between probability and evidence judgment: An extension of support theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22, 3, 227-249.
7. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1996: On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103(3), 582-591.
8. Kleene, S. C. 1967: Mathematical Logic. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
9. Macdonald, R. and Gilhooly, K. 1986: More about linda or conjunctions in context. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 57-70.
10. Mates, B. 1965: Elementary Logic. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., and Kahneman, D. 2001: Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12(4), 269-275.
12. Morier, D. and Borgida, E. 1984: The conjunction fallacy: A task specific phenomenon? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 243-252.
13. Politzer, G. and Noveck, I. A. 1991: Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 83-103.
14. Rottenstreich, Y. and Tversky, A. 1997: Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 104, 406-415.
15. Sides, A., Osherson, D., Bonini, N., and Viale, R. 2002: On the reality of the conjunction fallacy. Memory & Cognition, 30(2), 191-198.
16. Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. 2000: Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645-665.
17. Strawson, P. F. 1952: Introduction to Logical Theory. New York: Wiley.
18. Suppes, P. 1957: Introduction to Logic. Princeton NJ: D. Van Nostrand.
19. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1983: Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.
20. Tversky, A. and Koehler, D. J. 1994: Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101(4), 547-567.