The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of and

Cognition

Volumn 108, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 740-753

  Hertwig, Ralph ^a   Benz, Björn ^b   Krauss, Stefan ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^b LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conjunction fallacy; Pragmatic and semantic inferences; Rationality

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COGNITION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; LOGIC; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS;

COMPREHENSION; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; LOGIC; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 51249108858     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Adler J.E. Abstraction is uncooperative. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 14 (1984) 165-181
2. Adler J.E. An optimist's pessimism: Conversation and conjunction. Posnan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and Humanities 21 (1991) 251-282
3. Blakemore D., and Carston R. The pragmatics of sentential coordination with "and". Lingua 115 (2005) 569-589
4. Bonini N., Tentori K., and Osherson D. A different conjunction fallacy. Mind & Language 19 (2004) 199-210
5. Braine M.D.S., and Rumain B. Development of comprehension of "or": Evidence for a sequence of competencies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 31 (1981) 46-70
6. Britton B.K. Lexical ambiguity of words used in English text. Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation 10 (1978) 1-7
7. Carston R. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In: Kempson R. (Ed). Mental representation: The interface between language and reality (1988), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England 155-181
8. Carston R. Conjunction and pragmatic effects. Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics (1994), Pergamon Press, Oxford, England
9. Clark H.H., and Schober M.F. Asking questions and influencing answers. In: Tanur J.M. (Ed). Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (1992), Russell Sage Foundation, New York 15-48
10. Dulany D.E., and Hilton D.J. Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition 9 (1991) 85-110
11. Fiedler K. The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors. Psychological Research 50 (1988) 123-129
12. Gigerenzer G. How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond heuristics and biases. European Review of Social Psychology 2 (1991) 83-115
13. Gigerenzer G. On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996). Psychological Review 103 (1996) 592-596
14. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. In: Cole P., and Morgan J.L. (Eds). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (1975), Academic Press, New York 41-58
15. Grice H.P. Studies in the way of words (1989), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
16. Hertwig R. Why Dr. Gould's homunculus doesn't think like Dr. Gould: The "conjunction fallacy" reconsidered (1995), Hartung-Gorre, Konstanz
17. Hertwig, R. (1997). Judgment under uncertainty: Beyond probabilities. Berlin, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Human Development. Unpublished manuscript.
18. Hertwig R., and Chase V.M. Many reasons or just one: How response mode affects reasoning in the conjunction problem. Thinking & Reasoning 4 (1998) 319-352
19. Hertwig R., and Gigerenzer G. The conjunction fallacy revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12 (1999) 275-305
20. Hintikka J. A fallacious fallacy?. Synthese 140 (2004) 25-35
21. Hurford J.R. Language and number: The emergence of a cognitive system (1987), Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England
22. Jurafsky D., and Martin J.H. Speech and language processing (2000), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle Rivers, NJ
23. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review 103 (1996) 582-591
24. Keenan E.L., and Faltz L.M. Boolean semantics for natural language (1985), Reidel, Dordrecht
25. Kitis E. Connectives and frame theory. The case of antinomial hypotextual 'and'. Pragmatics & Cognition 8 (2000) 357-409
26. Lang E. Koordinierende Konjunktionen. In: von Stechow A., and Wunderlich D. (Eds). Semantik. Semantics. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (1991), De Gruyter, Berlin/New York 597-623
27. Lee C.J. Gricean charity: The Gricean turn in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (2006) 193-218
28. Leech G., Rayson P., and Wilson A. Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus (2001), Longman, London
29. Levinson S. Pragmatics (1983), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
30. Levi I. Illusions about uncertainty. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36 (1985) 331-340
31. Levi I. Jaakko Hintikka. Synthese 140 (2004) 37-41
32. Levi I. Degrees of belief. Journal of Logic and Computation (2008) 10.1093/logcom/exmo96 Available online 4 March, 2008
33. McKenzie C.R.M. Framing effects in inference tasks - And why they are normatively defensible. Memory and Cognition 32 (2004) 874-885
34. Mellers B., Hertwig R., and Kahneman D. Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial; collaboration. Psychological Science 12 (2001) 269-275
35. Moldoveanu M., and Langer E. False memories of the future: A critique of the applications of probabilistic reasoning to the study of cognitive processes. Psychological Review 109 (2002) 358-375
36. Noveck I.A. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78 (2001) 165-188
37. Noveck, I. A., Chevaux, F. (2002). The pragmatic development of and, twenty-sixth annual Boston University conference on language development. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
38. Paris S.G. Comprehension of language connectives and prepositional logical relationships. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 16 (1973) 278-291
39. Partee B., and Rooth M. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., and von Stechow A. (Eds). Meaning, use and interpretation of language (1983), De Gruyter, Berlin 361-383
40. Politzer G. Laws of language use and formal logic. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 15 (1986) 47-92
41. Politzer G., and Noveck I.A. Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20 (1991) 83-103
42. Schmerling S. Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation. In: Cole P., and Morgan J. (Eds). Syntax and semantics. Speech acts Vol. 3 (1975), Academic Press, New York
43. Sher S., and McKenzie C.R.M. Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition 101 (2006) 467-494
44. Sides A., Osherson D., Bonini N., and Viale R. On the reality of the conjunction fallacy. Memory & Cognition 30 (2002) 191-198
45. Sloman S.A., Over D., Slovak L., and Stibel J.M. Frequency illusions and other fallacies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91 (2003) 296-309
46. Sternberg R.J. Developmental patterns in the encoding and combination of logical connectives. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 28 (1979) 469-498
47. Sweetser E.E. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure (1990), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
48. Tentori K., Bonini N., and Osherson D. The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction?. Cognitive Science 28 (2004) 467-477
49. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90 (1983) 293-315
50. Wedell D.H., and Moro R. Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: Effects of response mode, conceptual focus, and problem type. Cognition 107 (2008) 105-136
51. Wilson D., and Sperber D. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90 (1993) 1-25