On the conjunction fallacy and the meaning of and, yet again: A reply to Hertwig, Benz, and Krauss (2008)

Cognition

Volumn 122, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 123-134

  Tentori, Katya ^a   Crupi, Vincenzo ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conjunction fallacy; Pragmatic inferences; Probabilistic reasoning

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LOGIC; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SEMANTICS; THEORETICAL STUDY;

HUMANS; LOGIC; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84155167500     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adam M.B., Reyna V.F. Coherence and correspondence criteria for rationality: Experts' estimation of risks of sexually transmitted infections. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2005, 18:169-186.
2. Adler J. Abstraction is uncooperative. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 1984, 14:165-181.
3. Agnoli F. Development of judgmental heuristics and logical reasoning: Training counteracts the representativeness heuristic. Cognitive Development 1991, 6:195-217.
4. Ahn W., Bailenson J. Causal attribution as a search for underlying mechanisms: An explanation of the conjunction fallacy and the discounting principle. Cognitive Psychology 1996, 31:82-123.
5. Birnbaum M.H., Anderson C.J., Hynan L.G. Theories of bias in probability judgment. Cognitive biases 1990, 477-499. Elsevier, North Holland. J.P. Caverni, J.M. Fabre, M. Gonzalez (Eds.).
6. Bonini N., Tentori K., Osherson D. A different conjunction fallacy. Mind & Language 2004, 19:199-210.
7. Costello F.J. How probability theory explains the conjunction fallacy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2009, 22:171-190.
8. Crandall C., Greenfield B. Understanding the conjunction fallacy: A conjunction of effect. Social Cognition 1986, 4:408-419.
9. Crupi V., Fitelson B., Tentori K. Probability, confirmation and the conjunction fallacy. Thinking & Reasoning 2008, 14:182-199.
10. Davidson D. The representativeness heuristic and the conjunction fallacy effect in children's decision making. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1995, 41:328-346.
11. Dulany D.E., Hilton D.J. Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition 1991, 9:85-110.
12. Epstein S., Donovan S., Denes-Raj V. The missing link in the paradox of the Linda conjunction problem: Beyond knowing and thinking of the conjunction rule, the intrinsic appeal of heuristic processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1999, 25:204-214.
13. Fisk J.E. Conjunction fallacy. Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment, and memory 2004, Psychology Press, London. R.F. Pohl (Ed.).
14. Fisk J.E., Slattery R. Reasoning about conjunctive probabilistic concepts in childhood. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2005, 59:168-178.
15. Frederick D.M., Libby R. Expertise and auditors' judgments of conjunctive events. Journal of Accounting Research 1986, 24:270-290.
16. Garb H.N. The conjunction effect and clinical judgement. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 2006, 25:1048-1056.
17. Gavanski I., Roskos-Ewoldsten D.R. Representativeness and conjoint probability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1991, 61:181-194.
18. Gigerenzer G. On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A rebuttal to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review 1996, 103:592-596.
19. Gigerenzer G. Content-blind norms, no norms, or good norms? A reply to Vranas. Cognition 2001, 81:93-103.
20. Gigerenzer G. I think, therefore I err. Social Research 2005, 72:1-24.
21. Hertwig R., Benz B., Krauss S. The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of and. Cognition 2008, 108:740-753.
22. Hertwig R., Chase V.M. Many reasons or just one: How response mode affects reasoning in the conjunction problem. Thinking and Reasoning 1998, 4:319-352.
23. Hertwig R., Gigerenzer G. The 'conjunction fallacy' revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1999, 12:275-305.
24. Ho J.L., Keller L.R. The effect of inference order and experience-related knowledge on diagnostic conjunction probabilities. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 1994, 59:51-74.
25. Jarvstad A., Hahn U. Unreliable sources and the conjunction fallacy. Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 2009, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. N. Taatgen, H. van Rijn (Eds.).
26. Jones S.K., Taylor Jones K., Frisch D. Biases of probability assessment: A comparison of frequency and single-case judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1995, 61:109-122.
27. Kahneman D., Frederick S. Representativeness revised: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, Cambridge University Press, New York. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
28. Kahneman D., Tversky A. On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review 1996, 103:582-591.
29. Koehler J.J. The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Normative, descriptive and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1996, 19:1-53.
30. Lagnado D.A., Shanks D.R. Probability judgment in hierarchical learning: A conflict between predictiveness and coherence. Cognition 2002, 83:81-112.
31. Lee M.D., Grothe E., Steyvers M. Conjunction and disjunction fallacies in prediction markets. Proceedings of the 31th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2009, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. N. Taatgen, H. van Rijn, L. Schomaker, J. Nerbonne (Eds.).
32. Levinson S. Pragmatics 1983, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. Mellers A., Hertwig R., Kahneman D. Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science 2001, 12:269-275.
34. Messer W., Griggs R. Another look at Linda. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1993, 31:193-196.
35. Morier D.M., Borgida E. The conjunction fallacy: A task specific phenomenon?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1984, 10:243-252.
36. Moro R. On the nature of the conjunction fallacy. Synthese 2009, 171:1-24.
37. Nilsson H. Exploring the conjunction fallacy within a category learning framework. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2008, 21:471-490.
38. Nilsson H., Andersson P. Making the seemingly impossible appear possible: Effects of conjunction fallacies in evaluations of bets on football games. Journal of Economic Psychology 2010, 3:172-180.
39. Nilsson H., Winman A., Juslin P., Hansson G. Linda is not a bearded lady: Configural weighting and adding as the cause of extension errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2009, 138:517-534.
40. Politzer G., Noveck I.A. Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1991, 20:83-103.
41. Rao G. Probability error in diagnosis: The conjunction fallacy among beginning medical students. Family Medicine 2009, 41:262-265.
42. Shafir E.B., Smith E.E., Osherson D.N. Typicality and reasoning fallacies. Memory & Cognition 1990, 18:229-239.
43. Sides A., Osherson D., Bonini N., Viale R. On the reality of the conjunction fallacy. Memory & Cognition 2002, 30:191-198.
44. Sloman S.A., Over D., Slovak L., Stibel J.M. Frequency illusions and other fallacies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2003, 91:296-309.
45. Stolarz-Fantino S., Fantino E., Zizzo D.J., Wen J. The conjunction fallacy: New evidence for robustness. American Journal of Psychology 2003, 116:15-34.
46. Teigen K.H., Martinussen M., Lund T. Linda versus World Cup: Conjunctive probabilities in three-event fictional and real-life predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1996, 9:77-93.
47. Teigen K.H., Martinussen M., Lund T. Conjunction errors in the prediction of referendum outcomes: Effects of attitude and realism. Acta Psychologica 1996, 93:91-105.
48. Tentori, K., & Crupi, V. (2009). How the conjunction fallacy is tied to probabilistic confirmation: Some remarks on Schupbach (2009). Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9701-y.
49. Tentori K., Bonini N., Osherson D. The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction?. Cognitive Science 2004, 28:467-477.
50. Tentori, K., Crupi, V., & Russo, S. (2011). On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: Probability vs. inductive confirmation (Manuscript).
51. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgments of and by representativeness. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases 1982, 84-98. Cambridge University Press, New York. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky (Eds.).
52. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 1983, 90:293-315.
53. Villejoubert G., Mandel D.R. The inverse fallacy: An account of deviations from Bayes's theorem and the additivity principle. Memory & Cognition 2002, 30:171-178.
54. Wedell D.H., Moro R. Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: Effects of response mode, conceptual focus and problem type. Cognition 2008, 107:105-136.
55. Zhao J., Shah A., Osherson D. On the provenance of judgments of conditional probability. Cognition 2009, 113:26-36.
56. Zizzo D.J., Stolarz-Fantino S., Wen J., Fantino E. A violation of the monotonicity axiom: Experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2000, 41:263-276.