The representation of the task: The case of the lawyer-Engineer problem in probability judgement

The Shape of Reason: Essays in Honour of Paolo Legrenzi

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 119-135

  Politzer, Guy ^a   Macchi, Laura ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 8   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILANO BICOCCA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906123355     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203338186     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgements. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211-233.
2. Bar-Hillel, M. (1983). The base rate fallacy controversy. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 39-61). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3. Dulany, D. E., & Hilton, D. J. (1991). Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition, 9, 85-110.
4. Evans, J. B. T., & Pollard, P. (1982). Statistical judgement: A further test of the representativeness construct. Acta Psychologica, 51, 91-103.
5. Fischhoff, B. Slovic, P. & Lichtenstein, S. (1979) Subjective sensitivity analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 339-359.
6. Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond "heuristics and biases". European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 83-115.
7. Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996). Psychological Review, 103, 592-596.
8. Gigerenzer, G., Hell, W., & Blank, H. (1988). Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 513-525.
9. Ginossar, Z., & Trope, Y. (1980). The effects of base rates and individuating information on judgements about another person. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 228-242.
10. Ginossar, Z., & Trope, Y. (1987). Problem solving in judgement under uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 474-484.
11. Girotto, V., Kemmelmeier, M., Sperber, D., & Van der Henst, J.-B. (2001). Inept reasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task. Cognition, 81, B69-B76.
12. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgement. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248-271.
14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
15. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions: A reply to Gigerenzer's critique. Psychological Review, 103, 582-591.
16. Koehler, J. J. (1996). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 1-53.
17. Krosnick, J. A., Li, F., & Lehman, D. R. (1990). Conversational conventions, order of information acquisition, and the effect of base rates and individuating information on social judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1140-1152.
18. Macchi, L. (1995). Pragmatic aspects of the base-rate fallacy. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 188-207.
19. Macchi, L. (2000). Partitive formulation of information in probabilistic problems:Beyond heuristics and frequency format explanations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 217-236.
20. Mosconi, G. (1990). Discorso e pensiero. [Discourse and thought]. Bologna: Il Mulino.
21. Mosconi, G., & Macchi, L. (2001). The role of pragmatic rules in the conjunction fallacy. Mind and Society, 3, 31-57.
22. Norenzayan, A., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Telling what they want to know: Participants tailor causal attributions to researchers' interests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1911-1020.
23. Olson, C. L. (1976). Some apparent violations of the representativeness heuristic in human judgement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 599-608.
24. Orne, M. T. (1969). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In R. Rosenthal & R. I. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 143-179). New York: Academic Press.
25. Politzer, G. (1986). Laws of language use and formal logic. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15, 47-92.
26. Politzer, G. (1993). La psychologie du raisonnement: lois de la pragmatique et logique formelle. [The psychology of reasoning: Laws of pragmatics and formal logic.] Doctoral dissertation, University of Paris VIII.
27. Politzer, G. (2003). Premise interpretation in conditional reasoning. In D. Hardman & L. Macchi (Eds.), Thinking: Psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgement, and decision making (pp. 79-93). Chichester: Wiley.
28. Politzer, G. (in press). Reasoning, judgement, and pragmatics. In I. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics. London: Palgrave.
29. Politzer, G., & Macchi, L. (2000). Reasoning and pragmatics. Mind and Society, 1, 73-93.
30. Politzer, G., & Noveck, I. A. (1991). Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 83-103.
31. Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1997). Social interactions and mathematics learning. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics. An international perspective (pp. 265-283). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
32. Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33. Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Hilton, D. J., & Naderer, G. (1991). Base rates, representativeness, and the logic of conversation: The contextual relevance of "irrelevant" information. Social Cognition, 9, 67-84.
34. Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57, 31-95.
35. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgement. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.
37. Van der Henst, J.-B., Sperber, D., & Politzer, G. (2002). When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 1-20.
38. Van der Henst, J.-B., Rossi, S., & Schroyens, W. (2002). When participants are not misled, they are not so bad after all: A pragmatic analysis of a rule discovery task. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.