A Different Conjunction Fallacy

Nicolao Bonini, Katya Tentori, Daniel Osherson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

41 Scopus citations


Because the conjunction p-and-q implies p, the value of a bet on p-and-q cannot exceed the value of a bet on p at the same stakes. We tested recognition of this principle in a betting paradigm that (a) discouraged misreading p as p-and-not-q, and (b) encouraged genuinely conjunctive reading of p-and-q. Frequent violations were nonetheless observed. The findings appear to discredit the idea that most people spontaneously integrate the logic of conjunction into their assessments of chance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)199-210
Number of pages12
JournalMind and Language
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 2004

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Philosophy
  • Linguistics and Language


Dive into the research topics of 'A Different Conjunction Fallacy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this