The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction?

Katya Tentori; Nicolao Bonini; Daniel Osherson

doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.01.001

The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction?

Katya Tentori, Nicolao Bonini, Daniel Osherson

Psychology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

95 Scopus citations

Abstract

It is easy to construct pairs of sentences X, Y that lead many people to ascribe higher probability to the conjunction X-and-Y than to the conjuncts X, Y. Whether an error is thereby committed depends on reasoners' interpretation of the expressions "probability" and "and." We report two experiments designed to clarify the normative status of typical responses to conjunction problems.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	467-477
Number of pages	11
Journal	Cognitive science
Volume	28
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.01.001
State	Published - May 2004

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Artificial Intelligence

Keywords

Pragmatics
Reasoning
Subjective probability

Access to Document

10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.01.001

Cite this

@article{288ae4d55a5d4c1dbcaf247be3d3d7f0,

title = "The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction?",

abstract = "It is easy to construct pairs of sentences X, Y that lead many people to ascribe higher probability to the conjunction X-and-Y than to the conjuncts X, Y. Whether an error is thereby committed depends on reasoners' interpretation of the expressions {"}probability{"} and {"}and.{"} We report two experiments designed to clarify the normative status of typical responses to conjunction problems.",

keywords = "Pragmatics, Reasoning, Subjective probability",

author = "Katya Tentori and Nicolao Bonini and Daniel Osherson",

note = "Funding Information: Thanks to Philip Johnson-Laird, Danny Kahneman, and Eldar Shafir for comments on an earlier version of this paper. We also thank two anonymous referees for constructive suggestions. Research supported by grant FIRB 2003 to the second author and NSF grant IIS-9978135 to the third author. ",

year = "2004",

month = may,

doi = "10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.01.001",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "28",

pages = "467--477",

journal = "Cognitive science",

issn = "0364-0213",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The conjunction fallacy

T2 - A misunderstanding about conjunction?

AU - Tentori, Katya

AU - Bonini, Nicolao

AU - Osherson, Daniel

N1 - Funding Information: Thanks to Philip Johnson-Laird, Danny Kahneman, and Eldar Shafir for comments on an earlier version of this paper. We also thank two anonymous referees for constructive suggestions. Research supported by grant FIRB 2003 to the second author and NSF grant IIS-9978135 to the third author.

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - It is easy to construct pairs of sentences X, Y that lead many people to ascribe higher probability to the conjunction X-and-Y than to the conjuncts X, Y. Whether an error is thereby committed depends on reasoners' interpretation of the expressions "probability" and "and." We report two experiments designed to clarify the normative status of typical responses to conjunction problems.

AB - It is easy to construct pairs of sentences X, Y that lead many people to ascribe higher probability to the conjunction X-and-Y than to the conjuncts X, Y. Whether an error is thereby committed depends on reasoners' interpretation of the expressions "probability" and "and." We report two experiments designed to clarify the normative status of typical responses to conjunction problems.

KW - Pragmatics

KW - Reasoning

KW - Subjective probability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2442644158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2442644158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.01.001

DO - 10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.01.001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:2442644158

SN - 0364-0213

VL - 28

SP - 467

EP - 477

JO - Cognitive science

JF - Cognitive science

IS - 3

ER -

The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction?

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this