Exploring the conjunction fallacy within a category learning framework
Abstract
Abstract The literature presents two major theories on the cause of the conjunction fallacy. The first attributes the conjunction fallacy to the representativeness heuristic. The second suggests that the conjunction fallacy is caused by people combining p(A) and p(B) into p(A&B) in an inappropriate manner. These two theories were contrasted in two category‐learning experiments. As predicted by the latter theory, data showed that participants that could assess p(A&B) directly made fewer conjunction fallacies than participants who had to compute p(A) and p(B) separately and then combine them into p(A&B). Least conjunction fallacies were observed in the cases where the representativeness heuristic was applicable. Overall, data showed that an inability to appropriately combine probabilities is one of the key cognitive mechanisms behind the conjunction fallacy. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Accuracy is improved in base-rate neglect studies when a causal link is provided between the individual events, and experiencing outcomes together weakens conjunction fallacies.
“accuracy is improved in base-rate neglect studies when a causal link is provided between the individual events [55,56], and experiencing outcomes together weakens conjunction fallacies [57]”
From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [57]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Nilsson, H.
- Affiliations
- Uppsala University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Nilsson, Håkan
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-07-10
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 471-490
- ISSN
- 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0771
- OpenAlex
- W2100255489
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Vetenskapsrådet
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- conjunction fallacy, representativeness heuristic, category learning, probability judgment, heuristics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
