Judgments under uncertainty: representativeness or potential surprise?
Abstract
Tversky and Kahneman's (1983) account of conjunctive probability judgment in terms of the representativeness heuristic is questioned. Instead, potential surprise (Shackle, 1969) is proposed as an important mechanism underlying subjective probability judgment. Study 1 reveals that, consistent with Shackle's theory, probabilities assigned to conjunctions are predominantly determined by the magnitude of the smaller component event probability. Also consistent with Shackle, Study 2 shows that for disjunctions, this role is performed by the larger component. Study 3 again contrasts the relative roles played by the component events in determining the value assigned to the conjunction. The results of the study are consistent with two reasoning processes: one analytically based, in which due account is taken of both component events, the other heuristic in nature and consistent with Shackle's theory of potential surprise. The implications of these results for a range of different types of judgment, e.g. with regard to person perception, stereotyping, categorization, and typicality, are evaluated.
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?
In these cases, participants are left to combine non-normalized sampled probability estimates for each hypothesis manually, and perhaps choose just one or combine them inappropriately.
“participants are left to combine the non-normalized sampled probability estimates for each hypothesis 'manually', and perhaps choose just one of the probabilities or perhaps combine them inappropriately [52][53][54].”
From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [53]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012 · Cited by 2,252 · see citing works
Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Pothos, E. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199957996.013.17 · Cited by 550 · see citing works
A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors.
Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2011) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0022542 · Cited by 410 · see citing works
“In fact, the presence of dependencies between events A and B has been shown to affect the rate of conjunction fallacies—a positive conditional dependency generally increases the frequency of conjunction errors (Fisk, 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialBayesian Brains without Probabilities
Sanborn, A. N., & Chater, N. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.10.003 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Pleasurable Surprises: A Cross-Cultural Study of Consumer Responses to Unexpected Incentives
Valenzuela, A., Mellers, B. A., & Strebel, J. E. (2009) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/605592 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Kliegr, T., Bahník, Š., & Fürnkranz, J. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103458 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
“This assumption was verified in at least one study [42].”
MethodMaking sense of surprise: An investigation of the factors influencing surprise judgments.
Maguire, R., Maguire, P., & Keane, M. T. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0021609 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
“Studies have shown that, as well as being one of the most basic and universal of human emotions, surprise has many important cognitive ramifications (Fisk, 2002; Fisk & Pidgeon, 1998; Meyer, Reisenzein & Schützwohl, 1997; Ortony & Partridge, 1987; Schützwohl, 1998; Teigen & Keren, 2003).”
BackgroundSurprise, Surprise. Ambient Media as Promotion Tool for Retailers
Hutter, K., & Hoffmann, S. (2013) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2013.08.001 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Water management accounting: A framework for corporate practice
Christ, K. L., & Burritt, R. L. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.147 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
“…power, or voice, to water managers to balance the focus on corporate carbon reduction such that if quality water becomes as scarce as predicted the surprise value of such an outcome for ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 15 business will be reduced and resilience increased (Fisk 2002; Shackle 1969).”
BackgroundLinda is not a bearded lady: configural weighting and adding as the cause of extension errors
Nilsson, H., Winman, A., Juslin, P., & Hansson, G. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0017351 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“, 1987; Fisk & Pidgeon, 1997; Kariyazono, 1991), whereas for the disjunctive probabilities, more weight is assigned to the likely component, as verified in at least one study (Fisk, 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialPrati, F., Crisp, R. J., & Rubini, M. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.004 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
“The Emotional Experience of Surprise Studies have shown that surprise is one of the most basic and universal of emotions (e.g. Ekman, 1972; Fisk, 2002; Izard, 1977; Plutchik, 1980; Roseman, 1996) which usually results in the interruption of ongoing thoughts and activities and motivates people to…”
BackgroundQuantum cognition and Bell’s inequality: A model for probabilistic judgment bias
Gronchi, G., & Strambini, E. (2016) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2016.09.003 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Exploring the conjunction fallacy within a category learning framework
Nilsson, H. (2008) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.615 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Source Reliability and the Conjunction Fallacy
Jarvstad, A., & Hahn, U. (2011) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01170.x · Cited by 34 · see citing works
The Labor of Lies: How Lying for Material Rewards Polarizes Consumers' Outcome Satisfaction
Anthony, C. I., & Cowley, E. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/663824 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., Pothos, E. M., & Trueblood, J. S. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000035 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“Indeed, it has been found that disjunction errors are also obtained using the same events that produce conjunction errors (Morier & Borgida, 1984; Fisk, 2002; Yates & Carlson, 1986).”
BackgroundModeling Human Decision-Making: An Overview of the Brussels Quantum Approach
Aerts, D., de Bianchi, M. S., Sozzo, S., & Veloz, T. (2018) · Foundations of Science · doi:10.1007/s10699-018-9559-x · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Rogers, P., Fisk, J. E., & Wiltshire, D. (2010) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1732 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationFisk, J. E. (2005) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.488 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationExemplars in the mist: The cognitive substrate of the representativeness heuristic
Nilsson, H., Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (2008) · Scandinavian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00646.x · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Testing Quantum Models of Conjunction Fallacy on the World Wide Web
Aerts, D., Arguëlles, J. A., Beltran, L., et al. (2017) · Figshare · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Lu, Y. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00085 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Prike, T., Arnold, M. M., & Williamson, P. (2017) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2017.06.003 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“…Linda is a bank teller) is “surprising” or unrepresentative in comparison to the conjunction that primarily contributes to the occurrence of the conjunction fallacy (see Fisk, 2002; Fisk & Pidgeon, 1998, for detailed discussion of this potential surprise explanation of the conjunction fallacy).”
A Unified Theory of Human Judgements and Decision-Making under Uncertainty
Pisano, R., & Sozzo, S. (2020) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e22070738 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
An overview of the quantum cognition research program
Huang, J., Epping, G. P., Trueblood, J. S., Yearsley, J. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Pothos, E. M. (2025) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-025-02675-9 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“…including conjunction fallacies (Moro, 2009; Tversky & Kahneman, 1983), disjunction fallacies (Bar-Hillel & Neter, 1993; Carlson & Yates, 1989; Fisk, 2002), unpacking effects (Rotten-streich & Tversky, 1997; Sloman et al., 2004), and more complex conjunctions (e.g., Winman, Nilsson, Juslin, &…”
Testing Quantum Models of Conjunction Fallacy on the World Wide Web
Aerts, D., Arguëlles, J. A., Beltran, L., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1007/s10773-017-3288-8 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Surprise: Disconfirmed expectations or representation-fit?
Maguire, R., & Keane, M. T. (2006) · Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Lu, Y. (2015) · Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s12124-015-9314-6 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“Tversky and Kahneman (1983) first proposed the conjunction fallacy.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBarón, L., & Rotundo, G. J. Z. (2018) · Ciencia y Sociedad · doi:10.22206/cys.2018.v43i1.pp31-48 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“…cuales están sujetos los individuos en sus procesos de juicios o toma de decisiones bajo situaciones de incertidumbre y complejidad (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973, 1974; Makridakis, 1990; Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky, 1982; Das & Teng, 1999; Fisk, 2002; Vidar & Lechner, 2013; Otuteye & Siddiquee, 2015).”
BackgroundSensitivity to Coincidences and Paranormal Belief
Hadlaczky, G., & Westerlund, J. (2011) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/09.22.pms.113.6.894-908 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
La cognición del individuo: reflexiones sobre sus procesos e influencia en la organización
Rotundo, G. J. Z., & Giner, M. T. C. (2009) · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Rotundo, G. J. Z., Mirabal, A., & Giner, M. T. C. (2015) · Ciencia y Sociedad · doi:10.22206/cys.2015.v40i4.pp785-822 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Reasoning About Conjunctive Probabilistic Concepts in Childhood.
Fisk, J. E., & Slattery, R. (2005) · Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · doi:10.1037/h0087472 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citationFisher, C. R., & Wolfe, C. R. (2014) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1818 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“Casting further doubt, other non-normative phenomena have been observed, such as underconfidence and overconfidence (Erev, Wallsten, & Budescu, 1994), subadditivity (Tversky & Koehler, 1994), the disjunction fallacy (Fisk, 2002), base rate neglect in Bayesian inference (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973), and the conversion er…”
BackgroundInfluentialRogers, P., Fisk, J. E., & Lowrie, E. (2017) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2017.09.010 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“…those with higher general qualifications were, for some as yet unknown reason, less surprised by the subjectively less likely (LL) constituent event which, as noted earlier, is key to shaping conjunctive probabilities estimates and potential CE generation (Fisk, 2002; Fisk & Pidgeon, 1996).”
BackgroundSelf-citationInvestigating the Difference between Surprise and Probability Judgments
Maguire, P., & Maguire, R. (2009) · Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Expecting a Surprise? The Effect of Expectations on Perceived Surprise in Stories
Grimes-Maguire, R., & Keane, M. T. (2005) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Quantum Probability Explanations for Probability Judgment 'Errors'Preprint
Busemeyer, J. R., Franco, R., & Pothos, E. M. (2009) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0909.2789 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Disjunctive fallacy: J(H ∨ L) < J(H) This was found comparing frequencies [20] and means [15].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPlinko: Eliciting beliefs to build better models of statistical learning and mental model updating
DiBerardino, P. A. V., Filipowicz, A. L. S., Danckert, J. A., & Anderson, B. (2024) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12724 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“, 2019), ranging from decision making (Fisk, 2002; Tenenbaum et al., 2011; Summerfield and Tsetsos, 2015) and language development (Saffran et al.”
BackgroundMaguire, P., Moser, P., Maguire, R., & Keane, M. T. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01011 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
A Cognitive Model of Surprise Judgements
Maguire, R., Costello, F., & Keane, M. T. (2006) · Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) · Cited by 3 · see citing works
A Multiple Definitions Model of Classification Into Fuzzy Categories
Gruenenfelder, T. M. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00944 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“The corresponding disjunction fallacy (Fisk, 2002) is that people are more likely to believe that Linda is active in the feminist movement than to believe that she is either active in the feminist movement or a bank teller.”
BackgroundThe impact of dual-track system of employment on emergency decision making
Zhu, Z., Zhang, M., Liu, H. K., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104624 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Divergent patterns of probabilistic reasoning in humans and GPT-5
Imannezhad, P., Pothos, E. M., & Wills, A. J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1782184 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“…some of the most reliable phenomena in the psychology of judgment and decision-making, having been repeatedly observed across diverse populations, measurement approaches, and experimental paradigms (Dulany and Hilton, 1991; Fisk, 2002; Moro, 2009; Sides et al., 2002; Tversky and Koehler, 1994).”
Measurement of the conjunction error in social judgment: Answer choice and answer justification
Knoth, R. L., Benassi, V. A., & Geher, G. (2009) · Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal · doi:10.2224/sbp.2009.37.4.481 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“This view has had its critics (e.g., Dulany & Hilton, 1991; Fisk, 2002; Gigerenzer, 1996).”
BackgroundAn evaluation of the role of inductive confirmation in relation to the conjunction fallacy
Fisk, J. E., Marshall, D. A., Rogers, P., & Stock, R. (2023) · Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/20445911.2023.2182181 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“…violate some of the key normative rules of probability theory, for example, Bayes’ theorem (see Pennycook et al., 2022, for a recent review); the disjunction rule (Bar-Hillel & Neter, 1993; Carlson & Yates, 1989; Fisk, 2002); and the conjunction rule (see Fisk, 2022, for a recent review).”
BackgroundSelf-citationAnalysing the Conjunction Fallacy as a Fact
Veloz, T., & Sobetska, O. (2023) · STEAM-H: Science, Technology, Engineering, Agriculture, Mathematics & Health · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-41862-4_8 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
An account of subjective probability judgment for joint events: Conjunctive and disjunctive
Fisk, J. E., Marshall, D. A., Rogers, P., & Stock, R. (2019) · Scandinavian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/sjop.12560 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationPollock, T., Levy, Y. M., Li, W., & Kumar, A. (2022) · Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management · doi:10.36965/ojakm.2022.10(2)23-40 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
In Search of Prototypes and Feminist Bank-Tellers: Exploring the Representativeness Heuristic
Nilsson, H. (2008) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Understanding surprise : Can less likely events be less surprising?
Maguire, R., Maguire, P., & Keane, M. T. (2007) · Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Rotundo, G. J. Z., Mirabal, A., & Giner, M. T. C. (2015)
DiBerardino, P. A. V., Filipowicz, A. L. S., Danckert, J. A., & Anderson, B. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Creativity, Incentives and Attitudes to Life
Petrakis, P. E., Kafka, K. I., Kostis, P. C., & Valsamis, D. G. (2021) · The political economy of Greek growth up to 2030 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-81018-4_7
Surprise Toys to Build Customer Loyalty Using Classical Conditioning
Gauba, R., & Srivastva, S. (2022) · International Journal of Applied Management Theory and Research · doi:10.4018/ijamtr.2022010104
The Impact of Dual-Track System of Employment on Emergency Decision MakingPreprint
Zhu, Z., Zhang, M., Kapucu, N., et al. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4642679
Coherence and the Conjunction Fallacy
Snell, A., Burt, M., & Zuckerman, M. (2025) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672251335810
“For example, Fisk (2002) argued that applying representativeness to conjunction problems suggests that the more likely (i.e., the more representative) element in conjunctions determines their overall probability.”
Ghasemi, H., Astvansh, V., & Sepehri, A. A. (2026) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-026-01147-3 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“In contrast, surprise represents both an emotional and cognitive response (Teigen & Keren, 2003; Valenzuela et al., 2010 )—an emotion triggered by expectancy viola - tions that simultaneously initiates cognitive appraisal and mental updating (Fisk, 2002).”
- Authors
- Fisk, J. E.
- Affiliations
- Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Fisk, John E.
- ORCID
- Fisk, John E.
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-11
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 431-449
- ISSN
- 0007-1269 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8295
- OpenAlex
- W2002824357
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Keywords
- probability judgment, representativeness heuristic, subjective probability, judgment under uncertainty, person perception, stereotyping, categorization, typicality
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Humans, Judgment, Problem Solving, Psychological Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Random Allocation, Regression Analysis
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
