Many reasons or just one: How response mode affects reasoning in the conjunction problem
Thinking and Reasoning 4 (4):319 – 352 (1998)
| Abstract | Forty years of experimentation on class inclusion and its probabilistic relatives have led to inconsistent results and conclusions about human reasoning. Recent research on the conjunction "fallacy" recapitulates this history. In contrast to previous results, we found that a majority of participants adhere to class inclusion in the classic Linda problem. We outline a theoretical framework that attributes the contradictory results to differences in statistical sophistication and to differences in response mode-whether participants are asked for probability estimates or ranks-and propose two precise cognitive algorithms for ranking probabilities. Our framework allows us to make novel predictions about when and why people adhere to class inclusion. Evidence obtained in several studies supports these predictions and demonstrates that the proposed ranking algorithms can account for about three-quarters of participants' inferences in the Linda problem. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPaul C. Price (2000). Wishful Thinking in the Prediction of Competitive Outcomes. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (2):161 – 172.
Andreas Jarvstad & Ulrike Hahn (2011). Source Reliability and the Conjunction Fallacy. Cognitive Science 35 (4):682-711.
Giuseppe Mosconi & Laura Macchi (2001). The Role of Pragmatic Rules in the Conjunction Fallacy. Mind and Society 2 (1):31-57.
Stephan Hartmann & Wouter Meijs (2012). Walter the Banker: The Conjunction Fallacy Reconsidered. Synthese 184 (1):73-87.
Ana Franco-Watkins, Peter Derks & Michael Dougherty (2003). Reasoning in the Monty Hall Problem: Examining Choice Behaviour and Probability Judgements. Thinking and Reasoning 9 (1):67 – 90.
A. J. B. Fugard, Niki Pfeifer, B. Mayerhofer & Gernot D. Kleiter (forthcoming). How People Interpret Conditionals: Shifts Towards the Conditional Event. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
A. J. B. Fugard, Niki Pfeifer, B. Mayerhofer & G. D. Kleiter (forthcoming). How People Interpret Conditionals: Shifts Towards the Conditional Event. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Ralph Hertwig (2000). The Questionable Utility of “Cognitive Ability” in Explaining Cognitive Illusions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):678-679.
Keith E. Stanovich Richard & F. West (1998). Individual Differences in Framing and Conjunction Effects. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (4):289 – 317.
Rodrigo Moro (2009). On the Nature of the Conjunction Fallacy. Synthese 171 (1).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-02-11Total downloads4 ( #178,434 of 548,973 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
