Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Quantum-Like Models Cannot Account for the Conjunction Fallacy.Thomas Boyer-Kassem, Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci - 2016 - Theory and Decision 81 (4):479-510.
  • Is There a Conjunction Fallacy in Legal Probabilistic Decision Making?Bartosz W. Wojciechowski & Emmanuel M. Pothos - 2018 - Frontiers in Psychology 9.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On the Determinants of the Conjunction Fallacy: Probability Versus Inductive Confirmation.Katya Tentori, Vincenzo Crupi & Selena Russo - 2013 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142 (1):235.
  • Can Quantum Probability Provide a New Direction for Cognitive Modeling?Emmanuel M. Pothos & Jerome R. Busemeyer - 2013 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (3):255-274.
    Classical (Bayesian) probability (CP) theory has led to an influential research tradition for modeling cognitive processes. Cognitive scientists have been trained to work with CP principles for so long that it is hard even to imagine alternative ways to formalize probabilities. However, in physics, quantum probability (QP) theory has been the dominant probabilistic approach for nearly 100 years. Could QP theory provide us with any advantages in cognitive modeling as well? Note first that both CP and QP theory share the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • From is to Ought, and Back: How Normative Concerns Foster Progress in Reasoning Research.Vincenzo Crupi & Vittorio Girotto - 2014 - Frontiers in Psychology 5.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Commentary: Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment.Peter Lewinski - 2015 - Frontiers in Psychology 6.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Why the Conjunction Effect Is Rarely a Fallacy: How Learning Influences Uncertainty and the Conjunction Rule.Phil Maguire, Philippe Moser, Rebecca Maguire & Mark T. Keane - 2018 - Frontiers in Psychology 9.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Judging the Probability of Hypotheses Versus the Impact of Evidence: Which Form of Inductive Inference Is More Accurate and Time‐Consistent?Katya Tentori, Nick Chater & Vincenzo Crupi - 2016 - Cognitive Science 40 (3):758-778.
    Inductive reasoning requires exploiting links between evidence and hypotheses. This can be done focusing either on the posterior probability of the hypothesis when updated on the new evidence or on the impact of the new evidence on the credibility of the hypothesis. But are these two cognitive representations equally reliable? This study investigates this question by comparing probability and impact judgments on the same experimental materials. The results indicate that impact judgments are more consistent in time and more accurate than (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Towards a Pattern-Based Logic of Probability Judgements and Logical Inclusion “Fallacies”.Momme von Sydow - 2016 - Thinking and Reasoning 22 (3):297-335.
    ABSTRACTProbability judgements entail a conjunction fallacy if a conjunction is estimated to be more probable than one of its conjuncts. In the context of predication of alternative logical hypothesis, Bayesian logic provides a formalisation of pattern probabilities that renders a class of pattern-based CFs rational. BL predicts a complete system of other logical inclusion fallacies. A first test of this prediction is investigated here, using transparent tasks with clear set inclusions, varying in observed frequencies only. Experiment 1 uses data where (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation