Jarvstad, A. and Hahn, Ulrike (2009) Unreliable sources and the conjunction fallacy. In: Taatgen, N. and van Rijn, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, Texas, USA: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 3034-3039. ISBN 9780976831853.
Abstract
We provide the first empirical test of a recent, normative account of the conjunction fallacy. According to Bovens and Hartman (2003), an unlikely statement from a partially reliable source is not necessarily more likely than a conjunction statement from another partially reliable source. Hence once information is considered to be coming from potentially not fully reliable sources, the conjunction fallacy is no longer at odds with probability theory. We provide here a simple experimental test of this account, and report comparisons of the Bovens and Hartmann model with Wyer's (1976) model and a simple averaging model. Wyer's model provided the best fit and the averaging model had the highest true positive rate in determining whether individual participants would commit the fallacy or not.
Metadata
| Item Type: | Book Section |
|---|---|
| Keyword(s) / Subject(s): | conjunction fallacy, conjunction effect, probability judgment, numb |
| School: | Birkbeck Faculties and Schools > Faculty of Science > School of Psychological Sciences |
| Research Centres and Institutes: | Birkbeck Knowledge Lab |
| Depositing User: | Sarah Hall |
| Date Deposited: | 18 Jun 2015 14:53 |
| Last Modified: | 02 Aug 2023 17:17 |
| URI: | https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/12381 |
Statistics
Additional statistics are available via IRStats2.
Archive Staff Only (login required)
