Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:58:56.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Amos Tversky
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Daniel Kahneman
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Jonathan E. Adler
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Lance J. Rips
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Get access

Summary

Uncertainty is an unavoidable aspect of the human condition. Many significant choices must be based on beliefs about the likelihood of such uncertain events as the guilt of a defendant, the result of an election, the future value of the dollar, the outcome of a medical operation, or the response of a friend. Because we normally do not have adequate formal models for computing the probabilities of such events, intuitive judgment is often the only practical method for assessing uncertainty.

The question of how lay people and experts evaluate the probabilities of uncertain events has attracted considerable research interest in the last decade (see, e.g., Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Much of this research has compared intuitive inferences and probability judgments to the rules of statistics and the laws of probability. The student of judgment uses the probability calculus as a standard of comparison much as a student of perception might compare the perceived sizes of objects to their physical sizes. Unlike the correct size of objects, however, the “correct” probability of events is not easily defined. Because individuals who have different knowledge or who hold different beliefs must be allowed to assign different probabilities to the same event, no single value can be correct for all people. Furthermore, a correct probability cannot always be determined even for a single person.

Type
Chapter
Information
Reasoning
Studies of Human Inference and its Foundations
, pp. 114 - 135
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajzen, I.Intuitive theories of events and the effects of baserate information on prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Hillel., M.On the subjective probability of compound events. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 396–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S. On the conservation of liquids. In Bruner, J. S., Olver, R. R., & Greenfield, P. M., et al. (Eds.), Studies in cognitive growth. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P.Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 73, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J., & Hansel, C. M.The nature of decision in gambling: Equivalence of single and compound subjective probabilities. Acta Psychologica, 1957, 13, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. J.The probable and the provable. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, A. P.Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1967, 38, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W.Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1975, 70, 291–293.Google Scholar
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M.Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 1981, 32, 53–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gati, I., & Tversky, A.Representations of qualitative and quantitative dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1982, 8, 325–340.Google ScholarPubMed
Goldsmith, R. W.Assessing probabilities of compound events in a judicial context. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1978, 19, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, I. J. The probabilistic explication of information, evidence, surprise, causality, explanation, and utility. In Godambe, V. P. & Sprott, D. A. (Eds.), Foundations of statistical inference: Proceedings on the foundations of statistical inference. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. Logic and conversation. In Harman, G. & Davidson, D. (Eds.), The logic of grammar. Encino, Calif.: Dickinson, 1975.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. R., & Brehmer, B. Quasi-rationality and distrust: Implications for international conflict. In Rappoport, L. & Summers, D. A. (Eds.), Human judgment and social interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, H.. Popular lectures on scientific subjects (E. Atkinson, trans.). New York: Green, 1903. (Originally published, 1881.)Google Scholar
Jennings, D., Amabile, T., & Ross, L. Informal covariation asessment. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Wason, P. C. A theoretical analysis of insight into a reasoning task. In Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Wason, P. C. (Eds.), Thinking. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Jones, G. V.Stacks not fuzzy sets: An ordinal basis for prototype theory of concepts. Cognition, 1982, 12, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P.Tversky, A. (Eds.) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 1972, 3, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 1982, 11, 123–141. (a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 1982, 11, 143–157. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, C. W., & Pollock, S. M.Multiple attribute scenarios, bounded probabilities, and threats of nuclear theft. Futures, 1982, 14, 545–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyburg, H. E.Rational belief. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1983, 6, 231–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindley, D. V., Tversky, A., & Brown, R. V.On the reconciliation of probability assessments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1979, 142, 146–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E.Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 1981, 32, 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z.The use of statistical heuristies in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 1983, 90, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.Google Scholar
Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E.On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 1981, 9, 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E.Gradedness and conceptual combination. Cognition, 1982, 12, 299–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosch, E. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A.False probabilistic arguments vs. faulty intuition. Israel Law Review, 1979, 14, 247–254.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J., & Kidd, R. F.Human information processing and adjudication: Trials by heuristics. Law & Society Review, 1981, 15, 123–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, G.A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. In Carroll, J. S. & Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior. Potomac, Md.: Erlbaum, 1976.Google Scholar
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L.Categories and concepts. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P.Approximate probability and expectation of gambles. Erkenntnis, 1975, 9, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A.Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 5, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. Causal schemas in judgements under uncertainty. In Fishbein, M. (Ed.), Progress in social psychology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 1981, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. Judgments of and by representativeness. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyer, R. S. Jr.An investigation of the relations among probability estimates. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 15, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. A.Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1978, 1, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. A.A note on prototype theory and fuzzy sets. Cognition, 1982, 12, 291–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zentner, R. D.Scenarios, past, present and future. Long Range Planning, 1982, 15, 12–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×