Do Frequency Representations Eliminate Conjunction Effects? An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration¶
Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do Frequency Representations Eliminate Conjunction Effects? An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration. Psychological Science.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- External Analytic Challenge
- And it can be symmetric by construction, with each opposed party supplying a challenger.
This sourceDemonstrates outsideness manufactured symmetrically, with each opposed party supplying the other's challenger and an agreed arbiter running the test.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract shows the symmetric, arbiter-run frame of adversarial collaboration (both parties agreeing to tests, Mellers as arbiter) but does not itself state that each opposed party supplies the other's challenger.
“The approach requires both parties to agree on empirical tests for resolving a dispute and to conduct these tests with the help of an arbiter.”
- And it can be symmetric by construction, with each opposed party supplying a challenger.
Domain-specific¶
- Conjunction Fallacy
- … effect is not simply an artifact of linguistic ambiguity (in an adversarial collaboration, frequency formats alone did not eliminate it even with phrasings designed to rule out reading "and" as "or", though with those phrasings and no filler items it disappeared, and the collaborators disagreed about what that shows
This sourceAn adversarial collaboration finding that frequency formats alone did not eliminate conjunction effects, although effects disappeared with unambiguous phrasings once filler items were removed.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- … effect is not simply an artifact of linguistic ambiguity (in an adversarial collaboration, frequency formats alone did not eliminate it even with phrasings designed to rule out reading "and" as "or", though with those phrasings and no filler items it disappeared, and the collaborators disagreed about what that shows
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:2881673e2e7a · see in the full table