On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding Linda

Charness, Karni, & Levin. (2010). On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding Linda: New experimental evidence regarding Linda. Games and Economic Behavior.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2010

DOI

10.1016/j.geb.2009.09.003

DOI registrant

Elsevier

Link

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2009.09.003

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Domain-specific

• Conjunction Fallacy
  • … out reading "and" as "or", though with those phrasings and no filler items it disappeared, and the collaborators disagreed about what that shows), nor of carelessness (it persists in trained researchers judging within their domain, and paying for correct answers lowers the share of violators without eliminating it

    This sourceWith a mild monetary reward for the correct answer, the share of individuals violating the conjunction rule in the Linda problem fell well below the rate Tversky and Kahneman reported but did not vanish (58.1% without and 33.0% with incentives, in the working-paper version's Table 1), and fell further when pairs or trios answered together.

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.

Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.

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:2ccc4d6d3977 · see in the full table