Editing Conjunction fallacy (section)

== Criticism ==

Critics such as [[Gerd Gigerenzer]] and [[Ralph Hertwig]] criticized the Linda problem on grounds such as the [[diction|wording]] and [[framing effect|framing]]. The question of the Linda problem may violate [[conversational maxim]]s in that people assume that the question obeys the maxim of relevance. Gigerenzer argues that some of the terminology used have [[polysemy|polysemous]] meanings, the alternatives of which he claimed were more "natural". He argues that one meaning of ''probable'' ("what happens frequently") corresponds to the mathematical probability people are supposed to be tested on, but other meanings ("what is plausible" and "whether there is evidence") do not.<ref name="Gigerenzer (1996)">{{cite journal|last1=Gigerenzer|first1=Gerd|date=1996|title=On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky|journal=Psychological Review|volume=103|issue=3|pages=592–596|citeseerx=10.1.1.314.996|doi=10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.592}}</ref><ref name="Hertwig & Gigerenzer (1999)">{{cite journal|last1=Hertwig|first1=Ralph|last2=Gigerenzer|first2=Gerd|year=1999|title=The 'Conjunction Fallacy' Revisited: How Intelligent Inferences Look Like Reasoning Errors|journal=Journal of Behavioral Decision Making|volume=12|issue=4|pages=275–305|citeseerx=10.1.1.157.8726|doi=10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199912)12:4<275::aid-bdm323>3.3.co;2-d|s2cid=15453720 }}</ref> The term "and" has even been argued to have relevant polysemous meanings.<ref name="Mellers, Hertwig & Kahneman (2001)">{{cite journal|last1=Mellers|first1=B.|last2=Hertwig|first2=R.|last3=Kahneman|first3=D.|year=2001|title=Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration|url=http://cds.unibas.ch/~hertwig/pdfs/2001/Mellersetal2001_frequency_eliminate_conjunction.pdf|journal=Psychological Science|volume=12|issue=4|pages=269–275|doi=10.1111/1467-9280.00350|pmid=11476091|hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-0025-957F-D|s2cid=38522595 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> Many techniques have been developed to control for this possible misinterpretation, but none of them has dissipated the effect.<ref name="Moro, 2009">{{cite journal|last1=Moro|first1=Rodrigo|date=2009|title=On the nature of the conjunction fallacy|journal=Synthese|volume=171|issue=1|pages=1–24|doi=10.1007/s11229-008-9377-8|hdl=11336/69232 |s2cid=207244869 |hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Tentori & Crupi, 2012">{{cite journal|last1=Tentori|first1=Katya|last2=Crupi|first2=Vincenzo|date=2012|title=On the conjunction fallacy and the meaning of ''and'', yet again: A reply to Hertwig, Benz, and Krauss|url=http://www.vincenzocrupi.com/website/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/TentoriCrupi2012_Cognition.pdf|url-status=live|journal=Cognition|volume=122|issue=2|pages=123–134|doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.002|pmid=22079517|s2cid=6192639 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160510225145/http://www.vincenzocrupi.com/website/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/TentoriCrupi2012_Cognition.pdf|archive-date=2016-05-10}}</ref>

Many variations in wording of the Linda problem were studied by Tversky and Kahneman.<ref name="tk83" /> If the first option is changed to obey conversational relevance, i.e., "Linda is a bank teller whether or not she is active in the feminist movement" the effect is decreased, but the majority (57%) of the respondents still commit the conjunction error.  If the probability is changed to frequency format (''see debiasing section below'') the effect is reduced or eliminated. However, studies exist in which indistinguishable conjunction fallacy rates have been observed with stimuli framed in terms of probabilities versus frequencies.<ref>See, for example: {{cite journal|last1=Tentori|first1=Katya|last2=Bonini|first2=Nicolao|last3=Osherson|first3=Daniel|date=2004|title=The conjunction fallacy: a misunderstanding about conjunction?|journal=Cognitive Science|volume=28|issue=3|pages=467–477|doi=10.1207/s15516709cog2803_8|doi-access=free}} Or: {{cite journal|last1=Wedell|first1=Douglas H.|last2=Moro|first2=Rodrigo|date=2008|title=Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: Effects of response mode, conceptual focus, and problem type|journal=Cognition|volume=107|issue=1|pages=105–136|doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2007.08.003|pmid=17927971|s2cid=17197695 }}</ref>

The wording criticisms may be less applicable to the conjunction effect in separate evaluation.{{vague|date=February 2013}}<ref name="Gigerenzer (1996)" /> The "Linda problem" has been studied and criticized more than other types of demonstration of the effect (some described below).<ref name="tk2011-15" /><ref name="Mellers, Hertwig & Kahneman (2001)" /><ref name="Kahneman & Tversky (1996)">{{cite journal|last1=Kahneman|first1=Daniel|last2=Tversky|first2=Amos|date=1996|title=On the reality of cognitive illusions.|journal=Psychological Review|volume=103|issue=3|pages=582–591|citeseerx=10.1.1.174.5117|doi=10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.582|pmid=8759048}}</ref>

In an incentivized experimental study, it has been shown that the conjunction fallacy decreased in those with greater cognitive ability, though it did not disappear.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Oechssler|first1=Jörg|last2=Roider|first2=Andreas|last3=Schmitz|first3=Patrick W.|date=2009|title=Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases|url=https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/21701/2/roder2.pdf|journal=Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization|volume=72|issue=1|pages=147–152|doi=10.1016/j.jebo.2009.04.018}}</ref> It has also been shown that the conjunction fallacy becomes less prevalent when subjects are allowed to consult with other subjects.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Charness|first1=Gary|last2=Karni|first2=Edi|last3=Levin|first3=Dan|date=2010|title=On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding Linda|journal=Games and Economic Behavior|volume=68|issue=2|pages=551–556|citeseerx=10.1.1.153.3553|doi=10.1016/j.geb.2009.09.003|hdl=10419/49905}}</ref>

Still, the conjunction fallacy occurs even when people are asked to make bets with real money,<ref name="SOBV_2002">{{Cite journal|last1=Sides|first1=Ashley|last2=Osherson|first2=Daniel|last3=Bonini|first3=Nicolao|last4=Viale|first4=Riccardo|date=2002|title=On the reality of the conjunction fallacy|journal=Memory & Cognition|volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=191–198 |doi=10.3758/BF03195280 |pmid=12035881 |s2cid=1650529 |doi-access=free}}</ref> and when they solve intuitive physics problems of various designs.<ref name="LPBDG_2020">{{Cite journal|last1=Ludwin-Peery|first1=Ethan|last2=Bramley|first2=Neil|last3=Davis|first3=Ernest|last4=Gureckis|first4=Todd|date=2020|title=Broken Physics: A Conjunction-Fallacy Effect in Intuitive Physical Reasoning|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797620957610|journal=Psychological Science|volume=31|issue=12|pages=1602–1611|doi=10.1177/0956797620957610 |pmid=33137265 |hdl=20.500.11820/ffe59a49-8a8b-4def-9281-baa4c7653fba |s2cid=220479849 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>