Editing Representativeness heuristic (section)

===Conjunction fallacy===
{{main|Conjunction fallacy}}
A group of undergraduates were provided with a description of Linda, modelled to be representative of an active feminist. Then participants were then asked to evaluate the probability of her being a feminist, the probability of her being a bank teller, or the probability of being both a bank teller and feminist. Probability theory dictates that the probability of being both a bank teller and feminist (the [[Logical conjunction|conjunction]] of two sets) must be less than or equal to the probability of being either a feminist or a bank teller. A conjunction cannot be more probable than one of its constituents. However, participants judged the conjunction (bank teller and feminist) as being more probable than being a bank teller alone.{{sfn|Tversky|Kahneman|1983}} Some research suggests that the conjunction error may partially be due to subtle linguistic factors, such as inexplicit wording or semantic interpretation of "probability".<ref name="Fiedler1988">{{cite journal|last1=Fiedler|first1=Klaus|title=The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors|journal=Psychological Research|volume=50|issue=2|year=1988|pages=123–129|doi=10.1007/BF00309212|s2cid=144369350}}</ref><ref name="Politzer">{{cite journal|last1=Politzer|first1=Guy|last2=Noveck|first2=Ira A.|title=Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations?|journal=Journal of Psycholinguistic Research|volume=20|issue=2|year=1991|pages=83–103|doi=10.1007/BF01067877|s2cid=143726019}}</ref> The authors argue that both logic and language use may relate to the error, and it should be more fully investigated.<ref name="Politzer" />