Abstract
The Journal of European Psychology Students (JEPS) is an open-access, double-blind, peer-reviewed journal for psychology students worldwide. JEPS is run by highly motivated European psychology students and has been publishing since 2009. By ensuring that authors are always provided with extensive feedback, JEPS gives psychology students the chance to gain experience in publishing and to improve their scientific skills. Furthermore, JEPS provides students with the opportunity to share their research and to take a first step toward a scientific career.Submissions are welcomed at any time.Register to submit your work online.Visit our blog - JEPS Bulletin - for tips on writing and more.
Highlights
Why do participants commit the conjunction fallacy, for instance by judging it more probable that Linda is a feminist bank teller than a bank teller? The conversational-implicature hypothesis (CIH) suggests that “bank teller” is interpreted as “non-feminist bank teller”
With regard to research on subjective probability judgments, it has been demonstrated in numerous studies that participants reliably commit the socalled conjunction fallacy when judging probabilities, for instance by judging it more probable that the fictitious person Linda is (a) a bank teller who is active in the feminist movement, than (b) a bank teller (e.g., Bar-Hillel, 1973; Beyth-Marom, 1981; Stolarz-Fantino, Fantino, Zizzo, & Wen, 2003; Tversky & Kahneman, 1983)
While this might explain the low baseline prevalence of the conjunction fallacy found in the recruitment sample consisting of psychology undergraduates, the recruitment sample who received digital versions of the experimental materials were explicitly asked whether or not they were familiar with the Linda problem or with the conjunction fallacy, and only the data from those participants who answered “No” to said question were included in the data analysis
Summary
Why do participants commit the conjunction fallacy, for instance by judging it more probable that Linda is a feminist bank teller than a bank teller? The conversational-implicature hypothesis (CIH) suggests that “bank teller” is interpreted as “non-feminist bank teller”. Why do participants commit the conjunction fallacy, for instance by judging it more probable that Linda is a feminist bank teller than a bank teller? Pagin: Exploring the Conjunction Fallacy bank teller who is not active in the feminist movement, and the nested-sets hypothesis, which suggests that participants fail to recognize that the set of bank tellers includes all feminist bank tellers. Both hypotheses are tested experimentally in the current study. If an agent violates the conjunction rule by judging a conjunction of events A&B as more probable than at least one of its constituent events, that agent is said to have committed the conjunction fallacy (Tversky & Kahneman, 1983)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
