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

Gary Charness, Edi Karni and Dan Levin ()

Games and Economic Behavior, 2010, vol. 68, issue 2, 551-556

Abstract: This paper reports the results of a series of experiments designed to test whether and to what extent individuals succumb to the conjunction fallacy. Using an experimental design of Tversky and Kahneman (1983), it finds that given mild incentives, the proportion of individuals who violate the conjunction principle is significantly lower than that reported by Kahneman and Tversky. Moreover, when subjects are allowed to consult with other subjects, these proportions fall dramatically, particularly when the size of the group rises from two to three. These findings cast serious doubts about the importance and robustness of such violations for the understanding of real-life economic decisions.

Keywords: Conjunction; fallacy; Representativeness; bias; Group; consultation; Incentives (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (68)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(09)00174-2
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
Working Paper: On the Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment: New Experimental Evidence Regarding Linda (2009)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:68:y:2010:i:2:p:551-556

Access Statistics for this article

Games and Economic Behavior is currently edited by E. Kalai

More articles in Games and Economic Behavior from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().