Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

The Conjunction Effect: New Evidence for Robustness

Stephanie Stolarz-Fantino, Edmund Fantino, Daniel J. Zizzo and Julie Wen
The American Journal of Psychology
Vol. 116, No. 1 (Spring, 2003), pp. 15-34
DOI: 10.2307/1423333
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1423333
Page Count: 20
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($18.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Conjunction Effect: New Evidence for Robustness
Preview not available

Abstract

Five studies investigated the conjunction effect (or conjunction fallacy), in which participants report that the conjunction of two events is more rather than less likely than one of the events alone. There was no evidence that feedback or monetary reinforcement for correct answers affected students' performance on conjunction problems. Under some circumstances the context in which the conjunction problem was presented (after questions emphasizing logic or questions emphasizing opinions) affected occurrence of the effect. Location of the conjunction among the statements being rated had a significant effect. The effect occurred with or without a framing description and whether the conjunction consisted of two or three simple statements. However, statements representing the conjunction of three simple statements were (appropriately) judged less likely than those representing the conjunction of two simple statements. The substantial incidence of the effect, even without the descriptive frame and even when incentive and feedback were provided for correct answers, argues for its robustness.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[15]
    [15]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
16
    16
  • Thumbnail: Page 
17
    17
  • Thumbnail: Page 
18
    18
  • Thumbnail: Page 
19
    19
  • Thumbnail: Page 
20
    20
  • Thumbnail: Page 
21
    21
  • Thumbnail: Page 
22
    22
  • Thumbnail: Page 
23
    23
  • Thumbnail: Page 
24
    24
  • Thumbnail: Page 
25
    25
  • Thumbnail: Page 
26
    26
  • Thumbnail: Page 
27
    27
  • Thumbnail: Page 
28
    28
  • Thumbnail: Page 
29
    29
  • Thumbnail: Page 
30
    30
  • Thumbnail: Page 
31
    31
  • Thumbnail: Page 
32
    32
  • Thumbnail: Page 
33
    33
  • Thumbnail: Page 
34
    34