Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that the conjunction fallacy observed in people’s probabilistic reasoning is also to be found in their evaluations of inductive argument strength. We presented 130 participants with materials likely to produce a conjunction fallacy either by virtue of a shared categorical or a causal relationship between the categories in the argument. We also took a measure of participants’ cognitive ability. We observed conjunction fallacies overall with both sets of materials but found an association with ability for the categorical materials only. Our results have implications for accounts of individual differences in reasoning, for the relevance theory of induction, and for the recent claim that causal knowledge is important in inductive reasoning.
Article PDF
References
Alexopoulos, D. S. (1997). Reliability and validity of Heim’s AH4 in Greece.Personality & Individual Differences,22, 429–432.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual process accounts of reasoning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 454–459.
Handley, S. J., Capon, A., Beveridge, M., Dennis, I., &Evans, J. St. B. T. (2004). Working memory and inhibitory control in the development of children’s reasoning.Thinking & Reasoning,10, 175–196.
Heim, A. W. (1970).AH4 group test of intelligence [Manual]. London: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Lopez, A., Atran, S., Coley, J. D., Medin, D., &Smith, E. E. (1997). The tree of life: Universal and cultural features of folkbiological taxonomies and inductions.Cognitive Psychology,32, 251–295.
Medin, D., Coley, J. D., Storms, G., &Hayes, B. (2003). A relevance theory of induction.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 517–532.
Moutier, S., &Houdé, O. (2003). Judgement under uncertainty and conjunction fallacy inhibition training.Thinking & Reasoning,9, 185–201.
Rehder, B. (2006). When similarity and causality compete in categorybased property induction.Memory & Cognition,34, 3–16.
Rehder, B., &Hastie, R. (2001). Causal knowledge and categories: The effects of causal beliefs on categorization, induction, and similarity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 323–360.
Shafto, P., &Coley, J. D. (2003). Development of categorization and reasoning in the natural world: Novices to experts, naive similarity to ecological knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 641–649.
Shafto, P., Kemp, C., Baraff, E., Coley, J. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005).Context sensitive induction. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, Italy.
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,119, 3–22.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999).Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E., &West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects.Thinking & Reasoning,4, 289–317
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.Psychological Review,90, 293–3l5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feeney, A., Shafto, P. & Dunning, D. Who is susceptible to conjunction fallacies in category-based induction?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 884–889 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194116
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194116