Psychological Reviewmckenzie/TverskyKahneman1983PsychRev.… · (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) suggests...

Psychological ReviewVOLUME 90 NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 1983

Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning:The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment

Amos Tversky Daniel KahnemanStanford University University of British Columbia, Vancouver,

British Columbia, Canada

Perhaps the simplest and the most basic qualitative law of probability is the con-junction rule: The probability of a conjunction, P(A&B), cannot exceed the prob-abilities of its constituents, P(A) and .P(B), because the extension (or the possibilityset) of the conjunction is included in the extension of its constituents. Judgmentsunder uncertainty, however, are often mediated by intuitive heuristics that are notbound by the conjunction rule. A conjunction can be more representative thanone of its constituents, and instances of a specific category can be easier to imagineor to retrieve than instances of a more inclusive category. The representativenessand availability heuristics therefore can make a conjunction appear more probablethan one of its constituents. This phenomenon is demonstrated in a variety ofcontexts including estimation of word frequency, personality judgment, medicalprognosis, decision under risk, suspicion of criminal acts, and political forecasting.Systematic violations of the conjunction rule are observed in judgments of laypeople and of experts in both between-subjects and within-subjects comparisons.Alternative interpretations of the conjunction fallacy are discussed and attemptsto combat it are explored.

Uncertainty is an unavoidable aspect of the the last decade (see, e.g., Einhorn & Hogarth,human condition. Many significant choices 1981; Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982;must be based on beliefs about the likelihood Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Much of this researchof such uncertain events as the guilt of a de- has compared intuitive inferences and prob-fendant, the result of an election, the future ability judgments to the rules of statistics andvalue of the dollar, the outcome of a medical the laws of-probability. The student of judg-operation, or the response of a friend. Because ment uses the probability calculus as a stan-we normally do not have adequate formal dard of comparison much as a student of per-models for computing the probabilities of such ception might compare the perceived sizes ofevents, intuitive judgment is often the only objects to their physical sizes. Unlike the cor-practical method for assessing uncertainty. rect size of objects, however, the "correct"

The question of how lay people and experts probability of events is not easily defined. Be-evaluate the probabilities of uncertain events cause individuals who have different knowl-has attracted considerable research interest in edge or who hold different beliefs must be al-

lowed to assign different probabilities to theThis research was supported by Grant NR197-058 from same event> no sing!e value can be correct for

the U.S. Office of Naval Research. We are grateful to friends all people. Furthermore, a correct probabilityand colleagues, too numerous to list by name, for their cannot always be determined even for a singleuseful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of person Outside the domain of random sam-

'Xuets for reprints should be sent to Amos Tversky, PlinS> Probability theory does not determineDepartment of Psychology, Jordan Hall, Building 420, the probabilities of uncertain events—it merelyStanford University, Stanford, California 94305. imposes constraints on the relations among

Copyright 1983 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

293

294 AMOS TVERSKY AND DANIEL KAHNEMAN

them. For example, if A is more probable thanB, then the complement of A must be lessprobable than the complement of B.

The laws of probability derive from exten-sional considerations. A probability measureis defined on a family of events and each eventis construed as a set of possibilities, such asthe three ways of getting a 10 on a throw ofa pair of dice. The probability of an eventequals the sum of the probabilities of its dis-joint outcomes. Probability theory has tradi-tionally been used to analyze repetitive chanceprocesses, but the theory has also been appliedto essentially unique events where probabilityis not reducible to the relative frequency of"favorable" outcomes. The probability that theman who sits next to you on the plane is un-married equals the probability that he is abachelor plus the probability that he is eitherdivorced or widowed. Additivity applies evenwhen probability does not have a frequentisticinterpretation and when the elementary eventsare not equiprobable.

The simplest and most fundamental qual-itative law of probability is the extension rule:If the extension of A includes the extensionof B (i.e., A D B) then P(A) > P(B). Becausethe set of possibilities associated with a con-junction A&B is included in the set of pos-sibilities associated with B, the same principlecan also be expressed by the conjunction rule/•(A&B) < P(B): A conjunction cannot bemore probable than one of its constituents.This rule holds regardless of whether A andB are independent and is valid for any prob-ability assignment on the same sample space.Furthermore, it applies not only to the stan-dard probability calculus but also to nonstan-dard models such as upper and lower prob-ability (Dempster, 1967;Suppes, 1975), belieffunction (Shafer, 1976), Baconian probability(Cohen, 1977), rational belief (Kyburg, inpress), and possibility theory (Zadeh, 1978).

In contrast to formal theories of belief, in-tuitive judgments of probability are generallynot extensional. People do not normally an-alyze daily events into exhaustive lists of pos-sibilities or evaluate compound probabilitiesby aggregating elementary ones. Instead, theycommonly use a limited number of heuristics,such as representativeness and availability(Kahneman et al., 1982). Our conception ofjudgmental heuristics is based on natural as-

sessments that are routinely carried out as partof the perception of events and the compre-hension of messages. Such natural assessmentsinclude computations of similarity and rep-resentativeness, attributions of causality, andevaluations of the availability of associationsand exemplars. These assessments, we propose,are performed even in the absence of a specifictask set, although their results are used to meettask demands as they arise. For example, themere mention of "horror movies" activatesinstances of horror movies and evokes an as-sessment of their availability. Similarly, thestatement that Woody Allen's aunt had hopedthat he would be a dentist elicits a comparisonof the character to the stereotype and an as-sessment of representativeness. It is presum-ably the mismatch between Woody Allen'spersonality and our stereotype of a dentist thatmakes the thought mildly amusing. Althoughthese assessments are not tied to the estimationof frequency or probability, they are likely toplay a dominant role when such judgmentsare required. The availability of horror moviesmay be used to answer the question, "Whatproportion of the movies produced last yearwere horror movies?", and representativenessmay control the judgment that a particularboy is more likely to be an actor than a dentist.

The term judgmental heuristic refers to astrategy-whether deliberate or not—that relieson a natural assessment to produce an esti-mation or a prediction. One of the manifes-tations of a heuristic is the relative neglect ofother considerations. For example, the resem-blance of a child to various professional ste-reotypes may be given too much weight inpredicting future vocational choice, at the ex-pense of other pertinent data such as the base-rate frequencies of occupations. Hence, theuse of judgmental heuristics gives rise to pre-dictable biases. Natural assessments can affectjudgments in other ways, for which the termheuristic is less apt. First, people sometimesmisinterpret their task and fail to distinguishthe required judgment from the natural as-sessment that the problem evokes. Second, thenatural assessment may act as an anchor towhich the required judgment is assimiliated,even when the judge does not intend to usethe one to estimate the other.

Previous discussions of errors of judgmenthave focused on deliberate strategies and on

PROBABILITY JUDGMENT 295

misinterpretations of tasks. The present treat-ment calls special attention to the processesof anchoring and assimiliation, which are oftenneither deliberate nor conscious. An examplefrom perception may be instructive: If twoobjects in a picture of a three-dimensionalscene have the same picture size, the one thatappears more distant is not only seen as"really" larger but also as larger in the picture.The natural computation of real size evidentlyinfluences the (less natural) judgment of pic-ture size, although observers are unlikely toconfuse the two values or to use the formerto estimate the latter.

The natural assessments of representative-ness and availability do not conform to theextensional logic of probability theory. In par-ticular, a conjunction can be more represen-tative than one of its constituents, and in-stances of a specific category can be easier toretrieve than instances of a more inclusive cat-egory. The following demonstration illustratesthe point. When they were given 60 sec to listseven-letter words of a specified form, studentsat the University of British Columbia (UBC)produced many more words of the form

ing than of the form «_ ,although the latter class includes the former.The average numbers of words produced inthe two conditions were 6.4 and 2.9, respec-tively, *(44) = 4.70, p < .01. In this test ofavailability, the increased efficacy of memorysearch suffices to offset the reduced extensionof the target class.

Our treatment of the availability heuristic(Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) suggests thatthe differential availability of ing words andof _ n _ words should be reflected in judgmentsof frequency. The following questions test thisprediction.

In four pages of a novel (about 2,000 words), how manywords would you expect to find that have the form

i n g (seven-letter words that end with "ing")? In-dicate your best estimate by circling one of the valuesbelow:

0 1-2 3-4 5-7 8-10 11-15 16+.

A second version of the question requestedestimates for words of the form n _.The median estimates were 13.4 for ing words(n = 52), and 4.7 for _ n _ words (n = 53, p <.01, by median test), contrary to the extensionrule. Similar results were obtained for the

comparison of words of the form / ywith words of the form / _; the me-dian estimates were 8.8 and 4.4, respectively.

This example illustrates the structure of thestudies reported in this article. We constructedproblems in which a reduction of extensionwas associated with an increase in availabilityor representativeness, and we tested the con-junction rule in judgments of frequency orprobability. In the next section we discuss therepresentativeness heuristic and contrast itwith the conjunction rule in the context ofperson perception. The third section describesconjunction fallacies in medical prognoses,sports forecasting, and choice among bets. Inthe fourth section we investigate probabilityjudgments for conjunctions of causes and ef-fects and describe conjunction errors in sce-narios of future events. Manipulations thatenable respondents to resist the conjunctionfallacy are explored in the fifth section, andthe implications of the results are discussedin the last section.

Representative Conjunctions

Modern research on categorization of ob-jects and events (Mervis & Rosch, 1981; Rosch,1978; Smith & Medin, 1981) has shown thatinformation is commonly stored and processedin relation to mental models, such as proto-types and schemata. It is therefore natural andeconomical for the probability of an event tobe evaluated by the degree to which that eventis representative of an appropriate mentalmodel (Kahneman & Tversky, 1972, 1973;Tversky & Kahneman, 1971, 1982). Becausemany of the results reported here are attributedto this heuristic, we first briefly analyze theconcept of representativeness and illustrate itsrole in probability judgment.

Representativeness is an assessment of thedegree of correspondence between a sampleand a population, an instance and a category,an act and an actor or, more generally, betweenan outcome and a model. The model may referto a person, a coin, or the world economy, andthe respective outcomes could be marital sta-tus, a sequence of heads and tails, or the cur-rent price of gold. Representativeness can beinvestigated empirically by asking people, forexample, which of two sequences of heads andtails is more representative of a fair coin or

296 AMOS TVERSKY AND DANIEL K.AHNEMAN

which of two professions is more representativeof a given personality. This relation differs fromother notions of proximity in that it is dis-tinctly directional. It is natural to describe asample as more or less representative of itsparent population or a species (e.g., robin,penguin) as more or less representative of asuperordinate category (e.g., bird). It is awk-ward to describe a population as representativeof a sample or a category as representative ofan instance.

When the model and the outcomes are de-scribed in the same terms, representativenessis reducible to similarity. Because a sampleand a population, for example, can be de-scribed by the same attributes (e.g., centraltendency and variability), the sample appearsrepresentative if its salient statistics match thecorresponding parameters of the population.In the same manner, a person seems repre-sentative of a social group if his or her per-sonality resembles the stereotypical memberof that group. Representativeness, however, isnot always reducible to similarity; it can alsoreflect causal and correlational beliefs (see, e.g.,Chapman & Chapman, 1967; Jennings, Am-abile, & Ross, 1982; Nisbett & Ross, 1980).A particular act (e.g., suicide) is representativeof a person because we attribute to the actora disposition to commit the act, not becausethe act resembles the person. Thus, an outcomeis representative of a model if the salient fea-tures match or if the model has a propensityto produce the outcome.

Representativeness tends to covary withfrequency: Common instances and frequentevents are generally more representative thanunusual instances and rare; events. The rep-resentative summer day is warm and sunny,the representative American family has twochildren, and the representative height of anadult male is about 5 feet 10 inches. However,there are notable circumstances where rep-resentativeness is at variance with both actualand perceived frequency. First, a highly specificoutcome can be representative but infrequent.Consider a numerical variable, such as weight,that has a unimodal frequency distribution ina given population. A narrow interval near themode of the distribution is generally morerepresentative of the population than a widerinterval near the tail. For example, 68% of agroup of Stanford University undergraduates

(jV = 105) stated that it is more representativefor a female Stanford student "to weigh be-tween 124 and 125 pounds" than "to weighmore than 135 pounds". On the other hand,78% of a different group (N = 102) stated thatamong female Stanford students there aremore "women who weigh more than 135pounds" than "women who weigh between124 and 125 pounds." Thus, the narrow modalinterval (124-125 pounds) was judged to bemore representative but less frequent than thebroad tail interval (above 135 pounds).

Second, an attribute is representative of aclass if it is very diagnostic, that is, if the rel-ative frequency of this attribute is much higherin that class than in a relevant reference class.For example, 65% of the subjects (N = 105)stated that it is more representative for a Hol-lywood actress "to be divorced more than 4times" than "to vote Democratic." Multipledivorce is diagnostic of Hollywood actressesbecause it is part of the stereotype that theincidence of divorce is higher among Holly-wood actresses than among other women.However, 83% of a different group (N = 102)stated that, among Hollywood actresses, thereare more "women who vote Democratic" than"women who are divorced more than 4 times."Thus, the more diagnostic attribute was judgedto be more representative but less frequentthan an attribute (voting Democratic) of lowerdiagnosticity. Third, an unrepresentative in-stance of a category can be fairly representativeof a superordinate category. For example,chicken is a worse exemplar of a bird than ofan animal, and rice is an unrepresentative veg-etable, although it is a representative food.

The preceding observations indicate thatrepresentativeness is nonextensional: It is notdetermined by frequency, and it is not boundby class inclusion. Consequently, the test ofthe conjunction rule in probability judgmentsoffers the sharpest contrast between the ex-tensional logic of probability theory and thepsychological principles of representativeness.Our first set of studies of the conjunction rulewere conducted in 1974, using occupation andpolitical affiliation as target attributes to bepredicted singly or in conjunction from briefpersonality sketches (see Tversky & Kahne-man, 1982, for a brief summary). The studiesdescribed in the present section replicate andextend our earlier work. We used the following


personality sketches of two fictitious individ-uals, Bill and Linda, followed by a set of oc-cupations and avocations associated with eachof them.Bill is 34 years old. He is intelligent, but unimaginative,compulsive, and generally lifeless. In school, he was strongin mathematics but weak in social studies and humanities.

Bill is a physician who plays poker for a hobby.Bill is an architect.Bill is an accountant. (A)Bill plays jazz for a hobby. (J)Bill surfs for a hobby.Bill is a reporter.Bill is an accountant who plays jazz for a hobby. (A&J)Bill climbs mountains for a hobby.

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright.She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeplyconcerned with issues of discrimination and social justice,and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.

Linda is a teacher in elementary school.Linda works in a bookstore and takes Yoga classes.Linda is active in the feminist movement. (F)Linda is a psychiatric social worker.Linda is a member of the League of Women Voters.Linda is a bank teller. (T)Linda is an insurance salesperson.Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist move-ment. (T&F)

As the reader has probably guessed, the de-scription of Bill was constructed to be rep-resentative of an accountant (A) and unrepre-sentative of a person who plays jazz for a hobby(J). The description of Linda was constructedto be representative of an active feminist (F)and unrepresentative of a bank teller (T). Wealso expected the ratings of representativenessto be higher for the classes defined by a con-junction of attributes (A&J for Bill, T&F forLinda) than for the less representative con-stituent of each conjunction (J and T, respec-tively).

A group of 88 undergraduates at UBCranked the eight statements associated witheach description by "the degree to which Bill(Linda) resembles the typical member of thatclass." The results confirmed our expectations.The percentages of respondents who displayedthe predicted order (A > A&J > J for Bill;F > T&F > T for Linda) were 87% and 85%,respectively. This finding is neither surprisingnor objectionable. If, like similarity and pro-totypicality, representativeness depends onboth common and distinctive features (Tver-

sky, 1977), it should be enhanced by the ad-dition of shared features. Adding eyebrows toa schematic face makes it more similar to an-other schematic face with eyebrows (Gati &Tversky, 1982). Analogously, the addition offeminism to the profession of bank teller im-proves the match of Linda's current activitiesto her personality. More surprising and lessacceptable is the finding that the great majorityof subjects also rank the conjunctions (A&Jand T&F) as more probable than their lessrepresentative constituents (J and T). The fol-lowing sections describe and analyze this phe-nomenon.

Indirect and Subtle Tests

Experimental tests of the conjunction rulecan be divided into three types: indirect tests,direct-subtle tests and direct-transparent tests.In the indirect tests, one group of subjectsevaluates the probability of the conjunction,and another group of subjects evaluates theprobability of its constituents. No subject isrequired to compare a conjunction (e.g.,"Linda is a bank teller and a feminist") to itsconstituents. In the direct-subtle tests, subjectscompare the conjunction to its less represen-tative constituent, but the inclusion relationbetween the events is not emphasized. In thedirect-transparent tests, the subjects evaluateor compare the probabilities of the conjunctionand its constituent in a format that highlightsthe relation between them.

The three experimental procedures inves-tigate different hypotheses. The indirect pro-cedure tests whether probability judgmentsconform to the conjunction rule; the direct-subtle procedure tests whether people will takeadvantage of an opportunity to compare thecritical events; the direct-transparent proce-dure tests whether people will obey the con-junction rule when they are compelled tocompare the critical events. This sequence of 'tests also describes the course of our investi-gation, which began with the observation ofviolations of the conjunction rule in indirecttests and proceeded—to our increasing sur-prise—to the finding of stubborn failures ofthat rule in several direct-transparent tests.

Three groups of respondents took part inthe main study. The statistically naive groupconsisted of undergraduate students at Stan-


ford University and UBC who had no back-ground in probability or statistics. The in-formed group consisted of first-year graduatestudents in psychology and in education andof medical students at Stanford who were allfamiliar with the basic concepts of probabilityafter one or more courses in statistics. Thesophisticated group consisted of doctoral stu-dents in the decision science program of theStanford Business School who had taken sev-eral advanced courses in probability, statistics,and decision theory.

Subjects in the main study received oneproblem (either Bill or Linda) first in the for-mat of a direct test. They were asked to rankall eight statements associated with that prob-lem (including the conjunction, its separateconstituents, and five filler items) accordingto their probability, using 1 for the most prob-able and 8 for the least probable. The subjectsthen received the remaining problem in theformat of an indirect test in which the list ofalternatives included either the conjunction orits separate constituents. The same five filleritems were used in both the direct and theindirect versions of each problem.

Table 1 presents the average ranks (R) ofthe conjunction R(A&B) and of its less rep-resentative constituents R(B), relative to theset of five filler items. The percentage of vi-olations of the conjunction rule in the directtest is denoted by V. The results can be sum-marized as follows: (a) the conjunction isranked higher than its less likely constituentsin all 12 comparisons, (b) there is no consistentdifference between the ranks of the alternatives

in the direct and indirect tests, (c) the overallincidence of violations of the conjunction rulein direct tests is 88%, which virtually coincideswith the incidence of the corresponding pat-tern in judgments of representativeness, and(d) there is no effect of statistical sophisticationin either indirect or direct tests.

The violation of the conjunction rule in adirect comparison of B to A&B is called theconjunction fallacy. Violations inferred frombetween-subjects comparisons are called con-junction errors. Perhaps the most surprisingaspect of Table 1 is the lack of any differencebetween indirect and direct tests. We had ex-pected the conjunction to be judged moreprobable than the less likely of its constituentsin an indirect test, in accord with the patternobserved in judgments of representativeness.However, we also expected that even naive re-spondents would notice the repetition of someattributes, alone and in conjunction with oth-ers, and that they would then apply the con-junction rule and rank the conjunction belowits constituents. This expectation was violated,not only by statistically naive undergraduatesbut even by highly sophisticated respondents.In both direct and indirect tests, the subjectsapparently ranked the outcomes by the degreeto which Bill (or Linda) matched the respectivestereotypes. The correlation between the meanranks of probability and representativeness was.96 for Bill and .98 for Linda. Does the con-junction rule hold when the relation of inclu-sion is made highly transparent? The studiesdescribed in the next section abandon all sub-tlety in an effort to compel the subjects to

Table 1Tests of the Conjunction Rule in Likelihood Rankings

Subjects

Direct test Indirect test

Problem R (A & B) R(B) N R (A & B) R (B) Total N

Naive

Informed

Sophisticated

BillLinda

BillLinda

BillLinda

9289

8690

8385

2.53.3

2.63.0

2.63.2

4.54.4

4.54.3

4.74.3

9488

5653

3232

2.33.3

2.42.9

2.53.1

4.54.4

4.23.9

4.64.3

8886

5655

3232

Note. V = percentage of violations of the conjunction rule; R (A & B) and R (B) = mean rank assigned to A & Band to B, respectively; N = number of subjects in the direct test; Total N = total number of subjects in the indirecttest, who were about equally divided between the two groups.


detect and appreciate the inclusion relationbetween the target events.

Transparent Tests

This section describes a series of increasinglydesperate manipulations designed to inducesubjects to obey the conjunction rule. We firstpresented the description of Linda to a groupof 142 undergraduates at UBC and asked themto check which of two alternatives was moreprobable:Linda is a bank teller. (T)

Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist move-ment. (T&F)

The order of alternatives was inverted for onehalf of the subjects, but this manipulation hadno effect. Overall, 85% of respondents indi-cated that T&F was more probable than T, ina flagrant violation of the conjunction rule.

Surprised by the finding, we searched foralternative interpretations of the subjects' re-sponses. Perhaps the subjects found the ques-tion too trivial to be taken literally and con-sequently interpreted the inclusive statementT as T&not-F; that is, "Linda is a bank tellerand is not a feminist." In such a reading, ofcourse, the observed judgments would not vi-olate the conjunction rule. To test this inter-pretation, we asked a new group of subjects(N = 119) to assess the probability of T andof T&F on a 9-point scale ranging from 1(extremely unlikely) to 9 (extremely likely).Because it is sensible to rate probabilities evenwhen one of the events includes the other, therewas no reason for respondents to interpret Tas T&not-F. The pattern of responses obtainedwith the new version was the same as before.The mean ratings of probability were 3.5 forT and 5.6 for T&F, and 82% of subjects as-signed a higher rating to T&F than they didtoT.

Although subjects do not spontaneously ap-ply the conjunction rule, perhaps they can rec-ognize its validity. We presented another groupof UBC undergraduates with the descriptionof Linda followed by the two statements, Tand T&F, and asked them to indicate whichof the following two arguments they foundmore convincing.Argument 1. Linda is more likely to be a bank teller thanshe is to be a feminist bank teller, because every feminist

bank teller is a bank teller, but some women bank tellersare not feminists, and Linda could be one of them.

Argument 2. Linda is more likely to be a feminist bankteller than she is likely to be a bank teller, because sheresembles an active feminist more than she resembles abank teller.

The majority of subjects (65%, n = 58) chosethe invalid resemblance argument (Argument2) over the valid extensional argument (Ar-gument 1). Thus, a deliberate attempt to in-duce a reflective attitude did not eliminate theappeal of the representativeness heuristic.

We made a further effort to clarify the in-clusive nature of the event T by representingit as a disjunction. (Note that the conjunctionrule can also be expressed as a disjunction ruleP(A or B) ̂ P(B)). The description of Lindawas used again, with a 9-point rating scale forjudgments of probability, but the statement Twas replaced byLinda is a bank teller whether or not she is active in thefeminist movement. (T*)

This formulation emphasizes the inclusion ofT&F in T. Despite the transparent relationbetween the statements, the mean ratings oflikelihood were 5.1 for T&F and 3.8 for T*(p < .01, by t test). Furthermore, 57% of thesubjects (n = 75) committed the conjunctionfallacy by rating T&F higher than T*, andonly 16% gave a lower rating to T&F thantoT*.

The violations of the conjunction rule indirect comparisons of T&F to T* are re-markable because the extension of "Linda isa bank teller whether or not she is active inthe feminist movement" clearly includes theextension of "Linda is a bank teller and isactive in the feminist movement." Many sub-jects evidently failed to draw extensional in-ferences from the phrase "whether or not,"which may have been taken to indicate a weakdisposition. This interpretation was supportedby a between-subjects comparison, in whichdifferent subjects evaluated T, T*, and T&Fon a 9-point scale after evaluating the commonfiller statement, "Linda is a psychiatric socialworker." The average ratings were 3.3 for T,3.9 for T*, and 4.5 for T&F, with each meansignificantly different from both others. Thestatements T and T* are of course extension-ally equivalent, but they are assigned differentprobabilities. Because feminism fits Linda, the


mere mention of this attribute makes T* morelikely than T, and a definite commitment toit makes the probability of T&F even higher!

Modest success in loosening the grip of theconjunction fallacy was achieved by askingsubjects to choose whether to bet on T or onT&F. The subjects were given Linda's descrip-tion, with the following instruction:

If you could win $10 by betting on an event, which of thefollowing would you choose to bet on? (Check one)

The percentage of violations of the conjunctionrule in this task was "only" 56% (n - 60),much too high for comfort but substantiallylower than the typical value for comparisonsof the two events in terms of probability. Weconjecture that the betting context draws at-tention to the conditions in which one betpays off whereas the other does not, allowingsome subjects to discover that a bet on T dom-inates a bet on T&F.

The respondents in the studies described inthis section were statistically naive undergrad-uates at UBC. Does statistical education erad-icate the fallacy? To answer this question, 64graduate students of social sciences at the Uni-versity of California, Berkeley and at StanfordUniversity, all with credit for several statisticscourses, were given the rating-scale version ofthe direct test of the conjunction rule for theLinda problem. For the first time in this seriesof studies, the mean rating for T&F (3.5) waslower than the rating assigned to T (3.8), andonly 36% of respondents committed the fallacy.Thus, statistical sophistication produced amajority who conformed to the conjunctionrule in a transparent test, although the inci-dence of violations was fairly high even in thisgroup of intelligent and sophisticated respon-dents.

Elsewhere (Kahneman & Tversky, 1982a),we distinguished between positive and negativeaccounts of judgments and preferences thatviolate normative rules. A positive accountfocuses on the factors that produce a particularresponse; a negative account seeks to explainwhy the correct response was not made. Thepositive analysis of the Bill and Linda problemsinvokes the representativeness heuristic. Thestubborn persistence of the conjunction fallacyin highly transparent problems, however, lendsspecial interest to the characteristic questionof a negative analysis: Why do intelligent and

reasonably well-educated people fail to rec-ognize the applicability of the conjunction rulein transparent problems? Postexperimentalinterviews and class discussions with manysubjects shed some light on this question. Naiveas well as sophisticated subjects generally no-ticed the nesting of the target events in thedirect-transparent test, but the naive, unlikethe sophisticated, did not appreciate its sig-nificance for probability assessment. On theother hand, most naive subjects did not at-tempt to defend their responses. As one subjectsaid after acknowledging the validity of theconjunction rule, "I thought you only askedfor my opinion."

The inverviews and the results of the directtransparent tests indicate that naive subjectsdo not spontaneously treat the conjunctionrule as decisive. Their attitude is reminiscentof children's responses in a Piagetian experi-ment. The child in the preconservation stageis not altogether blind to arguments based onconservation of volume and typically expectsquantity to be conserved (Bruner, 1966). Whatthe child fails to see is that the conservationargument is decisive and should overrule theperceptual impression that the tall containerholds more water than the short one. Similarly,naive subjects generally endorse the conjunc-tion rule in the abstract, but their applicationof this rule to the Linda problem is blockedby the compelling impression that T&F ismore representative of her than T is. In thiscontext, the adult subjects reason as if theyhad not reached the stage of formal operations.A full understanding of a principle of physics,logic, or statistics requires knowledge of theconditions under which it prevails over con-flicting arguments, such as the height of theliquid in a container or the representativenessof an outcome. The recognition of the decisivenature of rules distinguishes different devel-opmental stages in studies of conservation; italso distinguishes different levels of statisticalsophistication in the present series of studies.

More Representative Conjunctions

The preceding studies revealed massive vi-olations of the conjunction rule in the domainof person perception and social stereotypes.Does the conjunction rule fare better in otherareas of judgment? Does it hold when the un-


certainty regarding the target events is attrib-uted to chance rather than to partial igno-rance? Does expertise in the relevant subjectmatter protect against the conjunction fallacy?Do financial incentives help respondents seethe light? The following studies were designedto answer these questions.

Medical Judgment

In this study we asked practicing physiciansto make intuitive predictions on the basis ofclinical evidence.1 We chose to study medicaljudgment because physicians possess expertknowledge and because intuitive judgmentsoften play an important role in medical de-cision making. Two groups of physicians tookpart in the study. The first group consisted of37 internists from the greater Boston area whowere taking a postgraduate course at HarvardUniversity. The second group consisted of 66internists with admitting privileges in the NewEngland Medical Center. They were givenproblems of the following type:A 55-year-old woman had pulmonary embolism docu-mented angiographically 10 days after a cholecystectomy.

Please rank order the following in terms of the probabilitythat they will be among the conditions experienced by thepatient (use 1 for the most likely and 6 for the least likely).Naturally, the patient could experience more than one ofthese conditions.

dyspnea and hemiparesis syncope and tachycardia(A&B)

hemiparesis (B)calf pain

pleuritic chest pain hemoptysis

The symptoms listed for each problem in-cluded one, denoted B, which was judged byour consulting physicians to be nonrepresen-tative of the patient's condition, and the con-junction of B with another highly represen-tative symptom denoted A. In the above ex-ample of pulmonary embolism (blood clotsin the lung), dyspnea (shortness of breath) isa typical symptom, whereas hemiparesis (par-tial paralysis) is very atypical. Each participantfirst received three (or two) problems in theindirect format, where the list included eitherB or the conjunction A&B, but not both, fol-lowed by two (or three) problems in the directformat illustrated above. The design was bal-anced so that each problem appeared aboutan equal number of times in each format. Anindependent group of 32 physicians from

Stanford University were asked to rank eachlist of symptoms "by the degree to which theyare representative of the clinical condition ofthe patient."

The design was essentially the same as inthe Bill and Linda study. The results of thetwo experiments were also very similar. Thecorrelation between mean ratings by proba-bility and by representativeness exceeded .95in all five problems. For every one of the fiveproblems, the conjunction of an unlikelysymptom with a likely one was judged moreprobable than the less likely constituent. Theranking of symptoms was the same in directand indirect tests: The overall mean ranks ofA&B and of B, respectively, were 2.7 and 4.6in the direct tests and 2.8 and 4.3 in the indirecttests. The incidence of violations of the con-junction rule in direct tests ranged from 73%to 100%, with an average of 91%. Evidently,substantive expertise does not displace rep-resentativeness and does not prevent con-junction errors.

Can the results be interpreted without im-puting to these experts a consistent violationof the conjunction rule? The instructions usedin the present study were especially designedto eliminate the interpretation of Symptom Bas an exhaustive description of the relevantfacts, which would imply the absence ofSymptom A. Participants were instructed torank symptoms in terms of the probability"that they will be among the conditions ex-perienced by the patient." They were also re-minded that "the patient could experiencemore than one of these conditions." To testthe effect of these instructions, the followingquestion was included at the end of the ques-tionnaire:

In assessing the probability that the patient described hasa particular symptom X, did you assume that (check one)

X is the only symptom experienced by the patient?

X is among the symptoms experienced by the patient?

Sixty of the 62 physicians who were askedthis question checked the second answer, re-

1 We are grateful to Barbara J. McNeil, Harvard MedicalSchool, Stephen G. Pauker, Tufts University School ofMedicine, and Edward Baer, Stanford Medical School, fortheir help in the construction of the clinical problems andin the collection of the data.


jecting an interpretation of events that couldhave justified an apparent violation of the con-junction rule.

An additional group of 24 physicians,mostly residents at Stanford Hospital, partic-ipated in a group discussion in which theywere confronted with their conjunction fal-lacies in the same questionnaire. The respon-dents did not defend their answers, althoughsome references were made to "the nature ofclinical experience." Most participants ap-peared surprised and dismayed to have madean elementary error of reasoning. Because theconjunction fallacy is easy to expose, peoplewho committed it are left with the feeling thatthey should have known better.

Predicting Wimbledon

The uncertainty encountered in the pre-vious studies regarding the prognosis of a pa-tient or the occupation of a person is normallyattributed to incomplete knowledge ratherthan to the operation of a chance process. Re-cent studies of inductive reasoning about dailyevents, conducted by Nisbett, Krantz, Jepson,and Kunda (1983), indicated that statisticalprinciples (e.g., the law of large numbers) arecommonly applied in domains such as sportsand gambling, which include a random ele-ment. The next two studies test the conjunc-tion rule in predictions of the outcomes of asports event and of a game of chance, wherethe random aspect of the process is particularlysalient.

A group of 93 subjects, recruited throughan advertisement in the University of Oregonnewspaper, were presented with the followingproblem in October 1980:

Suppose Bjorn Borg reaches the Wimbledon finals in 1981.Please rank order the following outcomes from most toleast likely.

A. Borg will win the match (1.7)B. Borg will lose the first set (2.7)C. Borg will lose the first set but win the match (2.2)D. Borg will win the first set but lose the match (3.5)

The average rank of each outcome (1 = mostprobable, 2 = second most probable, etc.) isgiven in parentheses. The outcomes were cho-sen to represent different levels of strength forthe player, Borg, with A indicating the higheststrength; C, a rather lower level because it in-

dicates a weakness in the first set; B, lower stillbecause it only mentions this weakness; andD, lowest of all.

After winning his fifth Wimbledon title in1980, Borg seemed extremely strong. Conse-quently, we hypothesized that Outcome Cwould be judged more probable than OutcomeB, contrary to the conjunction rule, becauseC represents a better performance for Borgthan does B. The mean rankings indicate thatthis hypothesis was confirmed; 72% of the re-spondents assigned a higher rank to C than toB, violating the conjunction rule in a directtest.

Is it possible that the subjects interpretedthe target events in a nonextensional mannerthat could justify or explain the observedranking? It is well-known that connectives(e.g., and, or, if) are often used in ordinarylanguage in ways that depart from their logicaldefinitions. Perhaps the respondents inter-preted the conjunction (A and B) as a dis-junction (A or B), an implication, (A impliesB), or a conditional statement (A if B). Alter-natively, the event B could be interpreted inthe presence of the conjunction as B and not-A. To investigate these possibilities, we pre-sented to another group of 56 naive subjectsat Stanford University the hypothetical resultsof the relevant tennis match, coded as se-quences of wins and losses. For example, thesequence LWWLW denotes a five-set match inwhich Borg lost (L) the first and the third setsbut won (W) the other sets and the match. Foreach sequence the subjects were asked to ex-amine the four target events of the originalBorg problem and to indicate, by marking +or —, whether the given sequence was consis-tent or inconsistent with each of the events.

With very few exceptions, all of the subjectsmarked the sequences according to the stan-dard (extensional) interpretation of the targetevents. A sequence was judged consistent withthe conjunction "Borg will lose the first setbut win the match" when both constituentswere satisfied (e.g., LWWLW) but not when ei-ther one or both constituents failed. Evidently,these subjects did not interpret the conjunctionas an implication, a conditional statement, ora disjunction. Furthermore, both LWWLW andLWLWL were judged consistent with the inclu-sive event "Borg will lose the first set," contraryto the hypothesis that the inclusive event B is


understood in the context of the other eventsas "Borg will lose the first set and the match."The classification of sequences therefore in-dicated little or no ambiguity regarding theextension of the target events. In particular,all sequences that were classified as instancesof B&A were also classified as instances of B,but some sequences that were classified as in-stances of B were judged inconsistent withB&A, in accord with the standard interpre-tation in which the conjunction rule shouldbe satisfied.

Another possible interpretation of the con-junction error maintains that instead of as-sessing the probability P(B/E) of HypothesisB (e.g., that Linda is a bank teller) in light ofevidence E (Linda's personality), subjects as-sess the inverse probability P(E/B) of the ev-idence given to the hypothesis in question. Be-cause P(E/A&B) may well exceed P(E/B), thesubjects' responses could be justified under thisinterpretation. Whatever plausibility this ac-count may have in the case of Linda, it issurely inapplicable to the present study whereit makes no sense to assess the conditionalprobability that Borg will reach the finals giventhe outcome of the final match.

Risky Choice

If the conjunction fallacy cannot be justifiedby a reinterpretation of the target events, canit be rationalized by a nonstandard conceptionof probability? On this hypothesis, represen-tativeness is treated as a legitimate nonexten-sional interpretation of probability rather thanas a fallible heuristic. The conjunction fallacy,then, may be viewed as a misunderstandingregarding the meaning of the word probability.To investigate this hypothesis we tested theconjunction rule in the following decisionproblem, which provides an incentive tochoose the most probable event, although theword probability is not mentioned.Consider a regular six-sided die with four green faces andtwo red faces. The die will be rolled 20 times and thesequence of greens (G) and reds (R) will be recorded. Youare asked to select one sequence, from a set of three, andyou will win $25 if the sequence you chose appears onsuccessive rolls of the die. Please check the sequence ofgreens and reds on which you prefer to bet.

1. RORRR

2. GRGRRR

3. ORRRRR

Note that Sequence 1 can be obtained fromSequence 2 by deleting the first G. By the con-junction rule, therefore, Sequence 1 must bemore probable than Sequence 2. Note alsothat all three sequences are rather unrepre-sentative of the die because they contain moreRs than Gs. However, Sequence 2 appears tobe an improvement over Sequence 1 becauseit contains a higher proportion of the morelikely color. A group of 50 respondents wereasked to rank the events by the degree to whichthey are representative of the die; 88% rankedSequence 2 highest and Sequence 3 low-est. Thus, Sequence 2 is favored by repre-sentativeness, although it is dominated by Se-quence 1.

A total of 260 students at UBC and StanfordUniversity were given the choice version of theproblem. There were no significant differencesbetween the populations, and their results werepooled. The subjects were run in groups of 30to 50 in a classroom setting. About one halfof the subjects (N = 125) actually played thegamble with real payoffs. The choice was hy-pothetical for the other subjects. The per-centages of subjects who chose the dominatedoption of Sequence 2 were 65% with real pay-offs and 62% in the hypothetical format. Only2% of the subjects in both groups chose Se-quence 3.

To facilitate the discovery of the relationbetween the two critical sequences, we pre-sented a new group of 59 subjects with a (hy-pothetical) choice problem in which Sequence2 was replaced by RGRRRG. This new sequencewas preferred over Sequence 1, RGRRR, by63% of the respondents, although the first fiveelements of the two sequences were identical.These results suggest that subjects coded eachsequence in terms of the proportion of Gs andRs and ranked the sequences by the discrep-ancy between the proportions in the two se-quences (1/5 and 1/3) and the expected valueof 2/3.

It is apparent from these results that con-junction errors are not restricted to misun-derstandings of the word probability. Our sub-jects followed the representativeness heuristiceven when the word was not mentioned andeven in choices involving substantial payoffs.The results further show that the conjunctionfallacy is not restricted to esoteric interpre-tations of the connective and, because that


connective was also absent from the problem.The present test of the conjunction rule wasdirect, in the sense denned earlier, because thesubjects were required to compare two events,one of which included the other. However, in-formal interviews with some of the respondentssuggest that the test was subtle: The relationof inclusion between Sequences 1 and 2 wasapparently noted by only a few of the subjects.Evidently, people are not attuned to the de-tection of nesting among events, even whenthese relations are clearly displayed.

Suppose that the relation of dominance be-tween Sequences 1 and 2 is called to the sub-jects' attention. Do they immediately appre-ciate its force and treat it as a decisive argumentfor Sequence 1? The original choice problem(without Sequence 3) was presented to a newgroup of 88 subjects at Stanford University.These subjects, however, were not asked toselect the sequence on which they preferredto bet but only to indicate which of the fol-lowing two arguments, if any, they found cor-rect.

Argument 1: The first sequence (RGRRR) is more probablethan the second (GRGRRR) because the second sequenceis the same as the first with an additional G at the beginning.Hence, every time the second sequence occurs, the firstsequence must also occur. Consequently, you can win onthe first and lose on the second, but you can never winon the second and lose on the first.

Argument 2: The second sequence (GRGRRR) is moreprobable than the first (RGRRR) because the proportionsof R and G in the second sequence are closer than thoseof the first sequence to the expected proportions of R andG for a die with four green and two red faces.

Most of the subjects (76%) chose the validextensional argument over an argument thatformulates the intuition of representativeness.Recall that a similar argument in the case ofLinda was much less effective in combatingthe conjunction fallacy. The success of thepresent manipulation can be attributed to thecombination of a chance setup and a gamblingtask, which promotes extensional reasoningby emphasizing the conditions under whichthe bets will pay off.

Fallacies and Misunderstandings

We have described violations of the con-junction rule in direct tests as a fallacy. Theterm fallacy is used here as a psychologicalhypothesis, not as an evaluative epithet. A

judgment is appropriately labeled a fallacywhen most of the people who make it are dis-posed, after suitable explanation, to accept thefollowing propositions: (a) They made a non-trivial error, which they would probably haverepeated in similar problems, (b) the error wasconceptual, not merely verbal or technical, and(c) they should have known the correct answeror a procedure to find it. Alternatively, thesame judgment could be described as a failureof communication if the subject misunder-stands the question or if the experimenter mis-interprets the answer. Subjects who have erredbecause of a misunderstanding are likely toreject the propositions listed above and toclaim (as students often do after an exami-nation) that they knew the correct answer allalong, and that their error, if any, was verbalor technical rather than conceptual.

A psychological analysis should apply in-terpretive charity and should avoid treatinggenuine misunderstandings as if they were fal-lacies. It should also avoid the temptation torationalize any error of judgment by ad hocinterpretations that the respondents themselveswould not endorse. The dividing line betweenfallacies and misunderstandings, however, isnot always clear. In one of our earlier studies,for example, most respondents stated that aparticular description is more likely to belongto a physical education teacher than to ateacher. Strictly speaking, the latter categoryincludes the former, but it could be arguedthat teacher was understood in this problemin a sense that excludes physical educationteacher, much as animal is often used in asense that excludes insects. Hence, it was un-clear whether the apparent violation of theextension rule in this problem should be de-scribed as a fallacy or as a misunderstanding.A special effort was made in the present studiesto avoid ambiguity by denning the criticalevent as an intersection of well-defined classes,such as bank tellers and feminists. The com-ments of the respondents in postexperimentaldiscussions supported the conclusion that theobserved violations of the conjunction rule indirect tests are genuine fallacies, not just mis-understandings.

Causal Conjunctions

The problems discussed in previous sectionsincluded three elements: a causal model M


(Linda's personality); a basic target event B,which is unrepresentative of M (she is a bankteller); and an added event A, which is highlyrepresentative of the model M (she is a fem-inist). In these problems, the model M is pos-itively associated with A and is negatively as-sociated with B. This structure, called theM —> A paradigm, is depicted on the left-handside of Figure 1. We found that when the sketchof Linda's personality was omitted and shewas identified merely as a "31-year-oldwoman," almost all respondents obeyed theconjunction rule and ranked the conjunction(bank teller and active feminist) as less prob-able than its constituents. The conjunction er-ror in the original problem is therefore at-tributable to the relation between M and A,not to the relation between A and B.

The conjunction fallacy was common in theLinda problem despite the fact that the ste-reotypes of bank teller and feminist are mildlyincompatible. When the constituents of a con-junction are highly incompatible, the incidenceof conjunction errors is greatly reduced. Forexample, the conjunction "Bill is bored bymusic and plays jazz for a hobby" was judgedas less probable (and less representative) thanits constituents, although "bored by music"was perceived as a probable (and represen-tative) attribute of Bill. Quite reasonably, theincompatibility of the two attributes reducedthe judged probability of their conjunction.

The effect of compatibility on the evaluationof conjunctions is not limited to near contra-dictions. For instance, it is more representative(as well as more probable) for a student to bein the upper half of the class in both mathe-matics and physics or to be in the lower halfof the class in both fields than to be in theupper half in one field and in the lower halfin the other. Such observations imply that thejudged probability (or representativeness) ofa conjunction cannot be computed as a func-tion (e.g., product, sum, minimum, weightedaverage) of the scale values of its constituents.This conclusion excludes a large class of formalmodels that ignore the relation between theconstituents of a conjunction. The viability ofsuch models of conjunctive concepts has gen-erated a spirited debate (Jones, 1982; Osherson& Smith, 1981, 1982; Zadeh, 1982; Lakoff,Note 1).

The preceding discussion suggests a newformal structure, called the A —» B paradigm,

THE M —APARADIGM

THE A—BPARADIGM

Figure 1. Schematic representation of two experimentalparadigms used to test the conjunction rule. (Solid andbroken arrows denote strong positive and negative asso-ciation, respectively, between the model M, the basic targetB, and the added target A.)

which is depicted on the right-hand side ofFigure 1. Conjunction errors occur in theA —> B paradigm because of the direct con-nection between A and B, although the addedevent, A, is not particularly representative ofthe model, M. In this section of the article weinvestigate problems in which the added event,A, provides a plausible cause or motive forthe occurrence of B. Our hypothesis is thatthe strength of the causal link, which has beenshown in previous work to bias judgments ofconditional probability (Tversky & Kahne-man, 1980), will also bias judgments of theprobability of conjunctions (see Beyth-Marom,Note 2). Just as the thought of a personalityand a social stereotype naturally evokes anassessment of their similarity, the thought ofan effect and a possible cause evokes an as-sessment of causal impact (Ajzen, 1977). Thenatural assessment of propensity is expectedto bias the evaluation of probability.

To illustrate this bias in the A —> B paradigmconsider the following problem, which waspresented to 115 undergraduates at StanfordUniversity and UBC:A health survey was conducted in a representative sampleof adult males in British Columbia of all ages and oc-cupations.

Mr. F. was included in the sample. He was selected bychance from the list of participants.

Which of the following statements is more probable? (checkone)

Mr. F. has had one or more heart attacks.

Mr. F. has had one or more heart attacks and he is over55 years old.

This seemingly transparent problem eliciteda substantial proportion (58%) of conjunction


errors among statistically naive respondents.To test the hypothesis that these errors areproduced by the causal (or correlational) linkbetween advanced age and heart attacks, ratherthan by a weighted average of the componentprobabilities, we removed this link by uncou-pling the target events without changing theirmarginal probabilities.

A health survey was conducted in a representative sampleof adult males in British Columbia of all ages and oc-cupations.

Mr. F. and Mr. G. were both included in the sample. Theywere unrelated and were selected by chance from the listof participants.

Which of the following statements is more probable? (checkone)

Mr. F. has had one or more heart attacks.

Mr. F has had one or more heart attacks and Mr. G. isover 55 years old.

Assigning the critical attributes to two in-dependent individuals eliminates in effect theA —> B connection by making the events (con-ditionally) independent. Accordingly, the in-cidence of conjunction errors dropped to 29%(N = 90).

The A —> B paradigm can give rise to dualconjunction errors where A&B is perceived asmore probable than each of its constituents,as illustrated in the next problem.

Peter is a junior in college who is training to run the milein a regional meet. In his best race, earlier this season,Peter ran the mile in 4:06 min. Please rank the followingoutcomes from most to least probable.

Peter will run the mile under 4:06 min.

Peter will run the mile under 4 min.

Peter will run the second half-mile under 1:55 min.

Peter will run the second half-mile under 1:55 min. andwill complete the mile under 4 min.

Peter will run the first half-mile under 2:05 min.

The critical event (a sub-1:55 minute secondhalf and a sub-4 minute mile) is clearly dennedas a conjunction and not as a conditional.Nevertheless, 76% of a group of undergraduatestudents from Stanford University (N = 96)ranked it above one of its constituents, and48% of the subjects ranked it above both con-stituents. The natural assessment of the re-lation between the constituents apparentlycontaminated the evaluation of their con-

junction. In contrast, no one violated the ex-tension rule by ranking the second outcome(a sub-4 minute mile) above the first (a sub-4:06 minute mile). The preceding results in-dicate that the judged probability of a con-junction cannot be explained by an averagingmodel because in such a model P(A&B) liesbetween P(A) and P(B). An averaging process,however, may be responsible for some con-junction errors, particularly when the con-stituent probabilities are given in a numericalform.

Motives and Crimes

A conjunction error in a motive-actionschema is illustrated by the following prob-lem—one of several of the same general typeadministered to a group of 171 students atUBC:

John P. is a meek man, 42 years old, married with twochildren. His neighbors describe him as mild-mannered,but somewhat secretive. He owns an import-export com-pany based in New York City, and he travels frequentlyto Europe and the Far East. Mr. P. was convicted oncefor smuggling precious stones and metals (including ura-nium) and received a suspended sentence of 6 months injail and a large fine.

Mr. P. is currently under police investigation.

Please rank the following statements by the probabilitythat they will be among the conclusions of the investigation.Remember that other possibilities exist and that morethan one statement may be true. Use 1 for the most prob-able statement, 2 for the second, etc.

Mr. P. is a child molester.

Mr. P. is involved in espionage and the sale of secretdocuments.

Mr. P. is a drug addict.

Mr. P. killed one of his employees.

One half of the subjects (n = 86) ranked theevents above. Other subjects (n = 85) rankeda modified list of possibilities in which the lastevent was replaced by

Mr. P. killed one of his employees to prevent him fromtalking to the police.

Although the addition of a possible motiveclearly reduces the extension of the event (Mr.P. might have killed his employee for otherreasons, such as revenge or self-defense), wehypothesized that the mention of a plausiblebut nonobvious motive would increase theperceived likelihood of the event. The data


confirmed this expectation. The mean rank ofthe conjunction was 2.90, whereas the meanrank of the inclusive statement was 3.17 (p <.05, by / test). Furthermore, 50% of the re-spondents ranked the conjunction as morelikely than the event that Mr. P. was a drugaddict, but only 23% ranked the more inclusivetarget event as more likely than drug addiction.We have found in other problems of the sametype that the mention of a cause or motivetends to increase the judged probability of anaction when the suggested motive (a) offers areasonable explanation of the target event, (b)appears fairly likely on its own, (c) is non-obvious, in the sense that it does not imme-diately come to mind when the outcome ismentioned.

We have observed conjunction errors inother judgments involving criminal acts inboth the A —» B and the M —» A paradigms.For example, the hypothesis that a policemandescribed as violence prone was involved inthe heroin trade was ranked less likely (relativeto a standard comparison set) than a con-junction of allegations—that he is involved inthe heroin trade and that he recently assaulteda suspect. In that example, the assault was notcausally linked to the involvement in drugs,but it made the combined allegation morerepresentative of the suspect's disposition. Theimplications of the psychology of judgment tothe evaluation of legal evidence deserve carefulstudy because the outcomes of many trialsdepend on the ability of a judge or a jury tomake intuitive judgments on the basis of par-tial and fallible data (see Rubinstein, 1979;Saks&Kidd, 1981).

Forecasts and Scenarios

The construction and evaluation of scenar-ios of future events are not only a favoritepastime of reporters, analysts, and newswatchers. Scenarios are often used in the con-text of planning, and their plausibility influ-ences significant decisions. Scenarios for thepast are also important in many contexts, in-cluding criminal law and the writing of history.It is of interest, then, to evaluate whether theforecasting or reconstruction of real-life eventsis subject to conjunction errors. Our analysissuggests that a scenario that includes a possiblecause and an outcome could appear more

probable than the outcome on its own. Wetested this hypothesis in two populations: sta-tistically naive students and professional fore-casters.

A sample of 245 UBC undergraduates wererequested in April 1982 to evaluate the prob-ability of occurrence of several events in 1983.A 9-point scale was used, defined by the fol-lowing categories: less than .01%, .1%, .5%,1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 25%, and 50% or more.Each problem was presented to different sub-jects in two versions: one that included onlythe basic outcome and another that includeda more detailed scenario leading to the sameoutcome. For example, one half of the subjectsevaluated the probability ofa massive flood somewhere in North America in 1983, inwhich more than 1000 people drown.

The other half of the subjects evaluated theprobability ofan earthquake in California sometime in 1983, causing aflood in which more than 1000 people drown.

The estimates of the conjunction (earthquakeand flood) were significantly higher than theestimates of the flood (p < .01, by a Mann-Whitney test). The respective geometric meanswere 3.1% and 2.2%. Thus, a reminder that adevastating flood could be caused by the an-ticipated California earthquake made the con-junction of an earthquake and a flood appearmore probable than a flood. The same patternwas observed in other problems.

The subjects in the second part of the studywere 115 participants in the Second Inter-national Congress on Forecasting held in Is-tanbul, Turkey in July 1982. Most of the sub-jects were professional analysts, employed byindustry, universities, or research institutes.They were professionally involved in fore-casting and planning, and many had usedscenarios in their work. The research designand the response scales were the same as be-fore. One group of forecasters evaluated theprobability ofa complete suspension of diplomatic relations between theUSA and the Soviet Union, sometime in 1983.

The other respondents evaluated the proba-bility of the same outcome embedded in thefollowing scenario:a Russian invasion of Poland, and a complete suspensionof diplomatic relations between the USA and the SovietUnion, sometime in 1983.


Although suspension is necessarily moreprobable than invasion and suspension, a Rus-sian invasion of Poland offered a plausible sce-nario leading to the breakdown of diplomaticrelations between the superpowers. As ex-pected, the estimates of probability were lowfor both problems but significantly higher forthe conjunction invasion and suspension thanfor suspension (p < .01, by a Mann-Whitneytest). The geometric means of estimates were.47% and .14%, respectively. A similar effectwas observed in the comparison of the follow-ing outcomes:

a 30% drop in the consumption of oil in the US in 1983.

a dramatic increase in oil prices and a 30% drop in theconsumption of oil in the US in 1983.

The geometric means of the estimated prob-ability of the first and the second outcomes,respectively, were .22% and .36%. We speculatethat the effect is smaller in this problem (al-though still statistically significant) because thebasic target event (a large drop in oil con-sumption) makes the added event (a dramaticincrease in oil prices) highly available, evenwhen the latter is not mentioned.

Conjunctions involving hypothetical causesare particularly prone to error because it ismore natural to assess the probability of theeffect given the cause than the joint probabilityof the effect and the cause. We do not suggestthat subjects deliberately adopt this interpre-tation; rather we propose that the higher con-ditional estimate serves as an anchor thatmakes the conjunction appear more probable.

Attempts to forecast events such as a majornuclear accident in the United States or anIslamic revolution in Saudi Arabia typicallyinvolve the construction and evaluation ofscenarios. Similarly, a plausible story of howthe victim might have been killed by someoneother than the defendant may convince a juryof the existence of reasonable doubt. Scenarioscan usefully serve to stimulate the imagination,to establish the feasibility of outcomes, or toset bounds on judged probabilities (Kirkwood& Pollock, 1982; Zentner, 1982). However, theuse of scenarios as a prime instrument for theassessment of probabilities can be highly mis-leading. First, this procedure favors a con-junctive outcome produced by a sequence oflikely steps (e.g., the successful execution of aplan) over an equally probable disjunctive

outcome (e.g., the failure of a careful plan),which can occur in many unlikely ways (Bar-Hillel, 1973; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).Second, the use of scenarios to assess proba-bility is especially vulnerable to conjunctionerrors. A detailed scenario consisting ofcausally linked and representative events mayappear more probable than a subset of theseevents (Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein,1976). This effect contributes to the appeal ofscenarios and to the illusory insight that theyoften provide. The attorney who fills in guessesregarding unknown facts, such as motive ormode of operation, may strengthen a case byimproving its coherence, although such ad-ditions can only lower probability. Similarly,a political analyst can improve scenarios byadding plausible causes and representativeconsequences. As Pooh-Bah in the Mikadoexplains, such additions provide "corrobora-tive details intended to give artistic verisimili-tude to an otherwise bald and unconvincingnarrative."

Extensional Cues

The numerous conjunction errors reportedin this article illustrate people's affinity fornonextensional reasoning. It is nonethelessobvious that people can understand and applythe extension rule. What cues elicit extensionalconsiderations and what factors promote con-formity to the conjunction rule? In this sectionwe focus on a single estimation problem andreport several manipulations that induce ex-tensional reasoning and reduce the incidenceof the conjunction fallacy. The participants inthe studies described in this section were sta-tistically naive students at UBC. Mean esti-mates are given in parentheses.A health survey was conducted in a sample of adult malesin British Columbia, of all ages and occupations.

Please give your best estimate of the following values:

What percentage of the men surveyed have had one ormore heart attacks? I

What percentage of the men surveyed both are over 55years old and have had one or more heart attacks? (30%)

This version of the health-survey problemproduced a substantial number of conjunctionerrors among statistically naive respondents:65% of the respondents (N = 147) assigned astrictly higher estimate to the second question


than to the first.2 Reversing the order of theconstituents did not significantly affect the re-sults.

The observed violations of the conjunctionrule in estimates of relative frequency are at-tributed to the A —> B paradigm. We proposethat the probability of the conjunction is biasedtoward the natural assessment of the strengthof the causal or statistical link between ageand heart attacks. Although the statement ofthe question appears unambiguous, we con-sidered the hypothesis that the respondentswho committed the fallacy had actually in-terpreted the second question as a request toassess a conditional probability. A new groupof UBC undergraduates received the sameproblem, with the second question amendedas follows:Among the men surveyed who are over 55 years old, whatpercentage have had one or more heart attacks?

The mean estimate was 59% (N = 55). Thisvalue is significantly higher than the mean ofthe estimates of the conjunction (45%) givenby those subjects who had committed the fal-lacy in the original problem. Subjects who vi-olate the conjunction rule therefore do notsimply substitute the conditional P(B/A) forthe conjunction ,P(A&B).

A seemingly inconsequential change in theproblem helps many respondents avoid theconjunction fallacy. A new group of subjects(N = 159) were given the original questionsbut were also asked to assess the "percentageof the men surveyed who are over 55 yearsold" prior to assessing the conjunction. Thismanipulation reduced the incidence of con-junction error from 65% to 31%. It appearsthat many subjects were appropriately cuedby the requirement to assess the relative fre-quency of both classes before assessing the rel-ative frequency of their intersection.

The following formulation also facilitatesextensional reasoning:

A health survey was conducted in a sample of 100 adultmales in British Columbia, of all ages and occupations.

Please give your best estimate of the following values:

How many of the 100 participants have had one or moreheart attacks?

How many of the 100 participants both are over 55years old and have had one or more heart attacks?

The incidence of the conjunction fallacy was

only 25% in this version (N= I I 7 ) . Evidently,an explicit reference to the number of indi-vidual cases encourages subjects to set up arepresentation of the problems in which classinclusion is readily perceived and appreciated.We have replicated this effect in several otherproblems of the same general type. The rateof errors was further reduced to a record 11%for a group (N = 360) who also estimated thenumber of participants over 55 years of ageprior to the estimation of the conjunctive cat-egory. The present findings agree with the re-sults of Beyth-Marom (Note 2), who observedhigher estimates for conjunctions in judgmentsof probability than in assessments of fre-quency.

The results of this section show that nonex-tensional reasoning sometimes prevails evenin simple estimates of relative frequency inwhich the extension of the target event andthe meaning of the scale are completely un-ambiguous. On the other hand, we found thatthe replacement of percentages by frequenciesand the request to assess both constituent cat-egories markedly reduced the incidence of theconjunction fallacy. It appears that extensionalconsiderations are readily brought to mind byseemingly inconsequential cues. A contrastworthy of note exists between the effectivenessof extensional cues in the health-survey prob-lem and the relative inefficacy of the methodsused to combat the conjunction fallacy in theLinda problem (argument, betting, "whetheror not"). The force of the conjunction rule ismore readily appreciated when the conjunc-tions are denned by the intersection of concreteclasses than by a combination of properties.Although classes and properties are equivalentfrom a logical standpoint, they give rise todifferent mental representations in which dif-ferent relations and rules are transparent. Theformal equivalence of properties to classes isapparently not programmed into the lay mind.

Discussion

In the course of this project we studied theextension rule in a variety of domains; wetested more than 3,000 subjects on dozens of

2 The incidence of the conjunction fallacy was consid-erably lower (28%) for a group of advanced undergraduatesat Stanford University (N = 62) who had completed oneor more courses in statistics.


problems, and we examined numerous vari-ations of these problems. The results reportedin this article constitute a representativethough not exhaustive summary of this work.

The data revealed widespread violations ofthe extension rule by naive and sophisticatedsubjects in both indirect and direct tests. Theseresults were interpreted within the frameworkof judgmental heuristics. We proposed that ajudgment of probability or frequency is com-monly biased toward the natural assessmentthat the problem evokes. Thus, the request toestimate the frequency of a class elicits a searchfor exemplars, the task of predicting vocationalchoice from a personality sketch evokes acomparison of features, and a question aboutthe co-occurrence of events induces an as-sessment of their causal connection. These as-sessments are not constrained by the extensionrule. Although an arbitrary reduction in theextension of an event typically reduces itsavailability, representativeness, or causal co-herence, there are numerous occasions inwhich these assessments are higher for the re-stricted than for the inclusive event. Naturalassessments can bias probability judgment inthree ways: The respondents (a) may use anatural assessment deliberately as a strategyof estimation, (b) may be primed or anchoredby it, or (c) may fail to appreciate the differencebetween the natural and the required assess-ments.

Logic Versus Intuition

The conjunction error demonstrates withexceptional clarity the contrast between theextensional logic that underlies most formalconceptions of probability and the natural as-sessments that govern many judgments andbeliefs. However, probability judgments are notalways dominated by nonextensional heuris-tics. Rudiments of probability theory have be-come part of the culture, and even statisticallynaive adults can enumerate possibilities andcalculate odds in simple games of chance (Ed-wards, 1975). Furthermore, some real-lifecontexts encourage the decomposition ofevents. The chances of a team to reach theplayoffs, for example, may be evaluated as fol-lows: "Our team will make it if we beat teamB, which we should be able to do since wehave a better defense, or if team B loses to

both C and D, which is unlikely since neitherone has a strong offense." In this example, thetarget event (reaching the playoffs) is decom-posed into more elementary possibilities thatare evaluated in an intuitive manner.

Judgments of probability vary in the degreeto which they follow a decompositional or aholistic approach and in the degree to whichthe assessment and the aggregation of prob-abilities are analytic or intuitive (see, e.g.,Hammond & Brehmer, 1973). At one extremethere are questions (e.g., What are the chancesof beating a given hand in poker?) that can beanswered by calculating the relative frequencyof "favorable" outcomes. Such an analysispossesses all the features associated with anextensional approach: It is decompositional,frequentistic, and algorithmic. At the otherextreme, there are questions (e.g., What is theprobability that the witness is telling the truth?)that are normally evaluated in a holistic, sin-gular, and intuitive manner (Kahneman &Tversky, 1982b). Decomposition and calcu-lation provide some protection against con-junction errors and other biases, but the in-tuitive element cannot be entirely eliminatedfrom probability judgments outside the do-main of random sampling.

A direct test of the conjunction rule pits anintuitive impression against a basic law ofprobability. The outcome of the conflict is de-termined by the nature of the evidence, theformulation of the question, the transparencyof the event structure, the appeal of the heu-ristic, and the sophistication of the respon-dents. Whether people obey the conjunctionrule in any particular direct test depends onthe balance of these factors. For example, wefound it difficult to induce naive subjects toapply the conjunction rule in the Linda prob-lem, but minor variations in the health-surveyquestion had a marked effect on conjunctionerrors. This conclusion is consistent with theresults of Nisbett et al. (1983), who showedthat lay people can apply certain statisticalprinciples (e.g., the law of large numbers) toeveryday problems and that the accessibilityof these principles varied with the content ofthe problem and increased significantly withthe sophistication of the respondents. Wefound, however, that sophisticated and naiverespondents answered the Linda problem sim-ilarly in indirect tests and only parted company


in the most transparent versions of the prob-lem. These observations suggest that statisticalsophistication did not alter intuitions of rep-resentativeness, although it enabled the re-spondents to recognize in direct tests the de-cisive force of the extension rule.

Judgment problems in real life do not usu-ally present themselves in the format of awithin-subjects design or of a direct test of thelaws of probability. Consequently, subjects'performance in a between-subjects test mayoffer a more realistic view of everyday rea-soning. In the indirect test it is very difficulteven for a sophisticated judge to ensure thatan event has no subset that would appear moreprobable than it does and no superset thatwould appear less probable. The satisfactionof the extension rule could be ensured, withoutdirect comparisons of A&B to B, if all eventsin the relevant ensemble were expressed asdisjoint unions of elementary possibilities. Inmany practical contexts, however, such anal-ysis is not feasible. The physician, judge, po-litical analyst, or entrepreneur typically focuseson a critical target event and is rarely promptedto discover potential violations of the extensionrule.

Studies of reasoning and problem solvinghave shown that people often fail to understandor apply an abstract logical principle evenwhen they can use it properly in concrete fa-miliar contexts. Johnson-Laird and Wason(1977), for example, showed that people whoerr in the verification of if then statements inan abstract format often succeed when theproblem evokes a familiar schema. The presentresults exhibit the opposite pattern: Peoplegenerally accept the conjunction rule in itsabstract form (B is more probable than A&B)but defy it in concrete examples, such as theLinda and Bill problems, where the rule con-flicts with an intuitive impression.

The violations of the conjunction rule werenot only prevalent in our research, they werealso sizable. For example, subjects' estimatesof the frequency of seven-letter words endingwith ing were three times as high as their es-timates of the frequency of seven letter wordsending with _ n _. A correction by a factor ofthree is the smallest change that would elim-inate the inconsistency between the two esti-mates. However, the subjects surely know thatthere are many _ n _ words that are not ing

words (e.g., present, content). If they believe,for example, that only one half of the _ n _words end with ing, then a 6:1 adjustmentwould be required to make the entire systemcoherent. The ordinal nature of most of ourexperiments did not permit an estimate of theadjustment factor required for coherence.Nevertheless, the size of the effect was oftenconsiderable. In the rating-scale version of theLinda problem, for example, there was littleoverlap between the distributions of ratingsfor T&F and for T. Our problems, of course,were constructed to elicit conjunction errors,and they do not provide an unbiased estimateof the prevalence of these errors. Note, how-ever, that the conjunction error is only a symp-tom of a more general phenomenon: Peopletend to overestimate the probabilities of rep-resentative (or available) events and/or un-derestimate the probabilities of less represen-tative events. The violation of the conjunctionrule demonstrates this tendency even whenthe "true" probabilities are unknown or un-knowable. The basic phenomenon may beconsiderably more common than the extremesymptom by which it was illustrated.

Previous studies of the subjective probabilityof conjunctions (e.g., Bar-Hillel, 1973; Cohen& Hansel, 1957; Goldsmith, 1978; Wyer, 1976;Beyth-Marom, Note 2) focused primarily ontesting the multiplicative rule P(A&B) =P(B)P(A/B). This rule is strictly stronger thanthe conjunction rule; it also requires cardinalrather than ordinal assessments of probability.The results showed that people generally over-estimate the probability of conjunctions in thesense that P(A&B) > /)(B)JP(A/B). Some in-vestigators, notably Wyer and Beyth-Marom,also reported data that are inconsistent withthe conjunction rule.

Conversing Under Uncertainty

The representativeness heuristic generallyfavors outcomes that make good stories orgood hypotheses. The conjunction feministbank teller is a better hypothesis about Lindathan bank teller, and the scenario of a Russianinvasion of Poland followed by a diplomaticcrisis makes a better story than simply dip-lomatic crisis. The notion of a good story canbe illuminated by extending the Gricean con-cept of cooperativeness (Grice, 1975) to con-


versations under uncertainty. The standardanalysis of conversation rules assumes that thespeaker knows the truth. The maxim of qualityenjoins him or her to say only the truth. Themaxim of quantity enjoins the speaker to sayall of it, subject to the maxim of relevance,which restricts the message to what the listenerneeds to know. What rules of cooperativenessapply to an uncertain speaker, that is, one whois uncertain of the truth? Such a speaker canguarantee absolute quality only for tautologicalstatements (e.g., "Inflation will continue solong as prices rise"), which are unlikely toearn high marks as contributions to the con-versation. A useful contribution must conveythe speaker's relevant beliefs even if they arenot certain. The rules of cooperativeness foran uncertain speaker must therefore allow fora trade-off of quality and quantity in the eval-uation of messages. The expected value of amessage can be defined by its informationvalue if it is true, weighted by the probabilitythat it is true. An uncertain speaker may wishto follow the maxim of value: Select the mes-sage that has the highest expected value.

The expected value of a message can some-times be improved by increasing its content,although its probability is thereby reduced.The statement "Inflation will be in the rangeof 6% to 9% by the end of the year" may bea more valuable forecast than "Inflation willbe in the range of 3% to 12%," although thelatter is more likely to be confirmed. A goodforecast is a compromise between a point es-timate, which is sure to be wrong, and a 99.9%credible interval, which is often too broad.The selection of hypotheses in science is subjectto the same trade-off: A hypothesis must riskrefutation to be valuable, but its value declinesif refutation is nearly certain. Good hypothesesbalance informativeness against probable truth(Good, 1971). A similar compromise obtainsin the structure of natural categories. The basiclevel category dog is much more informativethan the more inclusive category animal andonly slightly less informative than the narrowercategory beagle. Basic level categories have aprivileged position in language and thought,presumably because they offer an optimalcombination of scope and content (Rosch,1978). Categorization under uncertainty is acase in point. A moving object dimly seen inthe dark may be appropriately labeled dog,

where the subordinate beagle would be rashand the superordinate animal far too conser-vative.

Consider the task of ranking possible an-swers to the question, "What do you thinkLinda is up to these days?" The maxim ofvalue could justify a preference for T&F overT in this task, because the added attributefeminist considerably enriches the descriptionof Linda's current activities, at an acceptablecost in probable truth. Thus, the analysis ofconversation under uncertainty identifies apertinent question that is legitimately answeredby ranking the conjunction above its constit-uent. We do not believe, however, that themaxim of value provides a fully satisfactoryaccount of the conjunction fallacy. First, it isunlikely that our respondents interpret the re-quest to rank statements by their probabilityas a request to rank them by their expected(informational) value. Second, conjunctionfallacies have been observed in numerical es-timates and in choices of bets, to which theconversational analysis simply does not apply.Nevertheless, the preference for statements ofhigh expected (informational) value couldhinder the appreciation of the extension rule.As we suggested in the discussion of the in-teraction of picture size and real size, the an-swer to a question can be biased by the avail-ability of an answer to a cognate question-even when the respondent is well aware of thedistinction between them.

The same analysis applies to other concep-tual neighbors of probability. The concept ofsurprise is a case in point. Although surpriseis closely tied to expectations, it does not followthe laws of probability (Kahneman & Tversky,1982b). For example, the message that a tennischampion lost the first set of a match is moresurprising than the message that she lost thefirst set but won the match, and a sequenceof four consecutive heads in a coin toss ismore surprising than four heads followed bytwo tails. It would be patently absurd, however,to bet on the less surprising event in each ofthese pairs. Our discussions with subjects pro-vided no indication that they interpreted theinstruction to judge probability as an instruc-tion to evaluate surprise. Furthermore, thesurprise interpretation does not apply to theconjunction fallacy observed in judgments offrequency. We conclude that surprise and in-


formational value do not properly explain theconjunction fallacy, although they may wellcontribute to the ease with which it is inducedand to the difficulty of eliminating it.

Cognitive IllusionsOur studies of inductive reasoning have fo-

cused on systematic errors because they arediagnostic of the heuristics that generally gov-ern judgment and inference. In the words ofHelmholtz (1881/1903), "It is just those casesthat are not in accordance with reality whichare particularly instructive for discovering thelaws of the processes by which normal per-ception originates." The focus on bias and il-lusion is a research strategy that exploits hu-man error, although it neither assumes norentails that people are perceptually or cogni-tively inept. Helmholtz's position implies thatperception is not usefully analyzed into a nor-mal process that produces accurate perceptsand a distorting process that produces errorsand illusions. In cognition, as in perception,the same mechanisms produce both valid andinvalid judgments. Indeed, the evidence doesnot seem to support a "truth plus error"model, which assumes a coherent system ofbeliefs that is perturbed by various sources ofdistortion and error. Hence, we do not shareDennis Lindley's optimistic opinion that "in-side every incoherent person there is a coherentone trying to get out," (Lindley, Note 3) andwe suspect that incoherence is more than skindeep (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

It is instructive to compare a structure ofbeliefs about a domain, (e.g., the political fu-ture of Central America) to the perception ofa scene (e.g., the view of Yosemite Valley fromGlacier Point). We have argued that intuitivejudgments of all relevant marginal, conjunc-tive, and conditional probabilities are not likelyto be coherent, that is, to satisfy the constraintsof probability theory. Similarly, estimates ofdistances and angles in the scene are unlikelyto satisfy the laws of geometry. For example,there may be pairs of political events for whichP(A) is judged greater than P(B) but /'(A/B)is judged less than /"(B/A)—see Tversky andKahneman (1980). Analogously, the scene maycontain a triangle ABC for which the A angleappears greater than the B angle, although theBC distance appears to be smaller than theAC distance.

The violations of the qualitative laws of ge-ometry and probability in judgments of dis-tance and likelihood have significant impli-cations for the interpretation and use of thesejudgments. Incoherence sharply restricts theinferences that can be drawn from subjectiveestimates. The judged ordering of the sides ofa triangle cannot be inferred from the judgedordering of its angles, and the ordering of mar-ginal probabilities cannot be deduced fromthe ordering of the respective conditionals. Theresults of the present study show that it is evenunsafe to assume that P(B) is bounded byP(A&B). Furthermore, a system of judgmentsthat does not obey the conjunction rule cannotbe expected to obey more complicated prin-ciples that presuppose this rule, such as Bayes-ian updating, external calibration, and themaximization of expected utility. The presenceof bias and incoherence does not diminish thenormative force of these principles, but it re-duces their usefulness as descriptions of be-havior and hinders their prescriptive appli-cations. Indeed, the elicitation of unbiasedjudgments and the reconciliation of incoherentassessments pose serious problems that pres-ently have no satisfactory solution (Lindley,Tversky & Brown, 1979; Shafer & Tversky,Note 4).

The issue of coherence has loomed largerin the study of preference and belief than inthe study of perception. Judgments of distanceand angle can readily be compared to objectivereality and can be replaced by objective mea-surements when accuracy matters. In contrast,objective measurements of probability are of-ten unavailable, and most significant choicesunder risk require an intuitive evaluation ofprobability. In the absence of an objective cri-terion of validity, the normative theory ofjudgment under uncertainty has treated thecoherence of belief as the touchstone of humanrationality. Coherence has also been assumedin many descriptive analyses in psychology,economics, and other social sciences. This as-sumption is attractive because the strong nor-mative appeal of the laws of probability makesviolations appear implausible. Our studies ofthe conjunction rule show that normativelyinspired theories that assume coherence aredescriptively inadequate, whereas psycholog-ical analyses that ignore the appeal of nor-mative rules are, at best, incomplete. A corn-


prehensive account of human judgment mustreflect the tension between compelling logicalrules and seductive nonextensional intuitions.

Reference Notes

1. Lakoff, G. Categories and cognitive models (CognitiveScience Report No. 2). Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia, 1982.

2. Beyth-Marom, R. The subjective probability of con-junctions (Decision Research Report No. 81-12). Eu-gene, Oregon: Decision Research, 1981.

3. Lindley, Dennis, Personal communication, 1980.4. Shafer, G., & Tversky, A. Weighing evidence: The design

and comparisons of probability thought experiments.Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, 1983.

ReferencesAjzen, I. Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base-

rate information on prediction. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 1977,35, 303-314.

Bar-Hillel, M. On the subjective probability of compoundevents. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 1973, 9, 396-406.

Bruner, J. S. On the conservation of liquids. In J. S. Bruner,R. R. Olver, & P. M. Greenfield, et al. (Eds.), Studiesin cognitive growth. New York: Wiley, 1966.

Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. Genesis of popular buterroneous psychodiagnostic observations. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 1967, 73, 193-204.

Cohen, J., & Hansel, C. M. The nature of decision ingambling: Equivalence of single and compound sub-jective probabilities. Ada Psychologica, 1957, 13, 357-370.

Cohen, L. J. The probable and the provable. Oxford,England: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Dempster, A. P. Upper and lower probabilities inducedby a multivalued mapping. Annals of MathematicalStatistics, 1967, 38, 325-339.

Edwards, W. Comment. Journal of the American StatisticalAssociation, 1975, 70, 291-293.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. Behavioral decisiontheory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 1981, 32, 53-88.

Gati, I., & Tversky, A. Representations of qualitative andquantitative dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: Human Perception and Performance, 1982, 8,325-340.

Goldsmith, R. W. Assessing probabilities of compoundevents in a judicial context. Scandinavian Journal ofPsychology, 1978, 19, 103-110.

Good, I. J. The probabilistic explication of information,evidence, surprise, causality, explanation, and utility. InV. P. Godambe & D. A. Sprott (Eds.), Foundations ofstatistical inference: Proceedings on the foundations ofstatistical inference. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Holt,Rinehart & Winston, 1971.

Grice, H. P. Logic and conversation. In G. Harman & D.Davidson (Eds.), The logic of grammar. Encino, Calif.:Dickinson, 1975.

Hammond, K. R., & Brehmer, B. Quasi-rationality anddistrust: Implications for international conflict. In L.Rappoport & D. A. Summers (Eds.), Human judgmentand social interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1973.

Helmholtz, H. von. Popular lectures on scientific subjects(E. Atkinson, trans.). New York: Green, 1903. (Originallypublished, 1881.)

Jennings, D., Amabile, T., & Ross, L. Informal covariationassessment. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky(Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics andbiases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Wason, P. C. A theoretical analysisof insight into a reasoning task. In P. N. Johnson-Laird& P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Jones, G. V. Stacks not fuzzy sets: An ordinal basis forprototype theory of concepts. Cognition, 1982,12, 281-290.

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) Judgmentunder uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New \brk:Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. Subjective probability: Ajudgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology,1972, 3, 430-454.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. On the psychology of pre-diction. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 237-251.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. On the study of statisticalintuitions. Cognition, 1982, 11, 123-141. (a)

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. Variants of uncertainty.Cognition, 1982, //, 143-157. (b)

Kirkwood, C. W., & Pollock, S. M. Multiple attributescenarios, bounded probabilities, and threats of nucleartheft. Futures, 1982, 14, 545-553.

Kyburg, H. E. Rational belief. The Behavioral and BrainSciences, in press.

Lindley, D. V, Tversky, A., & Brown, R. V. On the rec-onciliation of probability assessments. Journal of theRoyal Statistical Society, 1979, 142, 146-180.

Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. Categorization of natural ob-jects. Annual Review of Psychology, 1981, 32, 89-115.

Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z.,The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductivereasoning. Psychological Review, 1983, 90, 339-363.

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. Human inference: Strategies andshortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1980.

Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. On the adequacy ofprototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition,1981, 9, 35-38.

Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. Gradedness and conceptualcombination. Cognition, 1982, 12, 299-318.

Rosch, E. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch &B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hills-dale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.

Rubinstein, A. False probabilistic arguments vs. faultyintuition. Israel Law Review, 1979, 14, 247-254.

Saks, M. J., & Kidd, R. F. Human information processingand adjudication: Trials by heuristics. Law & SocietyReview, 1981, 75, 123-160.

Shafer, G. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton,N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. Cognitive pro-


cesses and societal risk taking. In J. S. Carroll & J. W.Payne (Eds.), Cognition and soda! behavior. Potomac,Md.: Erlbaum, 1976.

Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. Categories and concepts.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Suppes, P. Approximate probability and expectation ofgambles. Erkenntnis, 1975, 9, 153-161.

Tversky, A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review,1977, 84, 327-352.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. Belief in the law of smallnumbers. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 105-110.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. Availability: A heuristic forjudging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology,1973, J, 207-232.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. Causal schcmas in judgmentsunder uncertainty. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress insocial psychology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions

and the psychology of choice. Science, 1981, 211, 453-458.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. Judgments of and by rep-resentativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky(Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics andbiases. New \brk: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Wyer, R. S., Jr. An investigation of the relations amongprobability estimates. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 1976, IS, 1-18.

Zadeh, L. A. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility.Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1978, /, 3-28.

Zadeh, L. A. A note on prototype theory and fuzzy sets.Cognition, 1982, 12, 291-297.

Zentner, R. D. Scenarios, past, present and future. LongRange Planning, 1982, 15, 12-20.

Received July 7, 1982Revision received May 2, 1983 •

Third Edition of the Publication Manual

APA has just published the third edition of the Publication Manual. This new editionreplaces the 1974 second edition of the Manual. The new Manual updates APA policiesand procedures and incorporates changes in editorial style and practice since 1974.It amplifies and refines some parts of the second edition, reorganizes other parts, andpresents new material. (See the March issue of the American Psychologist for moreon the third edition.)

All manuscripts to be published in the 1984 volumes of APA's journals will becopy edited according to the third edition of the Manual. Therefore, manuscriptsbeing prepared now should be prepared according to the third edition. Beginning in1984, submitted manuscripts that depart significantly from third edition style will bereturned to authors for correction.

The third edition of the Publication Manual is available for $12 for members ofAPA and $15 for nonmembers. Orders of $25 or less must be prepaid. A charge of$1.50 per order is required for shipping and handling. To order the third edition,write to the Order Department, APA, 1400 N. Uhle Street, Arlington, VA 22201.

Psychological Reviewmckenzie/TverskyKahneman1983PsychRev.… · (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) suggests...

Documents

Transcript of Psychological Reviewmckenzie/TverskyKahneman1983PsychRev.… · (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) suggests...