Do Frequency Representations Eliminate Conjunction Effects? An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration

The present article offers an approach to scientific debate called adversarial collaboration. The approach requires both parties to agree on empirical tests for resolving a dispute and to conduct these tests with the help of an arbiter. In dispute were Hertwig's claims that frequency formats eliminate conjunction effects and that the conjunction effects previously reported by Kahneman and Tversky occurred because some participants interpreted the word “and” in “bank tellers and feminists” as a union operator. Hertwig proposed two new conjunction phrases, “and are” and “who are,” that would eliminate the ambiguity. Kahneman disagreed with Hertwig's predictions for “and are,” but agreed with his predictions for “who are.” Mellers served as arbiter. Frequency formats by themselves did not eliminate conjunction effects with any of the phrases, but when filler items were removed, conjunction effects disappeared with Hertwig's phrases. Kahneman and Hertwig offer different interpretations of the findings. We discuss the benefits of adversarial collaboration over replies and rejoinders, and present a suggested protocol for adversarial collaboration.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgments of and by Representativeness , 1981 .

[3]  J. Adler Abstraction is Uncooperative , 1984 .

[4]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Judging probable cause. , 1986 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[6]  K. Fiedler The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors , 1988 .

[7]  Theories of Bias in Probability Judgment , 1990 .

[8]  M H Birnbaum,et al.  Judgments of proportions. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. , 1991, Psychological review.

[10]  Ira A. Noveck,et al.  Are conjunction rule violations the result of conversational rule violations? , 1991 .

[11]  G. Gigerenzer How to Make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond “Heuristics and Biases” , 1991 .

[12]  Denis J. Hilton,et al.  Conversational Implicature, Conscious Representation, and the Conjunction Fallacy , 1991 .

[13]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  How to Improve Bayesian Reasoning Without Instruction: Frequency Formats , 1995 .

[14]  G. Gigerenzer On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics: A Reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996) , 1996 .

[15]  D Kahneman,et al.  On the reality of cognitive illusions. , 1996, Psychological review.

[16]  G. Clore,et al.  Feelings and phenomenal experiences , 1996 .

[17]  Thomas Gilovich,et al.  Varieties of regret: A debate and partial resolution. , 1998 .

[18]  Ralph Hertwig,et al.  Many Reasons or Just One: How Response Mode Affects Reasoning in the Conjunction Problem , 1998 .

[19]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  How to show that 9 > 221 : Collect judgments in a between-subjects design , 1999 .

[20]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  The "conjunction fallacy" revisited : How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors , 1999 .

[21]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  How to show that 9 > 221 : Collect judgments in a between-subjects design , 1999 .

[22]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[23]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? , 2002 .