|
Research article summary:
The conjunction effect: new evidence for robustness.
Abstract Extract:
Five studies investigated the conjunction effect (or conjunction fallacy), in which participants report that the conjunction of two events is more rather than less likely than one of the events alone. There was no evidence that feedback or monetary ... (Full abstract text below) Published 2003
in Journal: Am J Psychol
(Language : eng)
Full Pubmed Extract
This information was retrieved, real-time, on your behalf from the public area of the Pubmed website:
1. Am J Psychol.
2003 ;116(1):15-34
The conjunction effect: new evidence for robustness.
Stolarz-Fantino S, Fantino E, Zizzo DJ, Wen J
University of California, San Diego, USA.
Five studies investigated the conjunction effect (or conjunction fallacy), in which participants report that the conjunction of two events is more rather than less likely than one of the events alone. There was no evidence that feedback or monetary reinforcement for correct answers affected students' performance on conjunction problems. Under some circumstances the context in which the conjunction problem was presented (after questions emphasizing logic or questions emphasizing opinions) affected occurrence of the effect. Location of the conjunction among the statements being rated had a significant effect. The effect occurred with or without a framing description and whether the conjunction consisted of two or three simple statements. However, statements representing the conjunction of three simple statements were (appropriately) judged less likely than those representing the conjunction of two simple statements. The substantial incidence of the effect, even without the descriptive frame and even when incentive and feedback were provided for correct answers, argues for its robustness.
PMID : 12710220 [PubMed - Indexed for MEDLINE]
This information is obtained from the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright. Type "NLM copyright" into Google for more information.
Full Author Information
| First Name | LastName | Initials |
| Stephanie | Stolarz-Fantino | S |
| Edmund | Fantino | E |
| Daniel J | Zizzo | DJ |
| Julie | Wen | J |
Affiliation: University of California, San Diego, USA.
3rd Party provider links
Click the links below to go to related 3rd party information:
MESH categories and related page links
This article was linked to the MESH categories shown on the left below. The links on the right are related Memletics pages.
Category links from this article: | | Related Memletics topics: |
Links for this articleFor links to places where you can get the full text of this article see links. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. New! Using similar technology to this site, we have launched find-health-articles.com, targeting over 1 million health research article abstracts. Related ArticlesHere are some articles related to this one (by title keywords): Keywords in this article:affected, after, alone, answers, appropriately, argues, circumstances, conjunction, consisted, context, correct, description, descriptive, effect, emphasizing, events, evidence, fallacy, feedback, five, frame, framing, incentive, incidence, investigated, judged, less, likely, location, logic, monetary, more, occurred, occurrence, one, opinions, or, participants, performance, presented, problems, provided, questions, rated, reinforcement, report, representing, significant, simple, statements, students, studies, substantial, three, two, under, whether
|
