A violation of the monotonicity axiom: experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy
The conjunction fallacy is an anomaly in human reasoning for which the conjunction of two events is rated more likely to occur than one of the events alone. In the context of decision under uncertainty, this violates the monotonicity axiom of probability, and consequentially also Bayes’ Rule and the...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of economic behavior & organization 2000-03, Vol.41 (3), p.263-276 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 276 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 263 |
| container_title | Journal of economic behavior & organization |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Zizzo, Daniel John Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie Wen, Julie Fantino, Edmund |
| description | The conjunction fallacy is an anomaly in human reasoning for which the conjunction of two events is rated more likely to occur than one of the events alone. In the context of decision under uncertainty, this violates the monotonicity axiom of probability, and consequentially also Bayes’ Rule and the monotonicity axiom of preferences. Our experiments show how dynamic feedback and monetary incentives affect the fallacy rate, and how the complexity (and possibly the presentation) of the decision problem and an averaging heuristic might determine outcomes and reasoning. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00076-1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_38824365</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167268199000761</els_id><sourcerecordid>38824365</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c609t-dfee33ec6158afaa96d1eae1d19dcd66b9116afc8d6f27cd46bba7e92b824ca93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUGLFDEQhYMoOK7-BKFRED20ppLpdMfLsizuqix4UPEY0km1m2G60yaZYeffWz0jexDEQ1WF8L1HUY-x58DfAgf17iu1thaqg9dav-Gct6qGB2wFXatraBt4yFb3yGP2JOcNXyihV-zHRbUPcWtLiFMVh6rcYjXGKZY4BRfKobJ3IY7vK7ybMYURp2K3Fe6Dx8lhRZpF4OK02U3u6DHY7da6w1P2iF4Zn_2ZZ-z71Ydvlx_rmy_Xny4vbmqnuC61HxClRKeg6exgrVYe0CJ40N55pXoNoOzgOq8G0Tq_Vn1vW9Si78TaWS3P2KuT75zirx3mYsaQHdIOE8ZdNrIjUKqGwBd_gZu4SxPtZoTkBEEjCHr5Lwg6qYkSuiOqOVEuxZwTDmam09h0MMDNkog5JmKWcxutzTERA6T7fNIlnNHdixBxg31MP83eSLsGagcqQTIagUpSzcuXkkaQ1W0Zyez8ZIZ03X3AZLILSyg-JHTF-Bj-s85vkkas7g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1839824298</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A violation of the monotonicity axiom: experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy</title><source>RePEc</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Zizzo, Daniel John ; Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie ; Wen, Julie ; Fantino, Edmund</creator><creatorcontrib>Zizzo, Daniel John ; Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie ; Wen, Julie ; Fantino, Edmund</creatorcontrib><description>The conjunction fallacy is an anomaly in human reasoning for which the conjunction of two events is rated more likely to occur than one of the events alone. In the context of decision under uncertainty, this violates the monotonicity axiom of probability, and consequentially also Bayes’ Rule and the monotonicity axiom of preferences. Our experiments show how dynamic feedback and monetary incentives affect the fallacy rate, and how the complexity (and possibly the presentation) of the decision problem and an averaging heuristic might determine outcomes and reasoning.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-2681</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1751</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00076-1</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JEBOD9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Bounded rationality ; Conjunction fallacy ; Economic theory ; Experiment design ; Experimental economics ; Learning ; Monotonicity axiom ; Probability ; Rational expectations ; Rationality ; Reasoning ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Journal of economic behavior & organization, 2000-03, Vol.41 (3), p.263-276</ispartof><rights>2000 Elsevier Science B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Sequoia S.A. Mar 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c609t-dfee33ec6158afaa96d1eae1d19dcd66b9116afc8d6f27cd46bba7e92b824ca93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c609t-dfee33ec6158afaa96d1eae1d19dcd66b9116afc8d6f27cd46bba7e92b824ca93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00076-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,3994,27850,27905,27906,30980,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeejeborg/v_3a41_3ay_3a2000_3ai_3a3_3ap_3a263-276.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zizzo, Daniel John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wen, Julie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fantino, Edmund</creatorcontrib><title>A violation of the monotonicity axiom: experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy</title><title>Journal of economic behavior & organization</title><description>The conjunction fallacy is an anomaly in human reasoning for which the conjunction of two events is rated more likely to occur than one of the events alone. In the context of decision under uncertainty, this violates the monotonicity axiom of probability, and consequentially also Bayes’ Rule and the monotonicity axiom of preferences. Our experiments show how dynamic feedback and monetary incentives affect the fallacy rate, and how the complexity (and possibly the presentation) of the decision problem and an averaging heuristic might determine outcomes and reasoning.</description><subject>Bounded rationality</subject><subject>Conjunction fallacy</subject><subject>Economic theory</subject><subject>Experiment design</subject><subject>Experimental economics</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Monotonicity axiom</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Rational expectations</subject><subject>Rationality</subject><subject>Reasoning</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0167-2681</issn><issn>1879-1751</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUGLFDEQhYMoOK7-BKFRED20ppLpdMfLsizuqix4UPEY0km1m2G60yaZYeffWz0jexDEQ1WF8L1HUY-x58DfAgf17iu1thaqg9dav-Gct6qGB2wFXatraBt4yFb3yGP2JOcNXyihV-zHRbUPcWtLiFMVh6rcYjXGKZY4BRfKobJ3IY7vK7ybMYURp2K3Fe6Dx8lhRZpF4OK02U3u6DHY7da6w1P2iF4Zn_2ZZ-z71Ydvlx_rmy_Xny4vbmqnuC61HxClRKeg6exgrVYe0CJ40N55pXoNoOzgOq8G0Tq_Vn1vW9Si78TaWS3P2KuT75zirx3mYsaQHdIOE8ZdNrIjUKqGwBd_gZu4SxPtZoTkBEEjCHr5Lwg6qYkSuiOqOVEuxZwTDmam09h0MMDNkog5JmKWcxutzTERA6T7fNIlnNHdixBxg31MP83eSLsGagcqQTIagUpSzcuXkkaQ1W0Zyez8ZIZ03X3AZLILSyg-JHTF-Bj-s85vkkas7g</recordid><startdate>20000301</startdate><enddate>20000301</enddate><creator>Zizzo, Daniel John</creator><creator>Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie</creator><creator>Wen, Julie</creator><creator>Fantino, Edmund</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>North-Holland Pub. Co</general><general>Elsevier Sequoia S.A</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HFXKP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000301</creationdate><title>A violation of the monotonicity axiom: experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy</title><author>Zizzo, Daniel John ; Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie ; Wen, Julie ; Fantino, Edmund</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c609t-dfee33ec6158afaa96d1eae1d19dcd66b9116afc8d6f27cd46bba7e92b824ca93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Bounded rationality</topic><topic>Conjunction fallacy</topic><topic>Economic theory</topic><topic>Experiment design</topic><topic>Experimental economics</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Monotonicity axiom</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Rational expectations</topic><topic>Rationality</topic><topic>Reasoning</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zizzo, Daniel John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wen, Julie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fantino, Edmund</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 17</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Journal of economic behavior & organization</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zizzo, Daniel John</au><au>Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie</au><au>Wen, Julie</au><au>Fantino, Edmund</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A violation of the monotonicity axiom: experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy</atitle><jtitle>Journal of economic behavior & organization</jtitle><date>2000-03-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>263</spage><epage>276</epage><pages>263-276</pages><issn>0167-2681</issn><eissn>1879-1751</eissn><coden>JEBOD9</coden><abstract>The conjunction fallacy is an anomaly in human reasoning for which the conjunction of two events is rated more likely to occur than one of the events alone. In the context of decision under uncertainty, this violates the monotonicity axiom of probability, and consequentially also Bayes’ Rule and the monotonicity axiom of preferences. Our experiments show how dynamic feedback and monetary incentives affect the fallacy rate, and how the complexity (and possibly the presentation) of the decision problem and an averaging heuristic might determine outcomes and reasoning.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00076-1</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0167-2681 |
| ispartof | Journal of economic behavior & organization, 2000-03, Vol.41 (3), p.263-276 |
| issn | 0167-2681 1879-1751 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_38824365 |
| source | RePEc; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; Periodicals Index Online; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
| subjects | Bounded rationality Conjunction fallacy Economic theory Experiment design Experimental economics Learning Monotonicity axiom Probability Rational expectations Rationality Reasoning Studies |
| title | A violation of the monotonicity axiom: experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T21%3A55%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20violation%20of%20the%20monotonicity%20axiom:%20experimental%20evidence%20on%20the%20conjunction%20fallacy&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20economic%20behavior%20&%20organization&rft.au=Zizzo,%20Daniel%20John&rft.date=2000-03-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=263&rft.epage=276&rft.pages=263-276&rft.issn=0167-2681&rft.eissn=1879-1751&rft.coden=JEBOD9&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00076-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E38824365%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1839824298&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0167268199000761&rfr_iscdi=true |