Skip to main content

Why quantum probability does not explain the conjunction fallacy

  • Katya Tentori (a1) and Vincenzo Crupi (a2)

We agree with Pothos & Busemeyer (P&B) that formal tools can be fruitfully employed to model human judgment under uncertainty, including well-known departures from principles of classical probability. However, existing findings either contradict P&B's quantum probability approach or support it to a limited extent. The conjunction fallacy serves as a key illustration of both kinds of problems.

Hide All
Busemeyer J. R., Pothos E. M., Franco R. & Trueblood J. S. (2011) A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review 118(2):193218.
Costello F. J. (2009) How probability theory explains the conjunction fallacy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 22:213–34.
Crupi V., Fitelson B. & Tentori K. (2008) Probability, confirmation, and the conjunction fallacy. Thinking & Reasoning 14:182–99.
Nilsson H., Winman A., Juslin P. & Hansson G. (2009) Linda is not a bearded lady: Configural weighting and adding as the cause of extension errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138:517–34.
Tentori K., Bonini N. & Osherson D. (2004) The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction? Cognitive Science 28:467–77.
Tentori K., Crupi V. & Russo S. (2013) On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: Confirmation versus probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142: 235–55.
Tversky A. & Kahneman D. (1982) Judgments of and by representativeness. In: Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, ed. Kahneman D., Slovic P. & Tversky A., pp. 8498). Cambridge University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 53 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 182 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.