Double Conjunction Fallacies in Physicians’ Probability Judgment

Crupi, Vincenzo; Elia, Fabrizio; Aprà, Franco; Tentori, Katya

doi:10.1177/0272989x18786358

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results have been documented not only with a variety of hypothetical scenarios, but also in many real-life domains, both for laypeople and experts who had been asked for probability judgments in their own fields of specialization (e.g., Frederick and Libby (1986), Ho and Keller (1994), Tversky and Kahneman (1983), Adam and Reyna (2005), Garb (2006), Crupi et al (2018)).…”

Section: The Conjunction Fallacysupporting

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Can the Conjunction Fallacy Tell Us about Human Reasoning?

Tentori¹

2021

Human-Like Machine Intelligence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter briefly summarizes some the main results obtained from more than three decades of studies on the conjunction fallacy. It shows that this striking and widely discussed reasoning error is a robust phenomenon that can systematically affect the probabilistic inferences of both laypeople and experts, and it introduces an explanation based on the notion of evidential impact in terms of contemporary Bayesian confirmation theory. Finally, the chapter tackles the open issue of the greater accuracy and reliability of impact assessments over posterior probability judgments and outlines how further research on the role of evidential reasoning in the acceptability of explanations might contribute to the development of effective human-like computing.

show abstract

Section: The Conjunction Fallacysupporting

confidence: 78%

“…To appreciate the relationship between confirmation and explanation, it might be of help to refer to the following CF scenario, which has been recently presented to 82 experienced internists (Crupi et al, 2018).…”

Section: What Suggestions For Effective Human-like Computing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Can the Conjunction Fallacy Tell Us about Human Reasoning?

Tentori¹

2021

Human-Like Machine Intelligence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Conjunction Fallacysupporting

confidence: 78%

What can the conjunction fallacy tell us about human reasoning?

Tentori¹

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, I will brieﬂy summarize and discuss the main results obtained from more than three decades of studies on the conjunction fallacy (hereafter CF) and will argue that this striking and widely debated reasoning error is a robust phenomenon that can systematically aﬀect laypeople’s as much as experts’ probabilistic inferences, with potentially relevant real-life consequences. I will then introduce what is, in my view, the best explanation for the CF and indicate how it allows the reconciliation of some classic probabilistic reasoning errors with the outstanding reasoning performances that humans have been shown capable of. Finally, I will tackle the open issue of the greater accuracy and reliability of evidential impact assessments over those of posterior probability and outline how further research on this topic might also contribute to the development of eﬀective human-like computing.

show abstract

“…We found one article where it is shown that half of early medical students estimated the probability that a patient with a common cold would experience the symptoms of 'runny nose and diarrhea' to be higher than that of the patient experiencing the symptom of 'diarrhea' [33]. However, we also found a very recent and thorough investigation where an impressive amount of data was obtained, showing the occurrence of the double conjunction fallacy in a systematic way in medicine [34]. The data collected in this work interests us particularly, because, as the authors themselves recognize, there are actually no convincing models of decision-making for the double conjunction fallacy [35,36,37,38,39].…”

mentioning

confidence: 65%

“…The authors of the above-mentioned study disagree with this view and claim that their experiments show that double conjunction fallacies are no exception and appear abundantly whenever some specific cognitive situations arise. What is interesting is that in the quantum model of the pet-fish situation that we developed in our group [17,26,27,28,29], the single and double conjunction fallacies can be modeled in a very natural way, and result both from a same fundamental mechanism, which we plan to use also as an explanation for, and to further the analysis of, the situations put forward in [34].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantum Theory Methods as a Possible Alternative for the Double-Blind Gold Standard of Evidence-Based Medicine: Outlining a New Research Program

Aerts¹,

Beltran²,

Geriente³

et al. 2018

Found Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We motivate the possibility of using notions and methods derived from quantum physics, and more specifically from the research field known as 'quantum cognition', to optimally model different situations in the field of medicine, its decision-making processes and ensuing practices, particularly in relation to chronic and rare diseases. This also as a way to devise alternative approaches to the generally adopted double-blind gold standard.Human decision and its ensuing practices play an important role in many domains of human endeavor. When decisions are taken such that their consequences are determinative for the health and care of sick people, an element of even greater importance is added. However, if compared to decision making in economics, psychology, cognitive science, or finance, medical decision making has not yet concentrated very much on structured decision model building [1, 2, 3, 4] 1 . Several reasons for this can be identified. First of all, decisions in medicine touch upon some of the most delicate and valued aspects of us as human beings, possibly also related to matters of life and death, and for this a structured theoretical modeling of their processes might seem almost impossible [5,6,7,8,9]. Secondly, very complicated ethical questions are connected with even simple decisions and their subsequent practices in medicine, which also seems to indicate that only highly contextual and ad hoc reasoning is at place [10,11,12]. Thirdly, and more generally, the concrete 1 Although we mention that the 'Society for Medical Decision Making' (http://smdm.org), with its peer reviewed journal, is an important forum for many of the delicate aspects related to medical decision making.

show abstract

Double Conjunction Fallacies in Physicians’ Probability Judgment

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

What Can the Conjunction Fallacy Tell Us about Human Reasoning?

What Can the Conjunction Fallacy Tell Us about Human Reasoning?

What can the conjunction fallacy tell us about human reasoning?

Quantum Theory Methods as a Possible Alternative for the Double-Blind Gold Standard of Evidence-Based Medicine: Outlining a New Research Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About