Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University.
School of Communication, Ohio State University.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Feb;144(1):236-43. doi: 10.1037/xge0000035.
The conjunction fallacy refers to situations when a person judges a conjunction to be more likely than one of the individual conjuncts, which is a violation of a key property of classical probability theory. Recently, quantum probability (QP) theory has been proposed as a coherent account of these and many other findings on probability judgment "errors" that violate classical probability rules, including the conjunction fallacy. Tentori, Crupi, and Russo (2013) presented an alternative account of the conjunction fallacy based on the concept of inductive confirmation. They presented new empirical findings consistent with their account, and they also claimed that these results were inconsistent with the QP theory account. This comment proved that our QP model for the conjunction fallacy is completely consistent with the main empirical results from Tentori et al. (2013). Furthermore, we discuss experimental tests that can distinguish the 2 alternative accounts.
合取谬误是指当一个人判断一个合取比其中一个单独的合取更有可能时,这违反了经典概率论的一个关键性质。最近,量子概率论(QP)理论被提出作为对这些和许多其他关于概率判断“错误”的连贯解释,这些错误违反了经典概率规则,包括合取谬误。Tentori、Crupi 和 Russo(2013)基于归纳确认的概念提出了对合取谬误的另一种解释。他们提出了与他们的解释一致的新的实证发现,并且他们还声称这些结果与 QP 理论的解释不一致。这一评论证明了我们的 QP 模型对于合取谬误与 Tentori 等人的主要实证结果完全一致。此外,我们讨论了可以区分这两种替代解释的实验测试。