IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v11y2019i10p210-d274101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

About Linda Again: How Narratives and Group Reasoning Can Influence Conjunction Fallacy

Author

Listed:
  • Camillo Donati

    (Department of Education, Literatures, Intercultures, Languages and Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy)

  • Andrea Guazzini

    (Department of Education, Literatures, Intercultures, Languages and Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy)

  • Giorgio Gronchi

    (Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research, and Child Health, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy)

  • Andrea Smorti

    (Department of Education, Literatures, Intercultures, Languages and Psychology, University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy)

Abstract

Conjunction fallacy (together with other systematic reasoning errors) is usually explained in terms of the dual process theory of reasoning: Biases should be ascribed to fast and automatic processes, whereas slow and deliberative processes are responsible of producing answers that are correct with respect of normative criterion. The dual process theory is related to Bruner’s distinction between narrative and paradigmatic thought: Both modes of thought can be characterized by the two different processes of reasoning. In this paper, we explore the role of Bruner’s mode of thought manipulating also the difference between group vs individual reasoning. We observed that the narrative strategy of response induces more wrong answers. However, narrative-based strategies have higher effectiveness in the case of group reasoning. Our results suggest that narrative reasoning and group reasoning may induce violations of the conjunction rule when acceptable by the verisimilitude of the story. Five models are also presented in order to predict answer correctness and strategy of reasoning using a text analysis software.

Suggested Citation

  • Camillo Donati & Andrea Guazzini & Giorgio Gronchi & Andrea Smorti, 2019. "About Linda Again: How Narratives and Group Reasoning Can Influence Conjunction Fallacy," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:210-:d:274101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/10/210/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/10/210/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keng Yang, 2019. "Research on Factors Affecting Solvers’ Participation Time in Online Crowdsourcing Contests," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Nilsson, Håkan & Andersson, Patric, 2010. "Making the seemingly impossible appear possible: Effects of conjunction fallacies in evaluations of bets on football games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 172-180, April.
    3. Charness, Gary & Karni, Edi & Levin, Dan, 2010. "On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding Linda," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 551-556, March.
    4. Annetta Burger & Talha Oz & William G. Kennedy & Andrew T. Crooks, 2019. "Computational Social Science of Disasters: Opportunities and Challenges," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-31, April.
    5. Andrea Guazzini & Mirko Duradoni & Alessandro Lazzeri & Giorgio Gronchi, 2018. "Simulating the Cost of Cooperation: A Recipe for Collaborative Problem-Solving," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2016. "Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 479-510, November.
    2. Andrea Polonioli, 2012. "Gigerenzer’s ‘external validity argument’ against the heuristics and biases program: an assessment," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(2), pages 133-148, December.
    3. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    4. Faralla, Valeria & Borà, Guido & Innocenti, Alessandro & Novarese, Marco, 2020. "Promises in group decision making," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 1-11.
    5. Besedes, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Quintanar, Sarah & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2011. "Free-Riding and Performance in Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Groups," MPRA Paper 33948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Bernd Frick & Franziska Prockl, 2018. "Information Precision In Online Communities: Player Valuations On Www.Transfermarkt.De," Working Papers Dissertations 37, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    7. Stöckl, Thomas & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian, 2015. "Hot hand and gambler's fallacy in teams: Evidence from investment experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 327-339.
    8. Bougheas, Spiros & Nieboer, Jeroen & Sefton, Martin, 2013. "Risk-taking in social settings: Group and peer effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 273-283.
    9. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    10. Faizul Chasanah & Hiroyuki Sakakibara, 2022. "Implication of Mutual Assistance Evacuation Model to Reduce the Volcanic Risk for Vulnerable Society: Insight from Mount Merapi, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-23, July.
    11. Crosetto, Paolo & Filippin, Antonio & Katuščák, Peter & Smith, John, 2020. "Central tendency bias in belief elicitation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Jingjing Zhang, 2012. "Communication in asymmetric group competition over public goods," ECON - Working Papers 069, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Yukalov, V.I. & Yukalova, E.P. & Sornette, D., 2022. "Role of collective information in networks of quantum operating agents," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 598(C).
    14. Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2013. "Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-25, February.
    15. Alessia Isopi & Daniele Nosenzo & Chris Starmer, 2014. "Does consultation improve decision-making?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 377-388, October.
    16. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 614-624.
    17. Marco Casari & Jingjing Zhang & Christine Jackson, 2016. "Same process, different outcomes: group performance in an acquiring a company experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 764-791, December.
    18. Charness, Gary & Cooper, David & Grossman, Zachary, 2015. "Silence is Golden: Communication Costs and Team Problem Solving," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt3n25b620, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    19. Ho Cheung Brian Lee & Jan Stallaert & Ming Fan, 2020. "Anomalies in Probability Estimates for Event Forecasting on Prediction Markets," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(9), pages 2077-2095, September.
    20. Erceg, Nikola & Galić, Zvonimir, 2014. "Overconfidence bias and conjunction fallacy in predicting outcomes of football matches," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 52-62.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:210-:d:274101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.