IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i6p756-760.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Double Conjunction Fallacies in Physicians’ Probability Judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Vincenzo Crupi

    (Center for Logic, Language, and Cognition, Department of Philosophy and Education, University of Turin, Turin, Italy)

  • Fabrizio Elia

    (Department of Medicine, Local Health Service, Turin, Turin, Italy)

  • Franco AprÃ

    (Department of Medicine, Local Health Service, Turin, Turin, Italy)

  • Katya Tentori

    (Center for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Trento, Italy)

Abstract

We report the first empirical data showing a significant amount of double conjunction fallacies in physicians’ probability judgments concerning prognosis and diagnosis. Our results support the hypothesis that physicians’ probability judgments are guided by assessments of evidential impact between diagnostic conditions and clinical signs. Moreover, we show that, contrary to some influential views, double conjunction fallacies represent an experimentally replicable reasoning bias. We discuss how the phenomenon eludes major current accounts of uncertain reasoning in medicine and beyond and how it relates to clinical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincenzo Crupi & Fabrizio Elia & Franco Aprà & Katya Tentori, 2018. "Double Conjunction Fallacies in Physicians’ Probability Judgment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 756-760, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:756-760
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18786358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18786358
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18786358?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:756-760. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.