Does providing a subtle reasoning hint remedy the conjunction fallacy?

Abstract: Humans are in general poor at making judgments that adhere to the logical principles of probability theory. One demonstration of this is termed the “conjunction fallacy”: judging a conjunction (A&B) as being more probable than its constituent (A). Systematic commitment of the conjunction fallacy has been shown in numerous studies on probability judgments. Different actions to remedy the fallacy have been suggested. According to the nested-sets hypothesis, when the nested-set structure of a problem becomes clear (i.e. the relation between categories and subcategories), then the conjunction fallacy is remedied. However, previous demonstrations of this remediation have provided very explicit task-related information and it can be questioned whether it is trivial that such information leads to more correct judgments. The primary aim of this study was to test the nested- sets hypothesis in two different formats of a probability judgment task, by more subtly hinting about the nested-set structure. Twenty-nine participants were randomly divided into two groups, one Probability condition and one Informed probability condition, where participants in the latter condition were provided with the hint. The second aim was to investigate whether the Informed probability condition was performed more slowly, potentially due to the time-cost of more elaborated judgments. The results show that a subtle hint about the nested-set structure was able to remedy the conjunction fallacy in a forced-choice probability judgment task but not statistically reliably in a probability estimation task. No response-time differences were observed between the conditions. The results support the nested-sets hypothesis and imply that even a subtle reasoning hint clarifying the relation between categories and subcategories might remedy one of the most robust probability judgment fallacies.