Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Neurocognitive processes underlying heuristic and normative probability judgments
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4088-0025
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Umeå Centre for Functional Brain Imaging (UFBI). Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Integrative Medical Biology (IMB).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1407-9288
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Integrative Medical Biology (IMB). Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Umeå Centre for Functional Brain Imaging (UFBI). Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Cognition, ISSN 0010-0277, E-ISSN 1873-7838, Vol. 196, p. 1-7, article id 104153Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Judging two events in combination (A&B) as more probable than one of the events (A) is known as a conjunction fallacy. According to dual-process explanations of human judgment and decision making, the fallacy is due to the application of a heuristic, associative cognitive process. Avoiding the fallacy has been suggested to require the recruitment of a separate process that can apply normative rules. We investigated these assumptions using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during conjunction tasks. Judgments, whether correct or not, engaged a network of brain regions identical to that engaged during similarity judgments. Avoidance of the conjunction fallacy additionally, and uniquely, involved a fronto-parietal network previously linked to supervisory, analytic control processes. The results lend credibility to the idea that incorrect probability judgments are the result of a representativeness heuristic that requires additional neurocognitive resources to avoid.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
ELSEVIER , 2020. Vol. 196, p. 1-7, article id 104153
Keywords [en]
Decision making, Dual-system, Dual-process, fMRI, Representativeness
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-169341DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104153ISI: 000518704700021PubMedID: 31838247Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85076262700OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-169341DiVA, id: diva2:1423714
Projects
ujlAvailable from: 2020-04-15 Created: 2020-04-15 Last updated: 2023-12-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Andersson, LinusEriksson, JohanStillesjö, SaraNyberg, LarsKarlsson Wirebring, Linnea

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Andersson, LinusEriksson, JohanStillesjö, SaraNyberg, LarsKarlsson Wirebring, Linnea
By organisation
Department of PsychologyUmeå Centre for Functional Brain Imaging (UFBI)Department of Integrative Medical Biology (IMB)Diagnostic Radiology
In the same journal
Cognition
Philosophy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 621 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf