Abstract
Regenwetter et al. (2022) argue that research on decision-making is plagued with conjunction fallacies or “Linda Effects.” As a case study, they provide a critical analysis of Kahneman and Tversky’s seminal article on Prospect Theory and its 1992 sequel. This commentary evaluates their criticisms and ultimately finds them to be predicated on a number of misconceptions. As argued below, a reliance on stylized effects at the aggregate level is perfectly legitimate when dismissing a received view and first proposing a new account that organizes said effects in theoretically-meaningful ways.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 112-117 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Decision |
Volume | 9 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2022 |
Keywords
- Aggregation fallacies
- Choice behavior
- Prospect theory
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Social Psychology
- Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
- Applied Psychology
- Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty