The way people respond to the chance that an unlikely event will occur depends on how the event is described. We propose that people attach more weight to unlikely events when they can easily generate or imagine examples in which the event has occurred or will occur than when they cannot. We tested this idea in two experiments with mock jurors using written murder scenarios. The results suggested that jurors attach more weight to the defendant's claim that an incriminating DNA match is merely coincidental when it is easy for them to imagine other individuals whose DNA would also match than when it is not easy for them to imagine such individuals. We manipulated the difficulty of imagining such examples by varying the description of the DNA-match statistic. Some of the variations that influenced the jurors were normatively irrelevant.

An investigation was made of the role played by verbal structure in the problems used to study the base-rate fallacy, which has traditionally been attributed to the role of heuristics (e.g. causality, specificity). It was hypothesized that elements of the verbal form of text problems led to a misunderstanding of the question or the specific information, rendering obscure the independence of the sets of data (specific information is obtained independently from the base rate). Nine texts were presented to various groups of subjects: four were taken from Tversky and Kahneman (1980) and used as controls; five were obtained by modifying the verbal form of the original in order to reveal or conceal the links between the sets of data. The percentage of base-rate fallacies was greatly reduced with texts in which the independence of the data was clear, regardless of the causality and specificity of the information they contained (which was not changed). This result suggests that there is a need to consider the rules of natural language in order to move towards a better understanding of observed phenomena.

Recent studies have demonstrated subadditivity of human probability judgment: The judged probabilities for an event partition sum to more than 1. We report conditions under which people's probability judgments are superadditive instead: The component judgments for a partition sum to less than 1. Both directions of deviation from additivity are interpreted in a common framework, in which probability judgments are often mediated by judgments of evidence. The 2 kinds of nonadditivity result from differences in recruitment of supporting evidence together with reduced processing of nonfocal propositions.

No abstract

pragmatics, reasoning, deduction, conditional reasoning, judgment, probabilistic reasoning,