Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Double Conjunction Fallacies in Physicians' Probability Judgment.

Vincenzo Crupi1, Fabrizio Elia2, Franco Aprà2

  • 1Center for Logic, Language, and Cognition, Department of Philosophy and Education, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Medical Decision Making : an International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
|July 7, 2018
PubMed
Summary

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Holding breath: the human cost of a system under strain.

Internal and emergency medicine·2025
Same author

The development of probabilistic reasoning during early childhood.

Cognition·2025
Same author

The space between us: navigating relational boundaries in times of care.

Internal and emergency medicine·2025
Same author

Discourse on measurement.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2025
Same author

How can we make sound replication decisions?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2025
Same author

Fostering effective hybrid human-LLM reasoning and decision making.

Frontiers in artificial intelligence·2025

Physicians often commit double conjunction fallacies when making diagnostic and prognostic probability judgments. This study confirms this reasoning bias is replicable and impacts clinical practice.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Medical Decision Making
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Physicians' probability judgments are crucial for diagnosis and prognosis.
  • Understanding cognitive biases in medical reasoning is essential for improving patient care.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To provide the first empirical evidence of double conjunction fallacies in physicians' probability judgments.
  • To investigate the underlying mechanisms of these fallacies in medical contexts.
  • To examine the replicability and theoretical implications of this reasoning bias.

Main Methods:

  • Empirical data collection on physicians' probability judgments.
  • Experimental design to test for replicable reasoning biases.
  • Analysis of evidential impact assessments in diagnostic and prognostic tasks.
Keywords:
clinical reasoningconjunction fallacyprobability judgmentreasoning bias

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • A significant prevalence of double conjunction fallacies was observed in physicians' judgments.
  • Physicians' probability assessments were influenced by the perceived evidential impact of clinical signs on diagnostic conditions.
  • The double conjunction fallacy was demonstrated to be an experimentally replicable bias.

Conclusions:

  • Double conjunction fallacies are a prevalent and replicable bias in physicians' uncertain reasoning.
  • Existing models of uncertain reasoning in medicine may not fully account for this phenomenon.
  • The findings have implications for clinical practice and the training of medical professionals.