Is There a Conjunction Fallacy in Legal Probabilistic Decision Making?

Each model elaboration was highly significant so it was the final model that was employed in the assessment of the hypotheses of interest [χ 2 (1) = 10, p = 0.001; χ 2 (5) = 55, p < 0.0005].

also in 132,142 other papers

For when the case type was guilty, for judges there was an effect of rating [ F (2, 64.3) = 3.503, p = 0.036], but no evidence for a CF, rather a situation where Prob ( B ) > Prob ( A&B ) (M ProbB = 9.543, SE ProbB = 0.250; M ProbA&B = 8.831, SE ProbA&B = 0.276, marginally approaching significance, p = 0.058, d = 0.612) (Taylor, 2015 ).

also in 2,640 other papers