Behavioral decision research is not a Linda problem: Comment on Regenwetter, Robinson, and Wang (in press)

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
🔓 Open OA copy View at publisher

Abstract

Regenwetter, Robinson, and Wang (in press) 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 paper 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.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0