Abstract
Humans and other animals are capable of reasoning. However, there are overwhelming examples of errors or anomalies in reasoning. In two experiments, we studied if rats, like humans, estimate the conjunction of two events as more likely than each event independently, a phenomenon that has been called conjunction fallacy. In both experiments, rats learned through food reinforcement to press a lever under some cue conditions but not others. Sound B was rewarded whereas Sound A was not. However, when B was presented with the visual cue Y was not rewarded, whereas AX was rewarded (i.e., A-, AX+, B+, BY-). Both visual cues were presented in the same bulb. After training, rats received test sessions in which A and B were presented with the bulb explicitly off or occluded by a metal piece. Thus, on the occluded condition, it was ambiguous whether the trials were of the elements alone (A or B) or of the compounds (AX or BY). Rats responded on the occluded condition as if the compound cues were most likely present. The second experiment investigated if this error in probability estimation in Experiment 1, could be due to a conjunction fallacy, and if this could be attenuated by increasing the ratio of element/compound trials from the original 50-50 to 70-30 and 90-10. Only the 90-10 condition (where 90% of the training trials were of just A or just B) did not show a conjunction fallacy, though it emerged in all groups with additional training. These findings open new avenues for exploring the mechanisms behind the conjunction fallacy effect.