Judgment and decision making: Behavioral approaches.
Use matching-to-sample plus feedback to measure cognitive fallacies in plain behavioral units.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Fraley (1998) wrote a narrative review. The paper asked: Can we study cognitive fallacies with pure behavioral tools?
The author argued yes. Matching-to-sample tasks plus feedback or rewards can measure errors like base-rate neglect.
What they found
The review found no new data. Instead it mapped how to turn mentalistic fallacies into operant experiments.
It listed tools you already know: concurrent schedules, auditory beeps, points, clear contingencies.
How this fits with other research
Kutzner et al. (2008) later ran the exact test Fraley (1998) asked for. Adults in a lab ignored base rates and tracked cue frequency instead. The single-case data confirm the review's hunch.
Pierce et al. (1983) showed humans already follow the matching law. Fraley (1998) simply reapplies that setup to 'irrational' choices.
Thomas et al. (2026) systematically reviewed brief auditory feedback. Their cross-disciplinary scan backs up E's tip that a simple click or beep can serve as a cheap, effective consequence.
Why it matters
You can swap mind-talk for measurable behavior. Next time you see a client 'jump to conclusions,' set up a quick matching-to-sample game. Present two samples, deliver points for correct picks, and log the choices. You will turn a fuzzy fallacy into clean response data that graphs nicely at team meeting.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a five-trial matching-to-sample probe: present two pictures, give a token for the safer choice, and count how often the client picks the long-odds option.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The area of judgment and decision making has given rise to the study of many interesting phenomena, including reasoning fallacies, which are also of interest to behavior analysts. Indeed, techniques and principles of behavior analysis may be applied to study these fallacies. This article reviews research from a behavioral perspective that suggests that humans are not the information-seekers we sometimes suppose ourselves to be. Nor do we utilize information effectively when it is presented. This is shown from the results of research utilizing matching to sample and other behavioral tools (monetary reward, feedback, instructional control) to study phenomena such as the conjunction fallacy, base-rate neglect, and probability matching. Research from a behavioral perspective can complement research from other perspectives in furthering our understanding of judgment and decision making.
The Behavior analyst, 1998 · doi:10.1007/BF03391964