Based on quantum formalism, a mathematical model is designed to account for conjunction fallacy.

On the nature of the conjunction fallacy.

The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction?

However, studies exist in which indistinguishable conjunction fallacy rates have been observed with stimuli framed in terms of probabilities versus frequencies.

Drawing attention to set relationships, using frequencies instead of probabilities and/or thinking diagrammatically sharply reduce the error in some forms of the conjunction fallacy.

The conjunction fallacy is a formal fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one.

Representativeness is cited in the similar effect of the gambler's fallacy, the regression fallacy and the conjunction fallacy.

In addition to extensionality violation, base-rate neglect, and the conjunction fallacy, the use of representativeness heuristic may lead to a disjunction fallacy.

Tversky and Kahneman (1983) termed participants choice as a "conjunction fallacy"; whereby participants chose option b) because the description relates to feminism.

The conjunction fallacy occurs when people mistakenly judge a specific set of circumstances to be more probable than a more general set that includes the specific set.

However, it has been argued that many standard tests of reasoning, such as those on the conjunction fallacy, on the Wason selection task, or the base rate fallacy suffer from methodological and conceptual problems.

The "slippery slope" approach may also relate to the conjunction fallacy: with a long string of steps leading to an undesirable conclusion, the chance of all the steps actually occurring in sequence is less than the chance of any one of the individual steps occurring alone.