Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?

  • Emmanuel M. Pothos (a1) and Jerome R. Busemeyer (a2)

Abstract

Classical (Bayesian) probability (CP) theory has led to an influential research tradition for modeling cognitive processes. Cognitive scientists have been trained to work with CP principles for so long that it is hard even to imagine alternative ways to formalize probabilities. However, in physics, quantum probability (QP) theory has been the dominant probabilistic approach for nearly 100 years. Could QP theory provide us with any advantages in cognitive modeling as well? Note first that both CP and QP theory share the fundamental assumption that it is possible to model cognition on the basis of formal, probabilistic principles. But why consider a QP approach? The answers are that (1) there are many well-established empirical findings (e.g., from the influential Tversky, Kahneman research tradition) that are hard to reconcile with CP principles; and (2) these same findings have natural and straightforward explanations with quantum principles. In QP theory, probabilistic assessment is often strongly context- and order-dependent, individual states can be superposition states (that are impossible to associate with specific values), and composite systems can be entangled (they cannot be decomposed into their subsystems). All these characteristics appear perplexing from a classical perspective. However, our thesis is that they provide a more accurate and powerful account of certain cognitive processes. We first introduce QP theory and illustrate its application with psychological examples. We then review empirical findings that motivate the use of quantum theory in cognitive theory, but also discuss ways in which QP and CP theories converge. Finally, we consider the implications of a QP theory approach to cognition for human rationality.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Aerts, D. (2009) Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:314–48.
Aerts, D. & Aerts, S. (1995) Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Foundations of Science 1:8597.
Aerts, D. & Gabora, L. (2005b) A theory of concepts and their combinations II: A Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes 34:192221.
Aerts, D. & Sozzo, S. (2011b) Quantum structure in cognition: Why and how concepts are entangled. In: Proceedings of the Quantum Interaction Conference, pp. 118–29. Springer.
Anderson, J. R. (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R. (1991) The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review 98:409–29.
Anderson, N. (1971) Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review 78:171206.
Ashby, F. G. & Perrin, N. A. (1988) Towards a unified theory of similarity and recognition. Psychological Review 95:124–50.
Atmanspacher, H. (2004) Quantum theory and consciousness: An overview with selected examples. Discrete Dynamics 8:5173.
Atmanspacher, H. & Filk, T. (2010) A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 54:314–21.
Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T. & Romer, H. (2004) Quantum zero features of bistable perception. Biological Cybernetics 90:3340.
Atmanspacher, H. & Römer, H. (2012) Order effects in sequential measurements of non-commuting psychological observables. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56:274–80.
Atmanspacher, H., Römer, H. & Walach, H. (2002) Weak quantum theory: Complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Foundations of Physics 32:379406.
Baaquie, B. E. (2004) Quantum finance: Path integrals and Hamiltonians for options and interest rates. Cambridge University Press.
Bar-Hillel, M. & Neter, E. (1993) How alike is it versus how likely is it: A disjunction fallacy in probability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:1119–31.
Barkan, R. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2003) Modeling dynamic inconsistency with a changing reference point. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 16:235–55.
Bergus, G. R., Chapman, G. B., Levy, B. T., Ely, J. W. & Oppliger, R. A. (1998) Clinical diagnosis and order information. Medical Decision Making 18:412–17.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2008) New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review 115:463501.
Blutner, R. (2009) Concepts and bounded rationality: An application of Niestegge's approach to conditional quantum probabilities. In: Foundations of probability and physics-5, ed. Acardi, L. E. A., Adenier, G., Fuchs, C., Jaeger, G., Khrennikov, A. Y., Larsson, J.-Å. & Stenholm, S., pp. 302–10. American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings.
Bordley, R. F. (1998) Quantum mechanical and human violations of compound probability principles: Toward a generalized Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Operations Research 46:923–26.
Brainerd, C. J. & Reyna, V. F. (2008) Episodic over-distribution: A signature effect of familiarity without recognition. Journal of Memory & Language 58:765–86.
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F. & Ceci, S. J. (2008) Developmental reversals in false memory: A review of data and theory. Psychological Bulletin 134:343–82.
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F. & Mojardin, A. H. (1999) Conjoint recognition. Psychological Review 106:160–79.
Bruza, P. D., Kitto, K., Nelson, D. & McEvoy, C. L. (2009) Is there something quantum-like about the human mental lexicon? Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:362–77.
Busemeyer, J. R. & Bruza, P. D. (2012) Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press.
Busemeyer, J. R., Matthew, M. & Wang, Z. A. (2006a) Quantum game theory explanation of disjunction effects. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Sun, R. & Miyake, N., pp. 131–35. Erlbaum.
Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R. & Trueblood, J. S. (2011) A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review 118(2):193218.
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, J. & Shiffrin, R. M. (2012) Bayesian model comparison of quantum versus traditional models of decision making for explaining violations of the dynamic consistency principle. Paper presented at Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory, Atlanta, Georgia.
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z. & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. (2009) Comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:423–33.
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z. & Townsend, J. T. (2006) Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50:220–41.
Carlson, B. W. & Yates, J. F. (1989) Disjunction errors in qualitative likelihood judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44:368–79.
Conte, E., Khrennikov, A. Y., Todarello, O., Federici, A., Mendolicchio, L. & Zbilut, J. P. (2009) Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. Open Systems and Information Dynamics 16:117.
Croson, R. (1999) The disjunction effect and reason-based choice in games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 80:118–33.
de Barros, J. A. & Suppes, P. (2009) Quantum mechanics, interference, and the brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:306–13.
de Finetti, B., Machi, A. & Smith, A. (1993) Theory of probability: A critical introductory treatment. Wiley.
Feldman, J. M. & Lynch, J. G. (1988) Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 73:421–35.
Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Fine, A. (1982) Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables. Journal of Mathematical Physics 23:1306–10.
Fodor, J. A. (1983) The modularity of mind. The MIT Press.
Gavanski, I. & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (1991) Representativeness and conjoint probability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61:181–94.
Gigerenzer, G. & Todd, P. M. (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.
Goldstone, R. L. (1994) Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 20:328.
Griffiths, R. B. (2003) Consistent quantum theory. Cambridge University Press.
Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010) Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14:357–64.
Grover, L. K. (1997) Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. Physical Review Letters 79:325–28.
Hahn, U., Chater, N. & Richardson, L. B. (2003) Similarity as transformation. Cognition 87:132.
Hammeroff, S. R. (1998) Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose-Hammeroff “orch-or” model of consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 356:1869–96.
Hameroff, S. R. (2007) The brain is both neurocomputer and quantum computer. Cognitive Science 31:1035–45.
Hampton, J. A. (1988a) Disjunction of natural concepts. Memory & Cognition 16:579–91.
Hampton, J. A. (1988b) Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model for concept typicality and class inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14:1232.
Hogarth, R. M. & Einhorn, H. J. (1992) Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology 24:155.
Hughes, R. I. G. (1989) The structure and interpretation of quantum mechanics. Harvard University Press.
Isham, C. J. (1989) Lectures on quantum theory. World Scientific.
Jibu, M. & Yasue, K. (1995) Quantum brain dynamics and consciousness. Benjamins.
Johnson, E. J., Haubl, G. & Keinan, A. (2007) Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 33(3):461–73.
Jones, M. & Love, B. C. (2011) Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34:169231.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–91.
Khrennikov, A. Y. (2010) Ubiquitous quantum structure: From psychology to finance. Springer.
Kolmogorov, A. N. (1933/1950) Foundations of the theory of probability. Chelsea Publishing Co.
Krueger, J. I., DiDonato, T. E. & Freestone, D. (2012) Social projection can solve social dilemmas. Psychological Inquiry 23:127.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1978) Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review 85:445–63.
Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Zamir, S. & Zwirn, H. (2009) Type indeterminacy: A model of the KT(Kahneman–Tversky)-man. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53(5):349–61.
Li, S. & Taplin, J. (2002) Examining whether there is a disjunction effect in prisoner's dilemma games. Chinese Journal of Psychology 44:2546.
Litt, A., Eliasmith, C., Kroon, F. W., Weinstein, S. & Thagard, P. (2006) Is the brain a quantum computer? Cognitive Science 30:593603.
Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1993) Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language 32:517–35.
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.
McKenzie, C. R. M., Lee, S. M. & Chen, K. K. (2002) When negative evidence increases confidence: Change in belief after hearing two sides of a dispute. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15:118.
Moore, D. W. (2002) Measuring new types of question-order effects. Public Opinion Quarterly 66:8091.
Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. (2000) Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984) Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 10:104–14.
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007) Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2009) Pre'cis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32:69120.
Penrose, R. (1989) The emperor's new mind. Oxford University Press.
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L. & Xu, F. (2011) A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition 120:302–21.
Pothos, E. M. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009) A quantum probability explanation for violations of “rational” decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276:2171–78.
Pothos, E. M. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011) A quantum probability explanation for violations of symmetry in similarity judgments. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2848–54. LEA.
Redei, M. & Summers, S. J. (2007) Quantum probability theory. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38:390417.
Reyna, V. F. (2008) A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy trace theory. Medical Decision Making 28:850–65.
Reyna, V. F. & Brainerd, C. J. (1995) Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences 7:175.
Ricciardi, L. M. & Umezawa, H. (1967) Brain and physics of many bodied problems. Kybernetik 4:4448.
Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L. & Navarro, D. J. (2010) Rational approximations to rational models: Alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review 117:1144–67.
Savage, L. (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley.
Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1981) Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and content. Academic Press.
Schwarz, N. (2007) Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition 25:638–56.
Shafer, G. & Tversky, A. (1985) Languages and designs for probability judgment. Cognitive Science 9:309–39.
Shafir, E. & Tversky, A. (1992) Thinking through uncertainty: nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology 24:449–74.
Shanteau, J. C. (1970) An additive model for sequential decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology 85:181191.
Sher, S. & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2008) Framing effects and rationality. In: The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science, ed. Chater, N. & Oaksford, M., pp. 7996. Oxford University Press.
Sides, A., Osherson, D., Bonini, N. & Viale, R. (2002) On the reality of the conjunction fallacy. Memory and Cognition 30:191–98.
Simon, H. A. (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69:99118.
Sloman, S. A. (1993) Feature-based induction. Cognitive Psychology 25:231–80.
Smolensky, P. (1990) Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures in connectionist networks. Artificial Intelligence 46:159216.
Stolarz-Fantino, S., Fantino, E., Zizzo, D. J. & Wen, J. (2003) The conjunction effect: New evidence for robustness. American Journal of Psychology 116(1):1534.
Tenenbaum, J. B. & Griffiths, T. L. (2001) The rational basis of representativeness. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1036–41.
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L. & Goodman, N. (2011) How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science 331:1279–85.
Tentori, K. & Crupi, V. (2012) On the conjunction fallacy and the meaning of and, yet again: A reply to Hertwig, Benz, and Krauss (2008). Cognition 122:123–34.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J. & Rasinski, K. A. (2000) The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.
Townsend, J. T., Silva, K. M., Spencer-Smith, J. & Wenger, M. (2000) Exploring the relations between categorization and decision making with regard to realistic face stimuli. Pragmatics and Cognition 8:83105.
Trueblood, J. S. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011) A comparison of the belief-adjustment model and the quantum inference model as explanations of order effects in human inference. Cognitive Science 35(8):1518–52.
Tversky, A. (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84(4):327–52.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973) Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5:207–32.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–31.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90(4): 293315.
Tversky, A. & Koehler, D. J. (1994) Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review 101:547–67.
Tversky, A. & Shafir, E. (1992) The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science 3:305309.
Vitiello, G. (1995) Dissipation and memory capacity in the quantum brain model. International Journal of Modern Physics B9:973–89.
Wakker, P. P. (2010) Prospect theory for risk and ambiguity. Cambridge University Press.
Walker, L., Thibaut, J. & Andreoli, V. (1972) Order of presentation at trial. Yale Law Journal 82:216–26.
Wang, Z. & Busemeyer, J. R. (in press) A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction. Topics in Cognitive Science.
Wang, Z. J., Busemeyer, J. R., Atmanspacher, H. & Pothos, E. M. (in press) The potential for using quantum theory to build models of cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science.
Wason, P. C. (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12:129–40.
Wedell, D. H. & Moro, R. (2008) Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: Effects of response mode, conceptual focus, and problem type. Cognition 107:105–36.
Wills, A. J. & Pothos, E. M. (2012) On the adequacy of current empirical evaluations of formal models of categorization. Psychological Bulletin 138:102–25.
Yukalov, V. & Sornette, D. (2010) Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision 70:283328.

Keywords

Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?

  • Emmanuel M. Pothos (a1) and Jerome R. Busemeyer (a2)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed