Skip to main content Accessibility help

Quantum principles in psychology: The debate, the evidence, and the future

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

The attempt to employ quantum principles for modeling cognition has enabled the introduction of several new concepts in psychology, such as the uncertainty principle, incompatibility, entanglement, and superposition. For many commentators, this is an exciting opportunity to question existing formal frameworks (notably classical probability theory) and explore what is to be gained by employing these novel conceptual tools. This is not to say that major empirical challenges are not there. For example, can we definitely prove the necessity for quantum, as opposed to classical, models? Can the distinction between compatibility and incompatibility inform our understanding of differences between human and nonhuman cognition? Are quantum models less constrained than classical ones? Does incompatibility arise as a limitation, to avoid the requirements from the principle of unicity, or is it an inherent (or essential?) characteristic of intelligent thought? For everyday judgments, do quantum principles allow more accurate prediction than classical ones? Some questions can be confidently addressed within existing quantum models. A definitive resolution of others will have to anticipate further work. What is clear is that the consideration of quantum cognitive models has enabled a new focus on a range of debates about fundamental aspects of cognition.

Hide All
Aerts, D. (2009) Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:314–48.
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.
Alxatib, S. & Pelletier, J. (2011) On the psychology of truth-gaps. In: Vagueness in communication, ed. Nouwen, R., van Rooij, R., Sauerland, U. & Schmitz, H.-C., pp. 1336. Springer-Verlag.
Aspect, A., Graingier, P. & Roger, G. (1981) Experimental tests of realistic local theories via Bell's theorem. Physical Review Letters 47:460–67.
Atmanspacher, H. & Filk, T. (2010) A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 54:314–21.
Atmanspacher, H. & Römer, H. (2012) Order effects in sequential measurements of non-commuting psychological observables. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56:274–80.
Blutner, R., Pothos, E. M. & Bruza, P. (in press) A quantum probability perspective on borderline vagueness. Topics in Cognitive Science
Bruza, P., Kitto, K. & McEvoy, D. (2008) Entangling words and meaning. In: Proceedings of the Second Quantum Interaction Conference, pp. 118–24. Springer.
Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Nelson, D. & McEvoyc, C. (2009) Is there something quantum-like about the human mental lexicon? Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:362–77.
Bub, J. (1999) Interpreting the quantum world. Cambridge University Press.
Busemeyer, J. R. & Bruza, P. D. (2012) Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press.
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. & Townsend, J. T. (2006) Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50:220–41.
Clauser, J. & Horne, M. (1974) Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Physical Review D 10:526–35.
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.
Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Isham, C. J. (1989) Lectures on quantum theory. World Scientific.
Miyamoto, J. M., Gonzalez, R. & Tu, S. (1995) Compositional anomalies in the semantics of evidence. In: Decision making from a cognitive perspective (Volume 32 of the Psychology of Learning and Motivation), ed. Busemeyer, J., Hastie, R. & Medin, D., pp. 319–83. Academic Press.
Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. (2000) Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press.
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2009) Pre'cis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32:69120.
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.
Shafir, E. B., Smith, E. E. & Osherson, D. N. (1990) Typicality and reasoning fallacies. Memory & Cognition 18:229–39.
Smolensky, P., Goldrick, M. & Mathis, D. (in press) Optimization and quantization in gradient symbol systems: a framework for integrating the continuous and the discrete in cognition. Cognitive Science.
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. & Kahneman, D. (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90(4): 293315.
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.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


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