Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-jkvpf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T20:08:35.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2013

Emmanuel M. Pothos  and
Jerome R. Busemeyer
Emmanuel M. Pothos
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, City University London, London EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom emmanuel.pothos.1@city.ac.uk http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sbbh932/
Jerome R. Busemeyer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. jbusemey@indiana.edu http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbusemey/home.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Information

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 310 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aerts, D. (2009) Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:314–48.Google Scholar
Aerts, D. & Gabora, L. (2005b) A theory of concepts and their combinations II: A Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes 34:192–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. 13–36. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspect, A., Graingier, P. & Roger, G. (1981) Experimental tests of realistic local theories via Bell's theorem. Physical Review Letters 47:460–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atmanspacher, H. & Filk, T. (2010) A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 54:314–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atmanspacher, H. & Römer, H. (2012) Order effects in sequential measurements of non-commuting psychological observables. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56:274–80.Google Scholar
Blutner, R., Pothos, E. M. & Bruza, P. (in press) A quantum probability perspective on borderline vagueness. Topics in Cognitive Science Google Scholar
Bruza, P., Kitto, K. & McEvoy, D. (2008) Entangling words and meaning. In: Proceedings of the Second Quantum Interaction Conference, pp. 118–24. Springer.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bub, J. (1999) Interpreting the quantum world. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, J. R. & Bruza, P. D. (2012) Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R. & Trueblood, J. S. (2011) A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review 118(2):193–218.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z. & Townsend, J. T. (2006) Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50:220–41.Google Scholar
Clauser, J. & Horne, M. (1974) Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Physical Review D 10:526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 16:1–17.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Isham, C. J. (1989) Lectures on quantum theory. World Scientific.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. (2000) Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2009) Pre'cis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32:69–120.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shafir, E. B., Smith, E. E. & Osherson, D. N. (1990) Typicality and reasoning fallacies. Memory & Cognition 18:229–39.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983) Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90(4): 293–315.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar