Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-z5ksc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-24T13:46:56.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining interference effects in prisoner dilemma games

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Jerome Busemeyer Open the ORCID record for Jerome Busemeyer [Opens in a new window] ,
Masanari Asano  and
Meijuan Lu
Jerome Busemeyer*
Affiliation:
Psychological Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Department Information Computer Science, Kindai University, 3-4-1 Kowakae, Higashiōsaka 577-8502, Osaka, Japan
Masanari Asano*
Affiliation:
Department Information Computer Science, Kindai University, 3-4-1 Kowakae, Higashiōsaka 577-8502, Osaka, Japan Meng River Health, 1950 East Greyhound Pass, Carmel, IN 46033, USA
Meijuan Lu*
Affiliation:
Psychological Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Department Information Computer Science, Kindai University, 3-4-1 Kowakae, Higashiōsaka 577-8502, Osaka, Japan
*
jbusemey@indiana.edu
iasano@fuk.kindai.ac.jp
ludaifu.88@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a new approach to understanding strategic decision making inspired by the mathematics of quantum theory. Empirical support for this new approach is based on five different puzzling findings from past work on the prisoner dilemma game including the disjunction effect, the interference of predictions on actions in simultaneous and sequential games, question order effect, and the effects of cheap promises. Eight different quantum models are described, which purport to account for these puzzling findings. The competing models are systematically compared with respect to their capability of accounting for the five empirical findings.

Keywords

Prisoner dilemmaDisjunction effectInterference effectQuestion order effectQuantum cognitionC7

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 27 , Issue 4: Special Issue in Honor of Amnon Rapoport, Part 1 , September 2024 , pp. 743 - 765
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Economic Science Association 2024

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

Alonso-Sanz, R. (2019). Quantum game simulation, Springer 36, .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asano, M, Basieva, I, Khrennikov, A, Ohya, M, & Tanaka, Y. (2012). Quantum-like dynamics of decision-making. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 391, 5, 2083–2099. 10.1016/j.physa.2011.11.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asano, M, Ohya, M, & Khrennikov, A. (2011). Quantum-like model for decision making process in two players game. Foundations of Physics, 41, 3, 538–548. 10.1007/s10701-010-9454-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asano, M, Ohya, M, Tanaka, Y, Basieva, I, & Khrennikov, A. (2011). Quantum-like model of brain's functioning: Decision making from decoherence. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 281, 1, 56–64. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.04.022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagarello, F, Haven, E, & Khrennikov, A. (2017). A model of adaptive decision-making from representation of information environment by quantum fields. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 375, 2106, 20170162. 10.1098/rsta.2017.0162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanco, M, Engelmann, D, Koch, AK, & Normann, H-T. (2014). Preferences and beliefs in a sequential social dilemma: A within-subjects analysis. Games and Economic Behavior, 87, 122–135. 10.1016/j.geb.2014.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekaert, JB, Busemeyer, JR, & Pothos, EM. (2020). The disjunction effect in two-stage simulated gambles. An experimental study and comparison of a heuristic logistic, markov and quantum-like model. Cognitive Psychology, 117, 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101262101262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruza, PD, Fell, L, Hoyte, P, Dehdashti, S, Obeid, A, Gibson, A, & Moreira, C. (2023). Contextuality and context-sensitivity in probabilistic models of cognition. Cognitive Psychology, 140, 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101529101529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busemeyer, JR, & Bruza, PD. (2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision, Cambirdge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511997716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busemeyer, JR, & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. (2009). Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 5, 423–433. 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busemeyer, J. R., & Matthews, M. (2006). A quantum information processing explanation of disjunction effects. In Sun, R. & Myake, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the cognitive science society and the 5th international conference of cognitive science (pp. 131–135). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Croson, R. (1999). The disjunction effect and reason-based choice in games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 2, 118–133. 10.1006/obhd.1999.2846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denolf, J, Martínez-Martínez, I, Josephy, H, & Barque-Duran, A. (2016). A quantum-like model for complementarity of preferences and beliefs in dilemma games. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 78, 96–106. 10.1016/j.jmp.2016.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisert, M, Wilkens, J, & Lewenstein, M. (1999). Quantum games and quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters, 83, 3077–3080. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E, & Schmidt, KM. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 3, 817–868. 10.1162/003355399556151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, AM. (1957). Measures on the closed subspaces of a hilbert space. Journal of Mathematical Mechanics, 6, 885–893.Google Scholar
Hughes, RIG. (1989). The structure and interpretation of quantum mechanics, Harvard University Press. 10.1063/1.2811188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khrennikov, AY. (2010). Ubiquitous quantum structure: From psychology to finance, Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-05101-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khrennikov, AY, Basieva, I, Dzhafarov, EN, & Busemeyer, JR. (2014). Quantum models for psychological measurements: An unsolved problem. PLoS ONE, 9, 10, 10.1371/journal.pone.0110909e110909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolmogorov, AN. (1950). Foundations of the theory of probability, Chelsea Publishing Co..Google Scholar
Kvam, P. D., Busemeyer, J. R., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. (2014). An empirical test of type indeterminancy in the prisoners-dilemma. In Atmanspacher, B. H., Haven, E., Kitto, K., & Rene, D. (Eds.), Quantum interaction, 7th international symposium (pp. 213–224). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvam, PD, Pleskac, TJ, Yu, S, & Busemeyer, JR. (2015). Interference effects of choice on confidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112, 34, 10645–10650. 10.1073/pnas.1500688112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert-Mogiliansky, A, Zamir, S, & Zwirn, H. (2009). Type indeterminacy: A model of the ’kt’ (Kahneman-Tversky)-man. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 5, 349–361. 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Martínez, I, & Sánchez-Burillo, E. (2016). Quantum stochastic walks on networks for decision-making. Scientific Reports, 6, 23812. 10.1038/srep23812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, DA. (1999). Quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters, 82, 1052–1055. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozawa, M, & Khrennikov, A. (2019). Application of theory of quantum instruments to psychology: Combination of question order effect with response replicability effect. Entropy, 22, 1, 37. 10.3390/e22010037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piotrowski, EW, & Sladkowski, J. (2002). An invitation to quantum game theory. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 42, 1089–1099. 10.1023/A:1025443111388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pothos, EM, & Busemeyer, JR. (2009). A quantum probability model explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision making. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 1665, 2171–2178. 10.1098/rspb.2009.0121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pothos, EM, & Busemeyer, JR. (2022). Quantum cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 749–778. 10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-123501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rapoport, A. (1988). Experiments with n-person social traps i: Prisoner's dilemma, weak prisoner's dilemma, volunteer's dilemma, and largest number. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32, 3, 457–472. 10.1177/0022002788032003003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A, Kugler, T, Dugar, S, & Gisches, EJ. (2009). Choice of routes in congested traffic networks: Experimental tests of the Braess paradox. Games and Economic Behavior, 65, 2, 538–571. 10.1016/j.geb.2008.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A, & Wallsten, TS. (1972). Individual decision behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 23, 1, 131–176. 10.1146/annurev.ps.23.020172.001023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, AC. (2020). Entanglement and coherence in quantum prisoners dilemma. Quantum Information Processing, 19, 1, 13. 10.1007/s11128-019-2502-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafir, E, & Tversky, A. (1992). Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 449–474. 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90015-T.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanaka, S, Umegaki, T, Nishiyama, A, & Kitoh-Nishioka, H. (2022). Dynamical free energy based model for quantum decision making. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 605, 10.1016/j.physa.2022.127979127979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesar, J. (2020). A quantum model of strategic decision-making explains the disjunction effect in the prisoner's dilemma game. Decision, 7, 1, 43–54. 10.1037/dec0000110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A, & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3, 305–309. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00678.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Neumann, J. (1955). Mathematical foundations of quantum theory, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
White, LC, Pothos, EM, & Busemeyer, JR. (2014). Sometimes it does hurt to ask: The constructive role of articulating impressions. Cognition, 1, 48–64. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yukalov, VI, & Sornette, D. (2011). Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision, 70, 283–328. 10.1007/s11238-010-9202-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yukalov, VI, & Sornette, D. (2014). How brains make decisions. Universe of scales: From nanotechnology to cosmology, Springer 37–53. 10.1007/978-3-319-02207-9_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar