A Quantum Theoretical Explanation for Probability Judgment Errors

Psychological Review

Volumn 118, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 193-218

  Busemeyer, Jerome R ^a   Pothos, Emmanuel M ^b   Franco, Riccardo ^c   Trueblood, Jennifer S ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Conjunction fallacy; Disjunction fallacy; Inference; Order effects; Quantum theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MATHEMATICS; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; QUANTUM THEORY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

COGNITION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MATHEMATICS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROBABILITY; QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 79955125208     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0022542     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abelson R.P., Leddo J., Gross P.H. The strength of conjunctive explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1987, 13:141-155. doi: 10.1177/0146167287132001.
2. Acacio de Barros J., Suppes P. Quantum mechanics, interference, and the brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2009, 53:306-313. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.03.005.
3. Aerts D. Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2009, 53:314-348. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.04.005.
4. Aerts D., Gabora L. A theory of concepts and their combinations II: A Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes 2005, 34:192-221. doi: 10.1108/03684920510575807.
5. Atmanspacher H., Filk T., Romer H. Quantum zero features of bistable perception. Biological Cybernetics 2004, 90:33-40. doi: 10.1007/s00422-003-0436-4.
6. Baddeley A. Working memory. Science 1992, January 31, 255:556-559. doi: 10.1126/science.1736359.
7. Bar-Hillel M., Neter E. How alike is it versus how likely is it: A disjunction fallacy in probability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993, 65:1119-1131. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1119.
8. Bergus G.R., Chapman G.B., Levy G.T., Ely J.W., Oppliger R.A. Clinical diagnosis and order of information. Medical Decision Making 1998, 18:412-417. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9801800409.
9. Bordley R.F. Quantum mechanical and human violations of compound probability principles: Toward a generalized Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Operations Research 1998, 46:923-926. doi: 10.1287/opre.46.6.923.
10. Bruza P., Busemeyer J.R., Gabora L. Introduction to the special issue on quantum cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2009, 53:303-305. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.06.002.
11. Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (in press). Quantum cognition and decision. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12. Busemeyer J.R., Wang Z., Lambert-Mogiliansky A. Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2009, 53:423-433. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.03.002.
13. Carlson B.W., Yates J.F. Disjunction errors in qualitative likelihood judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1989, 44:368-379. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(89)90014-9.
14. Carroll J., Chang J.-J. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of the " Eckhard-Young" decomposition. Psychometrika 1970, 35:283-319. doi: 10.1007/BF02310791.
15. Conte E., Khrennikov A.Y., Todarello O., De Robertis R., Federici A., Zbilut J.P. On the possibility that we think in a quantum mechanical manner: An experimental verification of existing quantum interference effects in cognitive anomaly of conjunction fallacy. Chaos and Complexity Letters 2009, 4:123-136.
16. Costello F.J. How probability theory explains the conjunction fallacy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2009, 22:213-234. doi: 10.1002/bdm.618.
17. Dougherty M.R.P., Gettys C.F., Odgen E.E. MINVERVA-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. Psychological Review 1999, 106:180-209. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.180.
18. Fantino E., Kulik J., Stolarz-Fantino S. The conjunction fallacy: A test of averaging hypotheses. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1997, 4:96-101.
19. Fisk J.E. Judgments under uncertainty: Representativeness or potential surprise?. British Journal of Psychology 2002, 93:431-449. doi: 10.1348/000712602761381330.
20. Franco R. The conjunctive fallacy and interference effects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2009, 53:415-422. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.02.002.
21. Gavanski I., Roskos-Ewoldsen D.R. Representativeness and conjoint probability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1991, 61:181-194. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.181.
22. Gigerenzer G., Goldstein D. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 1996, 103:650-669. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650.
23. Gigerenzer G., Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review 1995, 102:684-704. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684.
24. Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, 49-81. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
25. Gudder S.P. Quantum probability 1988, Academic Press, New York, NY.
26. Hammeroff S.R. Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff " Orch OR" model of consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 1998, 356:1869-1896. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1998.0254.
27. Hastie R., Park B. The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review 1986, 93:258-268. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.258.
28. Hertwig R., Bjorn B., Krauss S. The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of " and." Cognition 2008, 108:740-753. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.008.
29. Hogarth R., Einhorn H.J. Order effects in belief updating: The belief adjustment modeling. Cognitive Psychology 1992, 24:1-55. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-J.
30. Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases 1982, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
31. Khrennikov A.Y. Ubiquitous quantum structure: From psychology to finance 2010, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
32. Kolmogorov A.N. Foundations of the theory of probability 1933, Chelsea, New York, NY.
33. Lu Z.-L., Dosher B. Characterizing observers using external noise and observer models: Assessing internal representations with external noise. Psychological Review 2008, 115:44-82. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.44.
34. Luce R.D., Ng C.T., Marley A.A.J., Aczel J. Utility of gambling I: Entropy-modified linear weighted utility. Economic Theory 2008, 36:1-33. doi: 10.1007/s00199-007-0260-5.
35. Macchi L., Osherson D., Krantz D.H. A note on superadditive probability judgment. Psychological Review 1999, 106:210-214. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.210.
36. McKenzie C.R., Lee S.M., Chen K.K. When negative evidence increases confidence: Change in belief after hearing two sides of a dispute. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2002, 15:1-18. doi: 10.1002/bdm.400.
37. Miyamoto J.M., Gonzalez R., Tu S. Compositional anomalies in the semantics of evidence. Decision making from a cognitive perspective 1995, 1-50. Academic Press, New York, NY. J.R. Busemeyer, D.L. Medin, R. Hastie (Eds.).
38. Miyamoto J.M., Lundell J.W., Tu S. Conditional fallacies in probability judgment. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1988, 26:516.
39. Moore D.W. Measuring new types of question-order effects. Public Opinion Quarterly 2002, 66:80-91. doi: 10.1086/338631.
40. Morier D.M., Borgida E. The conjunction fallacy: A task specific phenomena?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1984, 10:243-252. doi: 10.1177/0146167284102010.
41. Narens L. A foundation for support theory based on a non-Boolean event space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2009, 53:399-407.
42. Nielsen M.A., Chuang I.L. Quantum computation and quantum information 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
43. Niestegge G. An approach to quantum mechanics via conditional probabilities. Foundations of Physics 2008, 38:241-256. doi: 10.1007/s10701-007-9201-1.
44. Nilsson H. Exploring the conjunction fallacy within a category learning framework. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2008, 21:471-490. doi: 10.1002/bdm.615.
45. Nilsson H., Winman A., Juslin P., Hansson G. Linda is not a bearded lady: Weighting and adding as a cause of extension errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2009, 138:517-534.
46. Pothos E.M., Busemeyer J.R. A quantum probability model explanation for violations of " rational" decision making. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B 2009, 276(1665):2171-2178.
47. Pribram K.H. Rethinking neural networks: Quantum fields and biological data 1993, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
48. Reyna V., Brainerd C.J. Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences 1995, 7:1-75. doi: 10.1016/1041-6080(95)90031-4.
49. Rotello C.M., Macmillan N.A., Reeder J.A. Sum-difference theory of remembering and knowing: A two-dimensional signal-detection model. Psychological Review 2004, 111:588-616. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.588.
50. Rottenstreich Y., Tversky A. Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review 1997, 104:406-415. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.406.
51. Shafir E., Tversky A. Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology 1992, 24:449-474. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90015-T.
52. Shah A.K., Oppenheimer D.M. Heuristics made easy: An effort - reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin 2008, 134:207-222. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207.
53. Shepard R.N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. Psychometrika 1962, 27:125-140. doi: 10.1007/BF02289630.
54. Shiffrin R.S. Perspectives on modeling in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science 2010, 2:736-750.
55. Sides A., Osherson D., Bonini N., Viale R. On the reality of the conjunction fallacy. Memory and Cognition 2002, 30:191-198.
56. Sloman S., Rottenstreich Y., Wisniewski E., Hadjichristidis C., Fox C.R. Typical versus atypical unpacking and superadditive probability judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2004, 30:573-582. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.573.
57. Stolarz-Fantino S., Fantino E., Zizzo D.J., Wen J. The conjunction effect: New evidence for robustness. American Journal of Psychology 2003, 116:15-34. doi: 10.2307/1423333.
58. Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010, August). A comparison of the belief adjustment model and the quantum inference model as explanations of order effects in human inference. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, OR.
59. Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (in press). A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognitive Science.
60. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunctive fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 1983, 90:293-315. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293.
61. Tversky A., Koehler D.J. Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review 1994, 101:547-567. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.547.
62. van Rijsbergen K. The geometry of information retrieval 2004, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511543333.
63. von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (R. T. Beyer, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64. Wang H., Todd R.J., Zhang J. The order effect in human abductive reasoning: An empirical and computational study. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 2006, 18:215-247. doi: 10.1080/09528130600558141.
65. Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010). Explaining and predicting question order effects using a quantum model. Manuscript submitted for publication.
66. Wason P.C. On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1960, 12:129-140. doi: 10.1080/17470216008416717.
67. Wedell D.H., Moro R. Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: Effects of response mode, conceptual focus, and problem type. Cognition 2008, 107:105-136. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.08.003.
68. Wells G.L. The conjunction error and the representativeness heuristic. Social Cognition 1985, 3:266-279.
69. Wolfe C.R. Information seeking on Bayesian conditional probability problems: A fuzzy-trace theory account. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1995, 8:85-108. doi: 10.1002/bdm.3960080203.
70. Wolfe C.R., Reyna V.F. Semantic coherence and fallacies in estimating joint probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2010, 23:203-223.
71. Wyer R.S. An investigation of the relations among probability estimates. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1976, 15:1-18. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90026-X.
72. Yamagishi K. Facilitating normative judgments of conditional probability: Frequency or nested sets?. Experimental Psychology 2003, 50:97-106. doi: 10.1026//1618-3169.50.2.97.
73. Yates J.F., Carlson B.W. Conjunction errors: Evidence for multiple judgment procedures, including " signed summation." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1986, 37:230-253. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90053-1.
74. Yukalov V., Sornette D. Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision 2010, 68:1-46.