In search for a standard of rationality

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 5, Issue JAN, 2014, Pages

  Pothos, Emmanuel M ^a   Busemeyer, Jerome R ^b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Classical probability theory; Conjunction fallacy; Decision making; Quantum probability theory; Rationality

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893599565     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00049     Document Type: Note

References (33)

1. Aerts, D. (2009). Quantum structure in cognition. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 314-348. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.04.005.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychol. Rev. 98, 409-429. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.3.409.
3. Atmanspacher, H., and Filk, T. (2010). A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception. J. Math. Psychol. 54, 314-321. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.12.001.
4. Bruza, P. D., Kitto, K., Nelson, D., and McEvoy, C. L. (2009). Is there something quantum-like about the human mental lexicon? J. Math. Psychol. 53, 362-377. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.04.004.
5. Busemeyer, J. R., and Bruza, P. (2011). Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Chater, N., and Oaksford, M. (1993). Logicism, mental models and everyday reasoning: reply to garnham. Mind Lang. 8, 72-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1993.tb00271.x.
7. Elqayam, S., and Evans, St. B. T. (2013). Rationality in the new paradigm: strict versus soft Bayesian approaches. Think. Reason. 19, 453-470. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2013.834268.
8. Elqayam, S., and Evans, St. J. S. (2011). Subtracting "ought" from "is": descriptivism versus normativism in the study of the human thinking. Behav. Brain Sci. 34, 233-248. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1100001X.
9. Evans, St. J. B. T. (2007). Hypothetical Thinking: Dual Processes in Reasoning and Judgement. Hove: Psychology Press.
10. Evans, St. J. S. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: extension and evaluation. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 378-395. doi: 10.3758/BF03193858.
11. Gilboa, I. (2009). Theory of Decision Under Uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840203.
12. Gilio, A., and Over, D. (2012). The psychology of inferring conditionals from disjunctions: a probabilistic study. J. Math. Psychol. 56, 118-131. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2012.02.006.
13. Griffiths, R. B. (2003). Consistent Quantum Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Probabilistic models of cognition: exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 357-364. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.004.
15. Howson, C., and Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
16. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263-291. doi: 10.2307/1914185.
17. Moore, D. W. (2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects. Public Opin. Q. 66, 80-91. doi: 10.1086/338631.
18. Nilsson, H., Rieskamp, J., and Jenny, M. A. (2014). Exploring the overestimating of conjunctive probabilities. Front. Psychol. 4:101. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00101.
19. Oaksford, M. (2013). Quantum probability, intuition, and human rationality. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 303. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12003081.
20. Oaksford, M., and Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524496.001.0001.
21. Pothos, E. M., and Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of "rational" decision theory. Proc. Biol. Sci. 276, 2171-2178. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0121.
22. Pothos, E. M., and Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 255-327. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001525.
23. Shafir, E., and Tversky, A. (1992). Thinking through uncertainty: nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cogn. Psychol. 24, 449-474. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90015-T.
24. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69, 99-118. doi: 10.2307/1884852.
25. Sloman, S. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 11, 3-22. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3.
26. Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., and Goodman, N. (2011). How to grow a mind: statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science 331, 1279-1285. doi: 10.1126/science.1192788.
27. Trueblood, J. S., and Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A comparison of the belief-adjustment model and the quantum inference model as explanations of order effects in human inference. Cogn. Sci. 35, 1518-1552. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01197.x.
28. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjuctive fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol. Rev. 90, 293-315. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293.
29. Vineberg, S. (2011). "Dutch book arguments," in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2011 Edn, ed Edward N. Zalta. Available online at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/dutch-book.
30. Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect Theory for Risk and Ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Wang, Z., Busemeyer, J. R., Atmanspacher, H., and Pothos, E. M. (2013). The potential of using quantum theory to build models of cognition. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5, 672-688. doi: 10.1111/tops.12043.
32. Wang, Z. A., and Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). Empirical tests of a quantum probability model for question order effects found in survey research. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5, 689-710. doi: 10.1111/tops.12040.
33. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 12, 129-140. doi: 10.1080/17470216008416717.