Quantum cognition and decision theories: A tutorial

Journal of Mathematical Psychology

Volumn 74, Issue , 2016, Pages 99-116

  Yearsley, James M ^a,b   Busemeyer, Jerome R ^c  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Order effects; Quantum theory; Similarity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949843694     PISSN: 00222496     EISSN: 10960880     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmp.2015.11.005     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Aerts, D., Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:5 (2009), 314–348.
2. Aerts, D., Gabora, L., Sozzo, S., Concepts and their dynamics: A quantum-theoretic modeling of human thought. Topics in Cognitive Science 5:4 (2013), 737–772.
3. Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T., A proposed test of temporal non-locality in bistable perception. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 54 (2010), 314–321.
4. Atmanspacher, H., Römer, H., Order effects in sequential measurements of non-commuting psychological observables. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56:4 (2012), 274–280.
5. beim Graben, P., Atmanspacher, H., Complementarity in classical dynamical systems. Foundations of Physics 36:2 (2006), 291–306.
6. Bell, J.S., Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
7. Bengtsson, I. (2006). Three ways to look at mutual unbiases bases. Unpublished, but available at: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610216.
8. Blutner, B., & beim Graben, P. (2014). Descriptive and foundational aspects of quantum cognition. Available at: arxiv.org/abs/1410.3961.
9. Blutner, R., Pothos, E.M., Bruza, P., A quantum probability perspective on borderline vagueness. Topics in Cognitive Science 5:4 (2013), 711–736.
10. Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Ramm, B.J., Sitbon, L., A probabilistic framework for analysing the compositionality of conceptual combinations. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 67 (2015), 26–38.
11. Busch, P., Grabowski, M., Lahti, P.J., Operational quantum physics. 1995, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
12. Busemeyer, J.R., Bruza, P.D., Quantum models of cognition and decision. 2014, Cambridge University Press.
13. Caves, C.M., Fuchs, C.A., Schack, R., Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities. Physical Review A, 65, 2002, 022305.
14. Chater, N., Tenenbaum, J.B., Yuille, A., Probabilistic models of cognition: Conceptual foundations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:7 (2006), 287–291.
15. Dirac, P.A.M., Principles of quantum mechanics. 1982, Oxford University Press.
16. Durt, T., Englert, B.G., Bengtsson, I., Życzkowski, K., On mutually unbiased bases. International Journal of Quantum Information 8 (2010), 535–640.
17. Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., Pachur, T., (eds.) Heuristics: the foundations of adaptive behaviour, 2011, Oxford University Press.
18. Hagan, S., Hameroff, S.R., Tuszynski, J.A., Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility. Physical Review E, 65(6), 2002, 061901.
19. Halliwell, J.J., How the quantum universe became classical. Contemporary Physics, 46, 2005, 93 Also available at: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501119.
20. Hameroff, S.R., Penrose, R., Conscious events as orchestrated spacetime selections. Journal of Consciousness Studies 3:1 (1996), 36–53.
21. Isham, C., Lectures on quantum theory. 1995, Imperial College Press.
22. Khrennikov, A., Ubiquitous quantum structure: from psychology to finance. 2010, Springer, Berlin.
23. Kvam, P.D., Pleskac, T.J., YU, S., Busemeyer, J.R., Interference effects of choice on confidence: Quantum characteristics of evidence accumulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 2015, 10645.
24. McKemmish, L.K., Reimers, J.R., McKenzie, R.H., Mark, A.E., Hush, N.S., Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible. Physical Review E, 80(2), 2009, 021912.
25. Mogiliansky, A.L., Zamir, S., Zwirn, H., Type indeterminacy: A model of the KT (Kahneman–Tversky)-man. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53:5 (2009), 349–361.
26. Moore, D.W., Measuring new types of question order effects. Public Opinion Quarterly 66:1 (2002), 80–91.
27. Neilsen, M., Chuang, I., Quantum computation and quantum information. 2000, Cambridge University Press.
28. Peres, A., Quantum theory: concepts and methods. 1998, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
29. Plenio, M. 2002. Quantum Mechanics. Lecture notes available at: www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/613904.PDF.
30. Pothos, E.M., Barque-Duran, A., Yearsley, J.M., Trueblood, J.S., Busemeyer, J., Hampton, J.A., Progress and current challenges with the quantum similarity model. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2015, 205.
31. Pothos, E.M., Busemeyer, J.R., A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 2009, 2171.
32. Pothos, E.M., Busemeyer, J.R., Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36:3 (2013), 255–274.
33. Pothos, E.M., Busemeyer, J.R., Trueblood, J.S., A quantum geometric model of similarity. Psychological Review, 120(3), 2013, 679.
34. Reed, M., Simon, B., Methods of modern mathematical physics (Vol. 1). 1980, Academic Press, London.
35. Schwinger, J., Unitary operator bases. 1960, Harvard University.
36. Tegmark, M., Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical Review E 61:4 (2000), 4194–4206.
37. Trueblood, J.S., Busemeyer, J.R., A comparison of the belief-adjustment model and the quantum inference model as explanations of order effects in human inference. Cognitive Science 35 (2011), 1518–1552.
38. Tversky, A., Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84 (1977), 327–352.
39. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974), 1124–1131.
40. Wang, Z., Busemeyer, J.R., A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction. Topics in Cognitive Science 5:4 (2013), 689–710.
41. Wang, Z., Busemeyer, J.R., Atmanspacher, H., Pothos, E.M., The potential of using quantum theory to build models of cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5:4 (2013), 672–688.
42. Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R.M., Busemeyer, J.R., Context effects produced by question orders reveal the quantum nature of human judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 2014, 9431.
43. White, L.C., Pothos, E.M., Busemeyer, J.R., Sometimes it does hurt to ask: the constructive role of articulating impressions. Cognition, 133(1), 2014, 48.
44. Yearsley, J.M. (in preparation). Tutorial on Advanced Tools and Concepts for Quantum Cognitive Theories.
45. Yearsley, J.M., Pothos, E.M., Challenging the classical notion of time in cognition: a quantum perspective. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 381(1781), 2014, 20133056.
46. Yearsley, J.M., & Pothos, E.M. (in preparation). Zeno's paradox in human decision making. In this paper we ask some participants the same question up to 13 times! (With other things happening in between.) In this set up it matters hugely whether the measurements are exactly, or only approximately perfect.
47. Yukalov, V.I., Sornette, D., Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision 70:3 (2011), 283–328.
48. Zurek, W.H., Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical. Physics Today, 44(10), 1991, 36 Also available in an updated form online at: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0306072.