Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy
arXiv:1606.03430 · doi:10.1007/s11238-016-9549-9
Abstract
Human agents happen to judge that a conjunction of two terms is more probable than one of the terms, in contradiction with the rules of classical probabilities---this is the conjunction fallacy. One of the most discussed accounts of this fallacy is currently the quantum-like explanation, which relies on models exploiting the mathematics of quantum mechanics. The aim of this paper is to investigate the empirical adequacy of major quantum-like models which represent beliefs with quantum states. We first argue that they can be tested in three different ways, in a question order effect configuration which is different from the traditional conjunction fallacy experiment. We then carry out our proposed experiment, with varied methodologies from experimental economics. The experimental results we get are at odds with the predictions of the quantum-like models. This strongly suggests that this quantum-like account of the conjunction fallacy fails. Future possible research paths are discussed.
29 pages, 4 figures, 6 tables in Theory and Decision (2016)
References in corpus (3)
Cited by in corpus (10)
- Information Processing by Networks of Quantum Decision Makers
- Open systems, quantum probability and logic for quantum-like modeling in biology, cognition, and decision making
- Evolutionary Processes in Quantum Decision Theory
- Testing Quantum Models of Conjunction Fallacy on the World Wide Web
- Tossing Quantum Coins and Dice
- Quantum Operation of Affective Artificial Intelligence
- More Causes Less Effect: Destructive Interference in Decision Making
- Quantum Cognition Beyond Hilbert Space I: Fundamentals
- Quantum cognition beyond Hilbert space II: Applications
- Quantum Theory Methods as a Possible Alternative for the Double-Blind Gold Standard of Evidence-Based Medicine: Outlining a New Research Program