Instability of political preferences and the role of mass media: a dynamical representation in a quantum framework

We search to devise a new paradigm borrowed from concepts and mathematical tools of quantum physics, to model the decision-making process of the US electorate. The statistical data of the election outcomes in the period between 2008 and 2014 is analysed, in order to explore in more depth the emergence of the so-called divided government. There is an increasing urge in the political literature which indicates that preference reversal (strictly speaking the violation of the transitivity axiom) is a consequence of the so-called non-separability phenomenon (i.e. a strong interrelation of choices). In the political science literature, non-separable behaviour is characterized by a conditioning of decisions on the outcomes of some issues of interest. An additional source of preference reversal is ascribed to the time dynamics of the voters’ cognitive states, in the context of new upcoming political information. As we discuss in this paper, the primary source of political information can be attributed to the mass media. In order to shed more light on the phenomenon of preference reversal among the US electorate, we accommodate the obtained statistical data in a classical probabilistic (Kolmogorovian) scheme. Based on the obtained results, we attribute the strong ties between the voters non-separable decisions that cannot be explained by conditioning with the Bayes scheme, to the quantum phenomenon of entanglement. Second, we compute the degree of interference of voters’ belief states with the aid of the quantum analogue of the formula of total probability. Lastly, a model, based on the quantum master equation, to incorporate the impact of the mass media bath is proposed.

[1]  Fabio Bagarello,et al.  An Operator View on Alliances in Politics , 2015, SIAM J. Appl. Math..

[2]  Thomas Augustin,et al.  Foundations of Probability , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[3]  D. Finke,et al.  The merits of adding complexity: non-separable preferences in spatial models of European Union politics , 2013 .

[4]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  A Quantum Question Order Model Supported by Empirical Tests of an A Priori and Precise Prediction , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[5]  D. Graber,et al.  Mass media and American politics , 1980 .

[6]  Joseph P. Zbilut,et al.  A Preliminary Experimental Verification On the Possibility of Bell Inequality Violation in Mental States , 2008 .

[7]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision , 2012 .

[8]  Dean Lacy,et al.  A Theory of Nonseparable Preferences in Survey Responses , 2001 .

[9]  Emerson M. S. Niou,et al.  A Problem with Referendums , 2000 .

[10]  Richard G. Niemi,et al.  Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items , 1990 .

[11]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[12]  Gerald H. Kramer,et al.  Sophisticated voting over multidimensional choice spaces , 1972 .

[13]  E. Rowland Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[14]  S. Brams,et al.  The paradox of multiple elections , 1998 .

[15]  R. Feynman,et al.  Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals , 1965 .

[16]  Michal Horodecki,et al.  On Thermal Stability of Topological Qubit in Kitaev's 4D Model , 2008, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn..

[17]  Riccardo Franco,et al.  The conjunction fallacy and interference effects , 2007, 0708.3948.

[18]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Quantum Entanglement and the Issue of Selective Influences in Psychology: An Overview , 2012, QI.

[19]  A. Khrennikov,et al.  Quantum Social Science , 2013 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Disjunction Effect in Choice under Uncertainty , 1992 .

[21]  A. Shimony,et al.  Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden Variable Theories. , 1969 .

[22]  E. Villaseñor Introduction to Quantum Mechanics , 2008, Nature.

[23]  Juliet A. Williams On the Popular Vote , 2005 .

[24]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Mental States Follow Quantum Mechanics During Perception and Cognition of Ambiguous Figures , 2009, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn..

[25]  M. Chiara,et al.  Philosophy of quantum mechanics , 1982 .

[26]  Fabio Benatti Quantum Algorithmic Complexities and Entropy , 2009, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn..

[27]  Jennifer Trueblood,et al.  A Quantum Probability Account of Order Effects in Inference , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[28]  Emmanuel Haven,et al.  An Application of the Theory of Open Quantum Systems to Model the Dynamics of Party Governance in the US Political System , 2014 .

[29]  R. Elgie What Is Divided Government , 2001 .

[30]  Dean Lacy,et al.  Elections in Double-Member Districts with Nonseparable Voter Preferences , 1998 .

[31]  Sandro Sozzo,et al.  Conjunction and Negation of Natural Concepts: A Quantum-theoretic Modeling , 2014, ArXiv.

[32]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Applying quantum principles to psychology , 2014, 1405.6427.

[33]  M. Ohya,et al.  Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Information and Computation and Its Applications to Nano- and Bio-systems , 2011 .

[34]  Jennifer S Trueblood,et al.  A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. , 2011, Psychological review.

[35]  John M. Bruce,et al.  Party Balancing and Voting for Congress in the 1996 National Election , 1999 .

[36]  Emmanuel Haven,et al.  Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure-thing principle: The use of probability interference and other concepts , 2009 .

[37]  Masanori Ohya,et al.  On Application of Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan-Lindblad Equation in Cognitive Psychology , 2011, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn..

[38]  R. Ingarden,et al.  Information Dynamics and Open Systems: Classical and Quantum Approach , 1997 .

[39]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[40]  Polina Khrennikova Order effect in a study on US voters’ preferences: quantum framework representation of the observables , 2014 .

[41]  D. A. Edwards The mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics , 1979, Synthese.

[42]  Charles E. Smith,et al.  Pseudo-classical Nonseparability and Mass Politics in Two-Party Systems , 2011, QI.

[43]  Arkady Plotnitsky,et al.  Epistemology and Probability: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and the Nature of Quantum-Theoretical Thinking , 2009 .

[44]  Yoshiharu Tanaka,et al.  Quantum-like model of brain's functioning: decision making from decoherence. , 2011, Journal of theoretical biology.

[45]  Barry C. Burden,et al.  The comparative study of split-ticket voting , 2009 .

[46]  W. Heisenberg Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik , 1927 .

[47]  Polina Khrennikova Quantum Like Modelling of the Nonseparability of Voters' Preferences in the U.S. Political System , 2014, QI.

[48]  Peter Bruza,et al.  The Role of Non-Factorizability in Determining "Pseudo-Classical "Non-separability , 2010, AAAI Fall Symposium: Quantum Informatics for Cognitive, Social, and Semantic Processes.

[49]  James T. Townsend,et al.  Quantum dynamics of human decision-making , 2006 .

[50]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Quantum Structure Description of the Liar Paradox , 1999 .

[51]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[52]  Alfréd Rényi,et al.  Foundations of Probability , 1971 .

[53]  L. Apostel Towards a New Democracy : Consensus Through Quantum Parliament , 2005 .

[54]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Quantum Models for Psychological Measurements: An Unsolved Problem , 2014, PloS one.

[55]  Polina Khrennikova,et al.  A Quantum Framework for 'Sour Grapes' in Cognitive Dissonance , 2013, QI.

[56]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Experimental Data in Psychology and Economics , 2010, 1004.2529.

[57]  V. I. Danilov,et al.  Expected utility theory under non-classical uncertainty , 2010 .