"Phishing For (quantum-like) Phools" Theory and experimental evidence "Phishing For (quantum-like) Phools" * Theory and experimental evidence †

Quantum-like decision theory is by now a theoretically well-developed field (see e.g., Danilov et al. 2018A). We here test the predictions of an application of this approach to persuasion. One remarkable result entails that in contrast to Bayesian persuasion, distraction rather than relevant information has a powerful potential to influence decision-making. We first provide a quantum decision model for a choice between two uncertain alternatives. We derive the impact of persuasion by means of distractive questions and contrast them with the predictions of the Bayesian model. Next, we conduct an experiment where respondents choose between supporting either one of two projects to save endangered species. We test the impact of persuasion in the form of questions related to different aspects of the uncertain value of the two projects. The experiment involves 900 respondents divided into three groups: a control group, a first treatment group and the distraction treatment group. Our main result is that, in accordance with the predictions of quantum persuasion but in violation with the Bayesian model, distraction significantly affects decision-making. Population variables play no role. Some significant variations between subgroups are exhibited and discussed. The results of the experiment provide support for the hypothesis that the manipulability of people's decision-making can be explained by the quantum indeterminacy of their subjective representations of reality.

[1]  Richard N. Cooper,et al.  Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception , 2016 .

[2]  Shelley E. Taylor.  Judgment under uncertainty: The availability bias in social perception and interaction , 1982 .

[3]  Emir Kamenica,et al.  Bayesian Persuasion , 2009, World Scientific Series in Economic Theory.

[4]  Rachna,et al.  Sapiens: A brief history of humankind , 2017 .

[5]  R. Baron,et al.  The relation between distraction and persuasion. , 1973 .

[6]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum Type Indeterminacy in Dynamic Decision-Making: Self-Control through Identity Management , 2012, Games.

[7]  Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky,et al.  Preparing a (quantum) belief system , 2017, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[8]  D. Benjamin,et al.  Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases , 2018 .

[9]  J. Geanakoplos,et al.  Psychological games and sequential rationality , 1989 .

[10]  Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky,et al.  Dynamic consistency of expected utility under non-classical uncertainty , 2018 .

[11]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Beliefs, Actions, and Rationality in Strategical Decisions , 2021, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[12]  F. Dubois,et al.  Our (represented) World: A Quantum-Like Object , 2015 .

[13]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[14]  N. McGlynn.  Thinking fast and slow. , 2014, Australian veterinary journal.

[15]  R. Cialdini.  Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion , 1993 .

[16]  L. Festinger,et al.  ON RESISTANCE TO PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATIONS. , 1964, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[17]  V. I. Danilov,et al.  Dynamic consistency of expected utility under non-classical (quantum) uncertainty , 2017, 1708.08244.

[18]  James N. Druckman,et al.  F RAMING T HEORY , 2007 .

[19]  Elliot Lipnowski,et al.  Disclosure to a Psychological Audience , 2018, American Economic Journal: Microeconomics.

[20]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.