Testing Quantum Models of Conjunction Fallacy on the World Wide Web

The ‘conjunction fallacy’ has been extensively debated by scholars in cognitive science and, in recent times, the discussion has been enriched by the proposal of modeling the fallacy using the quantum formalism. Two major quantum approaches have been put forward: the first assumes that respondents use a two-step sequential reasoning and that the fallacy results from the presence of ‘question order effects’; the second assumes that respondents evaluate the cognitive situation as a whole and that the fallacy results from the ‘emergence of new meanings’, as an ‘effect of overextension’ in the conceptual conjunction. Thus, the question arises as to determine whether and to what extent conjunction fallacies would result from ‘order effects’ or, instead, from ‘emergence effects’. To help clarify this situation, we propose to use the World Wide Web as an ‘information space’ that can be interrogated both in a sequential and non-sequential way, to test these two quantum approaches. We find that ‘emergence effects’, and not ‘order effects’, should be considered the main cognitive mechanism producing the observed conjunction fallacies.

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

[2]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  On the Foundations of the Brussels Operational-Realistic Approach to Cognition , 2015, Front. Phys..

[3]  Diederik Aerts Measuring Meaning on the World-Wide Web , 2010, ArXiv.

[4]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts , 1981, Cognition.

[5]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Concepts and Their Dynamics: A Quantum-Theoretic Modeling of Human Thought , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[6]  Rodrigo Moro,et al.  On the nature of the conjunction fallacy , 2009, Synthese.

[7]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  The Conjunction Fallacy , 1984 .

[8]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum structure of negation and conjunction in human thought , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[9]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The Pet-Fish Problem on the World-Wide Web , 2010, AAAI Fall Symposium: Quantum Informatics for Cognitive, Social, and Semantic Processes.

[10]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Interpreting Quantum Particles as Conceptual Entities , 2010, 1004.2531.

[11]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Bayesian Model Comparison Favors Quantum Over Standard Decision Theory Account of Dynamic Inconsistency , 2015 .

[12]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement , 2011, ArXiv.

[13]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition , 2008, 0805.3850.

[14]  Roberto Giuntini,et al.  Holistic quantum computational semantics and Gestalt-thinking , 2006 .

[15]  Daniel N. Osherson,et al.  The conjunction fallacy: a misunderstanding about conjunction? , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Roberto Giuntini,et al.  Holistic logical arguments in quantum computation , 2016, 1602.07516.

[17]  Sébastien Duchêne,et al.  Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy , 2015 .

[18]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  New fundamental evidence of non-classical structure in the combination of natural concepts , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[19]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Component probabilities and the conjunction fallacy: Resolving signed summation and the low component model in a contingent approach , 1996 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[21]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum structure and human thought. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[22]  Fintan Costello,et al.  How probability theory explains the conjunction fallacy , 2009 .

[23]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Applications of Quantum Statistics in Psychological Studies of Decision Processes , 1995 .

[24]  G. Gigerenzer On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics: A Reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996) , 1996 .

[25]  I. Gavanski,et al.  Representativeness and conjoint probability. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Particles as Conceptual Entities: A Possible Explanatory Framework for Quantum Theory , 2009, 1004.2530.

[27]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition and the Foundations of Human Reasoning , 2014, ArXiv.

[28]  Jerome R Busemeyer,et al.  Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[29]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  D. H. Wedell,et al.  Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: Effects of response mode, conceptual focus, and problem type , 2008, Cognition.

[31]  John E Fisk,et al.  Judgments under uncertainty: representativeness or potential surprise? , 2002, British journal of psychology.

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

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

[34]  Sandro Sozzo,et al.  A Quantum Probability Explanation in Fock Space for Borderline Contradictions , 2013, 1311.6050.

[35]  Yong Lu The Conjunction and Disjunction Fallacies: Explanations of the Linda Problem by the Equate-to-Differentiate Model , 2016, Integrative psychological & behavioral science.