Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy

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.

[1]  Lionel Nesta,et al.  Markup heterogeneity, export status ans the establishment of the euro , 2015 .

[2]  Jennifer S Trueblood,et al.  The conjunction fallacy , confirmation , and quantum theory : comment on Tentori , Crupi , & Russo ( 2013 ) , 2017 .

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

[4]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Empirical Comparison of Markov and Quantum models of decision-making , 2009 .

[5]  Ludovic Ragni,et al.  Théorie des élites parétienne et moment machiavélien comme principes explicatifs de la dynamique sociale : les limites de la méthode des approximations successives , 2015 .

[6]  Edi Karni,et al.  On the Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment: New Experimental Evidence , 2008, Games Econ. Behav..

[7]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  Source Reliability and the Conjunction Fallacy , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  A Fallacious Fallacy? , 2004, Synthese.

[9]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum cognition: a new theoretical approach to psychology , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Identifying Quantum Structures in the Ellsberg Paradox , 2013, International Journal of Theoretical Physics.

[11]  Edward W. Piotrowski,et al.  An Invitation to Quantum Game Theory , 2002, ArXiv.

[12]  Tomoji Shogenji.  The degree of epistemic justification and the conjunction fallacy , 2009, Synthese.

[13]  Dominic W. Massaro,et al.  A pattern recognition account of decision making , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[14]  Alessandra Colombelli,et al.  Eco-Innovation and Firm Growth: Do Green Gazelles Run Faster? Microeconometric Evidence from a Sample of European Firms , 2015 .

[15]  Shmuel Zamir,et al.  Type Indeterminacy: A Model for the KT(Kahneman-Tversky)-Man , 2006, physics/0604166.

[16]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Mathematical Structure of Quantum Decision Theory , 2008, Adv. Complex Syst..

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

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

[19]  Vincenzo Crupi,et al.  Why quantum probability does not explain the conjunction fallacy. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

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

[21]  Håkan Nilsson,et al.  Making the seemingly impossible appear possible: Effects of conjunction fallacies in evaluations of bets on football games , 2010 .

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

[23]  Nadine Massard,et al.  R&D Policies in France: New Evidence from a NUTS3 Spatial Analysis , 2015 .

[24]  Daniel N. Osherson,et al.  A Different Conjunction Fallacy , 2004 .

[25]  Anders Winman,et al.  Linda is not a bearded lady: configural weighting and adding as the cause of extension errors. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[26]  Ralph Hertwig,et al.  Many Reasons or Just One: How Response Mode Affects Reasoning in the Conjunction Problem , 1998 .

[27]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Beyond-Quantum Modeling of Question Order Effects and Response Replicability in Psychological Measurements , 2015, ArXiv.

[28]  Stephan Hartmann,et al.  Walter the banker: the conjunction fallacy reconsidered , 2009, Synthese.

[29]  Vincenzo Crupi,et al.  On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: probability versus inductive confirmation. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[30]  Lise Arena,et al.  Organizational Creativity versus Vested Interests: The Role of Academic Entrepreneurs in the Emergence of Management Education at Oxbridge , 2015 .

[31]  Muriel Dal-Pont Legrand,et al.  Can Recessions be 'Productive'? Schumpeter and the Moderns , 2015 .

[32]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Typicality and reasoning fallacies , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[33]  Richard Arena,et al.  The Role of Psychology in Austrian Economics and Game Theory: Subjectivity and Coordination , 2015 .

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

[35]  U. Fischbacher.  z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments , 1999 .

[36]  Fatih Karanfil,et al.  Trade and Environment: Further Empirical Evidence from Heterogeneous Panels Using Aggregate Data , 2016 .

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

[38]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgments of and by Representativeness , 1981 .

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

[40]  D. Ellsberg.  Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[41]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  On the Possibility to Combine the Order Effect with Sequential Reproducibility for Quantum Measurements , 2015, 1502.00132.

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

[43]  Michele Pezzoni,et al.  Is Publication in the Hands of Outstanding Scientists? A Study on the Determinants of Editorial Boards Membership in Economics , 2015 .

[44]  Nikola Erceg,et al.  Overconfidence bias and conjunction fallacy in predicting outcomes of football matches , 2014 .

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

[46]  Steven E. Landsburg,et al.  Quantum Game Theory , 2011, 1110.6237.

[47]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Contextual Risk Model for the Ellsberg Paradox , 2011 .

[48]  Dino Borie,et al.  Le temps et l'erreur comme mesures de la quantité d'attention: une approche expérimentale , 2015 .

[49]  Theories of Bias in Probability Judgment , 1990 .

[50]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Ubiquitous Quantum Structure , 2010 .

[51]  Dominique Torre,et al.  THE DUAL ROLE OF MOBILE PAYMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES , 2014 .

[52]  Andrea Roventini,et al.  Time-Varying Fiscal Multipliers in an Agent-Based Model with Credit Rationing , 2015 .

[53]  Jonah N. Schupbach.  Is the conjunction fallacy tied to probabilistic confirmation? , 2009, Synthese.

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

[55]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Quantum model for psychological measurements: from the projection postulate to interference of mental observables represented as positive operator valued measures , 2014, 1405.1269.

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

[57]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  The conjunction effect: new evidence for robustness. , 2003, The American journal of psychology.

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

[59]  Alexandru Monahov,et al.  The Effects of Prudential Supervision on Bank Resiliency and Profits in a Multi-Agent Setting , 2015 .

[60]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Quantum Model for the Ellsberg and Machina Paradoxes , 2012, QI.

[61]  Vincenzo Crupi,et al.  How the conjunction fallacy is tied to probabilistic confirmation: Some remarks on Schupbach (2009) , 2009, Synthese.

[62]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Do Frequency Representations Eliminate Conjunction Effects? An Exercise in Adversarial Collaboration , 2001, Psychological science.

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

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

[65]  Neil Johnson,et al.  Efficiency and formalism of quantum games , 2003 .

[66]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  A Quantum Information Processing Explanation of Disjunction Effects , 2006 .

[67]  Alexandra Rufini,et al.  Should dark PoolS be banned from regulated exchangeS , 2016 .

[68]  Shmuel Zamir,et al.  Type Indeterminacy-A Model of the KT-man ( Kahneman Tversky ) , 2003 .

[69]  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.

[70]  Emmanuel M. Pothos,et al.  A Quantum Probability Explanation for Violations of Symmetry in Similarity Judgments , 2011, CogSci.

[71]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Quantum-Conceptual Explanation of Violations of Expected Utility in Economics , 2010, QI.

[72]  Naoki Watanabe,et al.  Meaningful learning in weighted voting games: an experiment , 2017 .

[73]  Adam Brandenburger,et al.  The relationship between quantum and classical correlation in games , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

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

[75]  Sébastien Duchêne,et al.  Une noUvelle approche expérimentale poUr tester les modèles qUantiqUes de l'erreUr de conjonction , 2015 .

[76]  Thomas Jobert,et al.  Une analyse empirique du processus de convergence des pays africains , 2015 .

[77]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  The conjunction fallacy: A test of averaging hypotheses , 1997 .

[78]  Patrice Bougette,et al.  La difficile conciliation entre politique de concurrence et politique industrielle : le soutien aux énergies renouvelables , 2016 .

[79]  Vincenzo Crupi,et al.  On the conjunction fallacy and the meaning of and, yet again: A reply to Hertwig, Benz, and Krauss (2008) , 2012, Cognition.

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

[81]  D Kahneman,et al.  On the reality of cognitive illusions. , 1996, Psychological review.

[82]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance , 2010 .

[83]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  The "conjunction fallacy" revisited : How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors , 1999 .

[84]  Sébastien Duchêne,et al.  Testing quantum-like models of judgment for question order effect , 2015, Math. Soc. Sci..

[85]  A. Nowacki,et al.  Understanding Equivalence and Noninferiority Testing , 2011, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[86]  M. Sydow.  The Bayesian logic of frequency-based conjunction fallacies , 2011 .

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

[88]  M. Allais.  Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[89]  A. B. Youssef,et al.  Natural Disasters, Household Welfare, and Resilience: Evidence from Rural Vietnam , 2015 .

[90]  Muriel Dal-Pont Legrand,et al.  The Law of Diminishing Elasticity of Demand in Harrod’s Trade Cycle (1936) , 2014 .

[91]  Deborah Rolka,et al.  Equivalence Testing for Binomial Random Variables , 2001 .

[92]  Zheng Wang,et al.  Quantum Information Processing Explanation for Interactions between Inferences and Decisions , 2007, AAAI Spring Symposium: Quantum Interaction.

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

[94]  H. A. Taylor,et al.  The conjunction fallacy? , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[95]  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..

[96]  H. Atmanspacher,et al.  Order Effects in Sequential Measurements of Non-Commuting Psychological Observables , 2012, 1201.4685.

[97]  Vladimir I. Danilov,et al.  Measurable systems and behavioral sciences , 2008, Math. Soc. Sci..

[98]  Mohammad Abdollahi Azgomi,et al.  A survey of quantum-like approaches to decision making and cognition , 2015, Math. Soc. Sci..

[99]  Branden Fitelson,et al.  Probability, confirmation, and the conjunction fallacy , 2008 .

[100]  Andreas Roider,et al.  Cognitive Abilities and Behavioral Biases , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[101]  Christian Longhi,et al.  Clusters and collective learning networks: the case of the Competitiveness Cluster ‘Secure Communicating Solutions’ in the French Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur Region , 2015 .

[102]  B. Newell.  Judgment Under Uncertainty , 2013 .

[103]  Christian Longhi,et al.  Long tails in the tourism industry: towards knowledge intensive service suppliers , 2015 .