Testing Quantum Models of Conjunction Fallacy on the World Wide Web

  • Diederik Aerts
  • Jonito Aerts Arguëlles
  • Lester Beltran
  • Lyneth Beltran
  • Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi
  • Sandro Sozzo
  • Tomas Veloz
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Quantum cognition Conjunction fallacy Emergent reasoning Meaning bond World Wide Web 

References

  1. 1.
    Aerts, D., Aerts, S.: Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Found. Sci. 1, 85–97 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aerts, D.: Quantum structure in cognition. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 314–348 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yukalov, V., Sornette, D.: Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decis. 70, 283–328 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busemeyer, J.R., Bruza, P.D.: Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., Gabora, L., Sozzo, S.: Quantum structure and human thought. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 274–276 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aerts, D., Gabora, L.S., Sozzo, S.: Concepts and their dynamics: A quantum–theoretic modeling of human thought. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5, 737–772 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haven, E., Khrennikov, A.Y.: Quantum social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pothos, E.M., Busemeyer, J.R.: Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 255–274 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol. Rev. 90, 293–315 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morier, D., Borgida, E.: The conjunction fallacy: A task specific phenomenon?. Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 10, 243–252 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gigerenzer, G.: On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychol. Rev. 103, 592–596 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tentori, K., Bonini, N., Osherson, D.: The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction. Cogn. Sci. 28, 467–477 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moro, R.: On the nature of the conjunction fallacy. Synthese 171, 1–24 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gavanski, I., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R.: Representativeness and conjoint probability. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 61, 181–194 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisk, J.E., Pidgeon, N.: Component probabilities and the conjunction fallacy: Resolving signed summation and the low component model in a contingent approach. Acta Psychol. 94, 1–20 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fisk, J.E.: Judgments under uncertainty: Representativeness or potential surprise? Brit. J. Psychol. 93, 431–449 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wedell, D.H., Moro, R.: Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: Effects of response mode, conceptual focus, and problem type. Cognition 107, 129–140 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Costello, F.J.: How probability theory explains the conjunction fallacy. J. Behav. Decis. Making 22(5), 213–234 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lu, Y.: The conjunction and disjunction fallacies: Explanations of the Linda problem by the equate-to-differentiate model. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 1–25 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Busemeyer, J.R., Pothos, E.M., Franco, R., Trueblood, J.S.: A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychol. Rev. 118, 193–218 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aerts, D., Beltran, L., Sassoli de Bianchi, M., Sozzo, S., Veloz, T.: Quantum models can account for the conjunction fallacy. In: Preparation (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dalla Chiara, M.L., Giuntini, R., Toraldo di Francia, G.: Holistic quantum computational semantics and gestalt-thinking. AIP Conf. Proc. 844, 86–100 (2006). doi:10.1063/1.2219355
  23. 23.
    Dalla Chiara, M.L., Giuntini, R., Leporini, R., Sergioli, G.: Holistic logical arguments in quantum computation. Math. Slovaca 66, 313–334 (2006)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boyer-Kassem, T., Duchêne, S., Guerci, E.: Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy. Theory and Decision, doi:10.1007/s11238-016-9549-9 (2016)
  25. 25.
    Aerts, D., De Bianchi, S., Sozzo, S.: On the foundations of the Brussels operational-realistic approach to cognition. Frontiers in Physics 4, doi:10.3389/fphy.2016.00017 (2016)
  26. 26.
    Aerts, D., Czachor, M., D’Hooghe, B., Sozzo, S.: The Pet-Fish problem on the World-Wide Web. Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium (FS-10-08), Quantum Informatics for Cognitive, Social, and Semantic Processes, 17-21 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aerts, D.: Measuring meaning on the World-Wide Web. In: Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., D’Hooghe, B., Note, N. (eds.) Worldviews, Science and Us: Bridging Knowledge and Its Implications for Our Perspectives of the World, pp 304–313. World Scientific, Singapore (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R.M., Busemeyer, J.R.: Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 111, 9431–9436 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Osherson, D., Smith, E.: On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 9, 35–58 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aerts, D., Sozzo, S., Veloz, T.: Quantum structure in cognition and the foundations of human reasoning. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 54, 4557–4569 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aerts, D., Sozzo, S., Veloz, T.: New fundamental evidence of non-classical structure in the combination of natural concepts. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A 374, 20150095 (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aerts, D., Sozzo, S., Veloz, T.: Quantum structure of negation and conjunction in human thought. Frontiers in Psychology doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01447(2015)
  33. 33.
    Sozzo, S.: A quantum probability explanation in Fock space for borderline contradictions. J. Math. Psychol. 58, 1–12 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Busemeyer, J.R., Wang, Z., Shiffrin, R.S.: Bayesian model comparison favors quantum over standard decision theory account of dynamic inconsistency. Decision 2, 1–12 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aerts, D.: Quantum particles as conceptual entities: A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Found. Sci. 14, 361–411 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aerts, D.: Interpreting quantum particles as conceptual entities. Int. J. Th. Phys. 49, 2950–2970 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diederik Aerts
    • 1
  • Jonito Aerts Arguëlles
    • 2
  • Lester Beltran
    • 3
  • Lyneth Beltran
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi
    • 4
  • Sandro Sozzo
    • 5
  • Tomas Veloz
    • 1
  1. 1.Center Leo Apostel (Clea)Brussels Free University (VUB)BrusselBelgium
  2. 2.KASK and ConservatoryGhentBelgium
  3. 3.825-C Tayuman StreetTondoPhilippines
  4. 4.Laboratorio di Autoricerca di BaseLuganoSwitzerland
  5. 5.School of Business and Institute IQSCSUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations