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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Emergence of new meanings in conceptual combinations closely resembles the ‘holistic quantum computational semantics’ developed by Dalla Chiara et al., where the meaning of a sentence is not attributed to the compositional meaning of each word but, rather, to the holistic relations between these words (see, e.g., [22, 23]).
More precisely, in our searches for words and combination of words we have always excluded the following four very unusual Italian words: ‘barbablu’, ‘miseriaccia’, ‘acciderpoli’ and ‘tristobello’.
Aerts, D., Aerts, S.: Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Found. Sci. 1, 85–97 (1995)
Aerts, D.: Quantum structure in cognition. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 314–348 (2009)
Yukalov, V., Sornette, D.: Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decis. 70, 283–328 (2011)
Busemeyer, J.R., Bruza, P.D.: Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)
Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., Gabora, L., Sozzo, S.: Quantum structure and human thought. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 274–276 (2013)
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)
Haven, E., Khrennikov, A.Y.: Quantum social science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013)
Pothos, E.M., Busemeyer, J.R.: Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 255–274 (2013)
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol. Rev. 90, 293–315 (1983)
Morier, D., Borgida, E.: The conjunction fallacy: A task specific phenomenon?. Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 10, 243–252 (1984)
Gigerenzer, G.: On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychol. Rev. 103, 592–596 (1996)
Tentori, K., Bonini, N., Osherson, D.: The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction. Cogn. Sci. 28, 467–477 (2004)
Moro, R.: On the nature of the conjunction fallacy. Synthese 171, 1–24 (2009)
Gavanski, I., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R.: Representativeness and conjoint probability. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 61, 181–194 (1991)
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)
Fisk, J.E.: Judgments under uncertainty: Representativeness or potential surprise? Brit. J. Psychol. 93, 431–449 (2002)
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)
Costello, F.J.: How probability theory explains the conjunction fallacy. J. Behav. Decis. Making 22(5), 213–234 (2009)
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)
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)
Aerts, D., Beltran, L., Sassoli de Bianchi, M., Sozzo, S., Veloz, T.: Quantum models can account for the conjunction fallacy. In: Preparation (2016)
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
Dalla Chiara, M.L., Giuntini, R., Leporini, R., Sergioli, G.: Holistic logical arguments in quantum computation. Math. Slovaca 66, 313–334 (2006)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Osherson, D., Smith, E.: On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 9, 35–58 (1981)
Aerts, D., Sozzo, S., Veloz, T.: Quantum structure in cognition and the foundations of human reasoning. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 54, 4557–4569 (2015)
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)
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)
Sozzo, S.: A quantum probability explanation in Fock space for borderline contradictions. J. Math. Psychol. 58, 1–12 (2014)
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)
Aerts, D.: Quantum particles as conceptual entities: A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Found. Sci. 14, 361–411 (2009)
Aerts, D.: Interpreting quantum particles as conceptual entities. Int. J. Th. Phys. 49, 2950–2970 (2010)
About this article
Cite this article
Aerts, D., Arguëlles, J.A., Beltran, L. et al. Testing Quantum Models of Conjunction Fallacy on the World Wide Web. Int J Theor Phys 56, 3744–3756 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-017-3288-8
- Quantum cognition
- Conjunction fallacy
- Emergent reasoning
- Meaning bond
- World Wide Web