International Journal of Theoretical Physics

, Volume 56, Issue 12, pp 4029–4046 | Cite as

Are Quantum Models for Order Effects Quantum?

  • Catarina MoreiraEmail author
  • Andreas Wichert


The application of principles of Quantum Mechanics in areas outside of physics has been getting increasing attention in the scientific community in an emergent disciplined called Quantum Cognition. These principles have been applied to explain paradoxical situations that cannot be easily explained through classical theory. In quantum probability, events are characterised by a superposition state, which is represented by a state vector in a N-dimensional vector space. The probability of an event is given by the squared magnitude of the projection of this superposition state into the desired subspace. This geometric approach is very useful to explain paradoxical findings that involve order effects, but do we really need quantum principles for models that only involve projections? This work has two main goals. First, it is still not clear in the literature if a quantum projection model has any advantage towards a classical projection. We compared both models and concluded that the Quantum Projection model achieves the same results as its classical counterpart, because the quantum interference effects play no role in the computation of the probabilities. Second, it intends to propose an alternative relativistic interpretation for rotation parameters that are involved in both classical and quantum models. In the end, instead of interpreting these parameters as a similarity measure between questions, we propose that they emerge due to the lack of knowledge concerned with a personal basis state and also due to uncertainties towards the state of world and towards the context of the questions.


Order effects Quantum cognition Quantum projections Occam’s razor 


  1. 1.
    Asano, M., Basieva, I., Khrennikov, A., Ohya, M., Tanaka, Y., Yamato, I.: Quantum-like model of diauxie in escherichia coli: operational description of precultivation effect. J. Theor. Biol. 314, 130–137 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asano, M., Khrennikov, A., Ohya, M.: Quantum adaptative biology: From genetics to cognition. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basieva, I., Khrennikov, A., Ohya, M., Yamato, I.: Quantum-like interference effect in gene expression: glucose-lactose destructive interference. Syst. Synth. Biol. 5, 59–68 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birnbaum, M.: New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychol. Rev. 115, 463–501 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Nelson, D., McEvoy, C.: Is there something quantum-like about the human mental lexicon? J. Math. Psychol. 53, 362–377 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruza, P., Zuccon, G., Sitbon, L.: Modelling the information seeking user by the decisions they make Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM SIGIR Conference: Workshop on Modeling User Behavior for Information Retrieval Evaluation (MUBE 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Busemeyer, J., Bruza, P.: Quantum model of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Busemeyer, J., Wang, Z., Townsend, J.: Quantum dynamics of human decision making. J. Math. Psychol. 50, 220–241 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Busemeyer, J., Wang, Z., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A.: Empirical comparison of markov and quantum models of decision making. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 423–433 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Busemeyer, J., Wang, Z., Shiffrin, R.: Bayesian model comparison favors quantum over standard decision theory account of dynamic inconsistencies. Decision 2, 1–12 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crosson, R.: The disjunction effect and reason-based choice in games. Organ. Hum. Decis. Process. 80, 118–133 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haven, E., Khrennikov, A.: Quantum social science. Cambridge University Press (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khrennikov, A.: Classical and quantum-like randomness and the financial market Coping with the Complexity of Economics. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khrennikov, A., Haven, E.: Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure-thing principle: The use of probability interference and other concepts. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 378–388 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuhberger, A., Komunska, D., Josef, P.: The disjunction effect: Does it exist for two-step gambles? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 85, 250–264 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lambdin, C., Burdsal, C.: The disjunction effect reexamined: Relevant methodological issues and the fallacy of unspecified percentage comparisons. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 103, 268–276 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, S., Taplin, J.: Examining whether there is a disjunction effect in prisoner’s dilemma game. Chin. J. Psychol. 44, 25–46 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moore, D.: Measuring new types of question-order effects: Additive and subtractive. Public Opin. Q. 66, 80–91 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moreira, C., Wichert, A.: Exploring the relations between quantum-like bayesian networks and decision-making tasks with regard to face stimuli. J. Math. Psychol. (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moreira, C., Wichert, A.: Quantum-like bayesian networks for modeling decision making. Front. Psychol. 7(11) (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moreira, C., Wichert, A.: Quantum probabilistic models revisited: the case of disjunction effects in cognition. Front. Phys.: Interdiscip. Phys. 4, 1–26 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pothos, E., Busemeyer, J.: A quantum probability explanation for violations of rational decision theory. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 2171–2178 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pothos, E., Busemeyer, J., Trueblood, J.: A quantum geometric model of similarity. Psychol. Rev. 120, 679–696 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shafir, E., Tversky, A.: Thinking through uncertainty: nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cogn. Psychol. 24, 449–474 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trueblood, J., Busemeyer, J.: A quantum probability account of order of effects in inference. Cogn. Sci. 35, 1518–1552 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Trueblood, J., Pothos, E., Busemeyer, J.: Quantum probability theory as a common framework for reasoning and similarity. Front. Psychol. 5 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol. Rev. 90, 293–315 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tversky, A., Shafir, E.: The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. J. Psychol. Sci. 3, 305–309 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang, Z., Busemeyer, J.: A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an apriori and precise prediction. J. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5, 689–710 (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R., Busemeyer, J.: Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 9431–9436 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Superior Técnico, INESC-IDPorto SalvoPortugal

Personalised recommendations