Advertisement

The Power of Distraction: An Experimental Test of Quantum Persuasion

  • Ariane Lambert-MogilianskyEmail author
  • Adrian Calmettes
  • Hervé Gonay
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11690)

Abstract

Quantum-like decision theory is by now a well-developed field. We here test the predictions of an application of this approach to persuasion as developed by Danilov and Lambert-Mogiliansky in [6]. One remarkable result entails that in contrast to Bayesian predictions, distraction rather than relevant information has a powerful potential to influence decision-making. We conducted an experiment in the context of donations to NGOs active in the protection of endangered species.

We first tested the quantum incompatibility of two perspectives ‘trust’ and ‘urgency’ in a separate experiment. We next recruited 1371 respondents and divided them into three groups: a control group, a first treatment group and the main treatment group. Our main result is that ‘distracting’ information significantly affected decision-making: it induced a switch in respondents’ choice as to which project to support compared with the control group. The first treatment group which was provided with compatible information exhibited no difference compared with the control group. Population variables play no role suggesting that quantum-like indeterminacy may indeed be a basic regularity of the mind. We thus find support for the thesis that the manipulability of people’s decision-making is linked to the quantum indeterminacy of their subjective representations (mental pictures) of the choice alternatives.

Keywords

Persuasion Distraction Information processing Belief updating Quantum cognition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jerome Busemeyer for a very valuable suggestion on the design of the experiment.

References

  1. 1.
    Akerlof, G.A., Shiller, R.J.: Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baron, R.S., Baron, P.H., Miller, N.: The relation between distraction and persuasion. Psychol. Bull. 80(4), 310–323 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Busemeyer, J.R., Bruza, P.D.: Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chong, D., Druckman, J.N.: Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 10, 103–126 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Danilov, V., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A.: Preparing a (quantum) belief system. Theor. Comput. Sci. 752, 97–103 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Danilov, V., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A.: Targeting in quantum persuasion problem. J. Math. Econ. 78, 142–149 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danilov, V., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Vergopoulos, V.: Dynamic consistency of expected utility under non-classical (quantum) uncertainty. Theor. Decis. 84(4), 645–670 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DellaVigna, S., List, J.A., Malmendier, U.: Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Q. J. Econ. 127(1), 1–56 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Festinger, L., Maccoby, N.: On resistance to persuasive communications. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 68(4), 359–366 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haven, E., Khrennikov, A.: A brief introduction to quantum formalism. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Quantum Models in Social Science, pp. 1–17 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahneman, D.: Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan, London (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamenica, E., Gentzkow, M.: Bayesian persuasion. Am. Econ. Rev. 101(6), 2590–2615 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., Sheehan, K.: An analysis of data quality: professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. J. Advert. 46(1), 141–155 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kupor, D.M., Tormala, Z.L.: Persuasion, interrupted: the effect of momentary interruptions on message processing and persuasion. J. Consum. Res. 42(2), 300–315 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Busemeyer, J.: Quantum type indeterminacy in dynamic decision-making: self-control through identity management. Games 3(2), 97–118 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. (eds.) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, pp. 1–24. Springer, New York (1986).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    White, L.C., Pothos, E.M., Busemeyer, J.R.: Insights from quantum cognitive models for organizational decision making. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 4(3), 229–238 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adrian Calmettes
    • 2
  • Hervé Gonay
    • 3
  1. 1.Paris School of EconomicsParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  3. 3.GetQuantyParisFrance

Personalised recommendations