A Quantum-Conceptual Explanation of Violations of Expected Utility in Economics
The expected utility hypothesis is one of the building blocks of classical economic theory and founded on Savage’s Sure-Thing Principle. It has been put forward, e.g. by situations such as the Allais and Ellsberg paradoxes, that real-life situations can violate Savage’s Sure-Thing Principle and hence also expected utility. We analyze how this violation is connected to the presence of the ‘disjunction effect’ of decision theory and use our earlier study of this effect in concept theory to put forward an explanation of the violation of Savage’s Sure-Thing Principle, namely the presence of ‘quantum conceptual thought’ next to ‘classical logical thought’ within a double layer structure of human thought during the decision process. Quantum conceptual thought can be modeled mathematically by the quantum mechanical formalism, which we illustrate by modeling the Hawaii problem situation — a well-known example of the disjunction effect — generated by the entire conceptual landscape surrounding the decision situation.
KeywordsExpected utility disjunction effect quantum modeling quantum conceptual though ambiguity aversion concept combinations
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aerts, D.: Quantum interference and superposition in cognition: Development of a theory for the disjunction of concepts (2007a), Archive Reference and Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0975
- 2.Aerts, D.: General quantum modeling of combining concepts: A quantum field model in Fock space (2007b), Archive reference and link: http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1740
- 3.Aerts, D.: Quantum structure in cognition. J. Math. Psy. 53, 314–348 (2009)Google Scholar
- 5.Aerts, D., Apostel, L., De Moor, B., Hellemans, S., Maex, E., Van Belle, H., Van der Veken, J.: Worldviews, from Fragmentation towards Integration. VUBPress (1994)Google Scholar
- 7.Aerts, D., D’Hooghe, B.: Classical logical versus quantum conceptual thought: Examples in economics, decision theory and concept theory. In: Bruza, P., Sofge, D., Lawless, W., van Rijsbergen, K., Klusch, M. (eds.) QI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5494, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
- 10.Aerts, D., Van Belle, H., Van der Veken, J. (eds.): Worldviews and the Problem of Synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
- 17.Franco, R.: Risk, Ambiguity and Quantum Decision Theory (2007), Archive reference and link: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0886
- 21.Pothos, E.M., Busemeyer, J.R.: A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (2009)Google Scholar