Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Quanta and Mind pp 235–248Cite as

Unifying Decision-Making: A Review on Evolutionary Theories on Rationality and Cognitive Biases

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((SYLI,volume 414))

Abstract

In this paper, we make a review on the concepts of rationality across several different fields, namely in economics, psychology and evolutionary biology and behavioural ecology. We review how processes like natural selection can help us understand the evolution of cognition and how cognitive biases might be a consequence of this natural selection. In the end we argue that humans are not irrational, but rather rationally bounded and we complement the discussion on how quantum cognitive models can contribute for the modelling and prediction of human paradoxical decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aerts, D. (1995). Quantum structures: An attempt to explain the origin of their appearance in nature. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, S. (1996). Conditional probabilities with a quantal and kolmogorovian limit. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 2245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, S. (1998). Interactive probability models: Inverse problems on the sphere. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 37, 305–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D. (2014). Quantum theory and human perception of the macro-world. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D., & Aerts, S. (1994). Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Journal of Foundations of Science, 1, 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., & Gabora, L. (2011). A case for applying an abstracted quantum formalism to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 136–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., Gabora, L., & Sozzo, S. (2013a). Quantum structure and human thought. Journal of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 274–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D., Gabora, L., & Sozzo, S. (2013b). Concepts and their dynamics: A quantum-theoretic modelling of human thought. Topics in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 737–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’École americaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. (2015). Cognitive science contributions to decision science. Cognition, 135, 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J., & Bruza, P. (2012). Quantum model of cognition and decision (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J., & Wang, Z. (2014). Quantum cognition: Key issues and discussion. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J., Matthew, M., & Wang, Z. (2006a). A quantum information processing explanation of disjunction effects. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual COnference of the Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J., Wang, Z., & Townsend, J. (2006b). Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 220–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, B., & Yates, J. (1989). Disjunction errors in qualitative likelihood judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 368–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. K., Lakshminarayanan, V. R., & Santos, L. (2006). How basic are behavioural biases? evidence from capuchin monkey trading behaviour. Journal of Political Economy, 114, 517–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms. Quaterly Economics, 75, 643–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M., & Savage, L. (1952). The expected-utility hypothesis and the measurability of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 50, 463–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabora, L., & Aerts, D. (2002). Contextualising concepts using a mathematical generalisation of the quantum formalism. Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14, 327–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Dahlem workshop reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glimcher, P., & Fehr, E. (Eds.). (2014). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. Amsterdam: Academic/Elsvier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, T., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. (2008). Bayesian models of inductive learning. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston, A., McNamara, J., & Steer, M. (2007). Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviour? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 1531–1543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik, A. (2006). Meanings of rationality. In S. Hurley & M. Nudds (Eds.), Rational animals?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik, A., & Marsh, B. (2002). Cost can increase preference in starlings. Animal Behaviour, 63, 245–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability – a judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khrennikov, A. (2010). Contextual approach to quantum formalism. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller, D., & Friedman, N. (2009). Probabilistic graphical models: Principles and techniques. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakshminarayanan, V. R., Chen, M. K., & Santos, L. (2011). The evolution of decision-making under risk: Framing effects in monkey risk preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 689–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. D., & Vanpaemel, W. (2013). Quantum models of cognition as orwellian newspeak. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 295–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S., & Taplin, J. (2002). Examining whether there is a disjunction effect in prisoner’s dilemma game. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 44, 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M. (2009). Risk, ambiguity, and the rank-dependence axioms. Journal of Economic Review, 99, 385–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreira, C., & Wichert, A. (2014). Interference effects in quantum belief networks. Applied Soft Computing, 25, 64–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreira, C., & Wichert, A. (2016). Quantum-like bayesian networks for modelling decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, D. (1989). Niels Bohr’s philosophy of physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pothos, E., & Busemeyer, J. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of rational decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 2171–2178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, L. R., & Rosati, A. G. (2015). The evolutionary roots of human decision-making. Annual Review in Psychology, 3, 321–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, A., & Oppenheimer, D. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, S. (2014). Comments on quantum probability theory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. (2008). The evolutionary biology of decision-making. In C. Engel & W. Singer (Eds.), Better than conscious? Decision-making, the human mind and implications for institutions. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59, 251–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3, 305–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov, V., & Sornette, D. (2011). Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision, 70, 283–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. (2006). Generalised theory of uncertainty (gtu) – principal concepts and ideas. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 51, 15–46.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Systems, Faculty of Science and Technology, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Catarina Moreira

Authors
  1. Catarina Moreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catarina Moreira .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Liberal Studies, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA

    J. Acacio de Barros

  2. Department of Philosophy, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Carlos Montemayor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Moreira, C. (2019). Unifying Decision-Making: A Review on Evolutionary Theories on Rationality and Cognitive Biases. In: de Barros, J.A., Montemayor, C. (eds) Quanta and Mind. Synthese Library, vol 414. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21908-6_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation