The Quantum Inspired Modelling of Changing Attitudes and Self-organising Societies

  • Kirsty Kitto
  • Fabio Boschetti
  • Peter Bruza
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7620)


We utilise the quantum decision models, now well-developed in the QI community, to create a higher order social decision making model. A simple Agent Based Model (ABM) of a society of agents with changing attitudes towards a social issue is presented, where the private attitudes of individuals in the system are represented using a geometric structure inspired by quantum theory. We track the changing attitudes of the members of that society, and their resulting propensities to act, or not, in a given social context. A number of new issues surrounding this “scaling up” of quantum decision theories are discussed, as well as new directions and opportunities.


Attitudes Quantum Decision Theory Context Information Minimisation Self-organisation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Khrennikov, A.Y.: Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Busemeyer, J.R., Pothos, E., Franco, R., Trueblood, J.: A Quantum Theoretical Explanation for Probability Judgment Errors. Psychological Review 118(2), 193–218 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yukalov, V.I., Sornette, D.: Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision, 1–46 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busemeyer, J., Bruza, P.: Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Augoustinos, M., Walker, I., Donaghue, N.: Social Cognition, 2nd edn. Sage, London (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allport, G.W.: Attitudes. In: Murchison, C. (ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 798–884. Clark University Press, Worcester (1935)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petty, R.E., Wegener, D.T.: Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In: Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., Lindzey, G. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 323–390. McGraw-Hill (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seiter, R.H., Gass, J.S.: Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining, 4th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooper, J.: Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. Sage (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asch, S.E.: Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs 70(9), 1–70 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bond, R., Smith, P.B.: Culture and Conformity. Psychological Bulletin 119, 111–137 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenwald, A.G., Banaji, M.R.: Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102, 4–27 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chaiken, S.M.: The heuristic model of persuasion. In: Zanna, P., Olson, J.M., Herman, C.P. (eds.) Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, vol. 5, pp. 3–39. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenberg, H., Feldman, C.S.: No Time To Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle. Continuum, London (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tanner, L.: Sideshow: Dumbing Down Democracy. Scribe, Australia (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mosler, H.J., Schwarz, K., Ammann, F., Gutscher, H.: Computer Simulation as a Method of Further Developing a Theory: Simulating the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Personality and Social Psychology Review 5, 201–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kitto, K., Boschetti, F.: Attitudes, ideologies and self-organisation: Information load minimisation in multi-agent decision making (under review, 2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Isham, C.J.: Lectures on Quantum Theory. Imperial College Press, London (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fox, J.S.: Push Polling. Florida Law Review 49, 563 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481), 453–458 (1981)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shafir, E., Tversky, A.: Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology 24, 449–474 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teitz, M., Bart, P.: Heuristic methods for estimating the generalized vertex median of a weighted graph. Operations Research 16, 955–961 (1968)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsty Kitto
    • 1
  • Fabio Boschetti
    • 2
    • 3
  • Peter Bruza
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems SchoolQueensland University of TechnologyAustralia
  2. 2.Marine Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationAustralia
  3. 3.School of Earth and Geographical SciencesThe University of Western AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations