The Guppy Effect as Interference

  • Diederik Aerts
  • Jan Broekaert
  • Liane Gabora
  • Tomas Veloz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7620)

Abstract

People use conjunctions and disjunctions of concepts in ways that violate the rules of classical logic, such as the law of compositionality. Specifically, they overextend conjunctions of concepts, a phenomenon referred to as the Guppy Effect. We build on previous efforts to develop a quantum model [1,2,3], that explains the Guppy Effect in terms of interference. Using a well-studied data set with 16 exemplars that exhibit the Guppy Effect, we developed a 17-dimensional complex Hilbert space \({\cal H}\) that models the data and demonstrates the relationship between overextension and interference. We view the interference effect as, not a logical fallacy on the conjunction, but a signal that out of the two constituent concepts, a new concept has emerged.

Keywords

theory of concepts quantum cognition Guppy effect concept combination interference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aerts, D., Gabora, L.: A Theory of Concepts and Their Combinations I&II. Kybernetes 34, 167–191, 192–221 (2005)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aerts, D.: Quantum Interference and Superposition in Cognition: Development of a Theory for the Disjunction of Concepts. In: Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., D’Hooghe, B., Note, N. (eds.) Worldviews, Science and Us: Bridging Knowledge and Its Implications for Our Perspectives of the World. World Scientific, Singapore (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aerts, D.: Quantum Structure in Cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53, 314–348 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hampton, J.: Inheritance of Attributes in Natural Concept Conjunctions. Memory & Cognition 15, 55–71 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Osherson, D., Smith, E.: On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts. Cognition 9, 35–58 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Storms, G., De Boeck, P., Van Mechelen, I., Ruts, W.: Not guppies, Nor Goldfish, But Tumble Dryers, Noriega, Jesse Jackson, Panties, Car Crashes, Bird Books, and Stevie Wonder. Memory & Cognition 26, 143–145 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aerts, D., Aerts, S., Broekaert, J., Gabora, L.: The Violation of Bell Inequalities in the Macroworld. Foundations of Physics 30, 1387–1414 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gabora, L., Aerts, D.: Contextualizing Concepts Using a Mathematical Generalization of the Quantum Formalism. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 14, 327–358 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aerts, D.: General Quantum Modeling of Combining Concepts: A Quantum Field Model in Fock space (2007) Archive reference and link, http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/0705.1740
  10. 10.
    Aerts, D.: Quantum Particles as Conceptual Entities: A Possible Explanatory Framework for Quantum Theory. Foundations of Science 14, 361–411 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franco, R.: The Conjunction Fallacy and Interference Effects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53, 415–422 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franco, R., Zuccon, G.: Social Tagging, Guppy Effect and Interference Effects. In: CNS-ECCS 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lambert Mogiliansky, A., Zamir, S., Zwirn, H.: Type Indeterminacy: A Model of the KT(Kahneman-Tversky)-Man. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53, 349–361 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hampton, J.A.: Overextension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model for Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14, 12–32 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hampton, J.A.: Typicality, Graded Membership and Vagueness. Cognitive Science 31, 355–383 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Donati, O., Missiroli, G.F., Pozzi, G.: An Experiment on Electron Interference. American Journal of Physics 41, 639–644 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 (LNAI), vol. 5494, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Veloz, T., Gabora, L., Eyjolfson, M., Aerts, D.: Toward a Formal Model of the Shifting Relationship between Concepts and Contexts during Associative Thought. In: Song, D., Melucci, M., Frommholz, I., Zhang, P., Wang, L., Arafat, S. (eds.) QI 2011. LNCS, vol. 7052, pp. 25–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gabora, L., Aerts, D.: A Model of the Emergence and Evolution of Integrated Worldview. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53, 434–451 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diederik Aerts
    • 1
  • Jan Broekaert
    • 1
  • Liane Gabora
    • 2
  • Tomas Veloz
    • 2
  1. 1.Center Leo Apostel (Clea) and Department of MathematicsBrussels Free University (VUB)BrusselBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and MathematicsUniversity of British ColumbiaKelownaCanada

Personalised recommendations