IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v75y2015icp49-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A survey of quantum-like approaches to decision making and cognition

Author

Listed:
  • Ashtiani, Mehrdad
  • Azgomi, Mohammad Abdollahi

Abstract

There has always been a steady interest in how humans make decisions amongst researchers from various fields. Based on this interest, many approaches such as rational choice theory or expected utility hypothesis have been proposed. Although these approaches provide a suitable ground for modeling the decision making process of humans, they are unable to explain the corresponding irrationalities and existing paradoxes and fallacies. Recently, a new formulation of decision theory that can correctly describe these paradoxes and possibly provide a unified and general theory of decision making has been proposed. This new formulation is founded based on the application of the mathematical structure of quantum theory to the fields of human decision making and cognition. It is shown that by applying these quantum-like models, one can better describe the uncertainty, ambiguity, emotions and risks involved in the human decision making process. Even in computational environments, an agent that follows the correct patterns of human decision making will have a better functionality in performing its role as a proxy for a real user. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of the researches and the corresponding recent developments. Finally, the benefits of leveraging the quantum-like modeling approaches in computational domains and the existing challenges and limitations currently facing the field are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashtiani, Mehrdad & Azgomi, Mohammad Abdollahi, 2015. "A survey of quantum-like approaches to decision making and cognition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 49-80.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:75:y:2015:i:c:p:49-80
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2015.02.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165489615000165
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2015.02.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williams, Patti & Aaker, Jennifer L, 2002. "Can Mixed Emotions Peacefully Coexist?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(4), pages 636-649, March.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    3. Choustova, Olga Al., 2007. "Quantum Bohmian model for financial market," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 374(1), pages 304-314.
    4. V. I. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2012. "Quantum decision making by social agents," Papers 1202.4918, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2015.
    5. Pouria Pedram, 2011. "The minimal length uncertainty and the quantum model for the stock market," Papers 1111.6859, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2012.
    6. V. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2011. "Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 283-328, March.
    7. Aerts, Diederik & Broekaert, Jan & Czachor, Marek & D'Hooghe, Bart, 2011. "A Quantum-Conceptual Explanation of Violations of Expected Utility in Economics," MPRA Paper 41792, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Mehrdad Ashtiani & Mohammad Abdollahi Azgomi, 2014. "Contextuality, Incompatibility And Biased Inference In A Quantum-Like Formulation Of Computational Trust," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1-61.
    9. Vyacheslav I. Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2008. "Mathematical Basis of Quantum Decision Theory," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 08-25, Swiss Finance Institute.
    10. Vyacheslav I. Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2013. "Conditions for Quantum Interference in Cognitive Sciences," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 13-29, Swiss Finance Institute.
    11. Jérôme Busemeyer & Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Zheng Wang, 2009. "Empirical Comparison of Markov and Quantum models of decision-making," Post-Print halshs-00754332, HAL.
    12. Baaquie, Belal E. & Yang, Cao, 2009. "Empirical analysis of quantum finance interest rates models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 388(13), pages 2666-2681.
    13. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    14. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. V. I. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2009. "Physics of risk and uncertainty in quantum decision making," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 71(4), pages 533-548, October.
    16. Pedram, Pouria, 2012. "The minimal length uncertainty and the quantum model for the stock market," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 391(5), pages 2100-2105.
    17. Jérôme Busemeyer & Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Zheng Wang, 2009. "Empirical Comparison of Markov and Quantum models of decision-making," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-00754332, HAL.
    18. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    19. V. I. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2014. "Manipulating decision making of typical agents," Papers 1409.0636, arXiv.org.
    20. Vyacheslav I. Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2010. "Mathematical Structure Of Quantum Decision Theory," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(05), pages 659-698.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ismaël Rafaï & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci & Irina Basieva & Andrei Khrennikov, 2022. "The triple-store experiment: a first simultaneous test of classical and quantum probabilities in choice over menus," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 387-406, March.
    2. Stan Lipovetsky, 2023. "Quantum-like Data Modeling in Applied Sciences: Review," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, February.
    3. Morales, Vicente, 2024. "Social Mechanics," SocArXiv my7v4, Center for Open Science.
    4. Boyer-Kassem, Thomas & Duchêne, Sébastien & Guerci, Eric, 2016. "Testing quantum-like models of judgment for question order effect," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 33-46.
    5. Ferro, Giuseppe M. & Kovalenko, Tatyana & Sornette, Didier, 2021. "Quantum decision theory augments rank-dependent expected utility and Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    6. Steve J. Bickley & Ho Fai Chan & Sascha L. Schmidt & Benno Torgler, 2021. "Quantum-Sapiens: The Quantum Bases for Human Expertise, Knowledge, and Problem-Solving (Extended Version with Applications)," CREMA Working Paper Series 2021-14, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    7. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2016. "Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 479-510, November.
    8. Sergey A. Kravchenko, 2019. "Increasingly Complex Techno-Digital Realities in the Dynamics of Scientific Discourse," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 15(4), pages 225-237.
    9. Maroussia Favre & Amrei Wittwer & Hans Rudolf Heinimann & Vyacheslav I Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2016. "Quantum Decision Theory in Simple Risky Choices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-29, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mehrdad Ashtiani & Mohammad Abdollahi Azgomi, 2016. "A formulation of computational trust based on quantum decision theory," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 735-764, August.
    2. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2016. "Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 479-510, November.
    3. Luke Snow & Shashwat Jain & Vikram Krishnamurthy, 2022. "Lyapunov based Stochastic Stability of Human-Machine Interaction: A Quantum Decision System Approach," Papers 2204.00059, arXiv.org.
    4. Maroussia Favre & Amrei Wittwer & Hans Rudolf Heinimann & Vyacheslav I Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2016. "Quantum Decision Theory in Simple Risky Choices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-29, December.
    5. Eichberger, Jürgen & Pirner, Hans Jürgen, 2018. "Decision theory with a state of mind represented by an element of a Hilbert space: The Ellsberg paradox," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 131-141.
    6. Gérard Mondello, 2012. "Ambiguity, Agency Relationships and Adverse Selection," Post-Print halshs-00929978, HAL.
    7. David Dequech, 2008. "Varieties of uncertainty: a survey of the economic literature," Anais do XXXVI Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 36th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 200807211223070, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    8. Boyer-Kassem, Thomas & Duchêne, Sébastien & Guerci, Eric, 2016. "Testing quantum-like models of judgment for question order effect," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 33-46.
    9. Ismaël Rafaï & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci & Irina Basieva & Andrei Khrennikov, 2022. "The triple-store experiment: a first simultaneous test of classical and quantum probabilities in choice over menus," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 387-406, March.
    10. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    11. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    12. Astebro, Thomas B. & Fossen, Frank M. & Gutierrez, Cédric, 2024. "Entrepreneurs: Clueless, Biased, Poor Heuristics, or Bayesian Machines?," IZA Discussion Papers 17231, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    14. Barnett, William A. & Han, Qing & Zhang, Jianbo, 2021. "Monetary services aggregation under uncertainty: A behavioral economics extension using Choquet expectation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 437-447.
    15. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    16. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    17. Godfrey Cadogan, 2012. "Representation theory for risk on markowitz-tversky-kahneman topology," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(4), pages 1-34.
    18. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    19. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2011. "Prospect theory for continuous distributions: A preference foundation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 195-210, June.
    20. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:75:y:2015:i:c:p:49-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.