IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gre/wpaper/2015-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantum-like Models Cannot Account for the Conjunction Fallacy

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Boyer-Kassem

    (Tilburg University)

  • Sébastien Duchêne

    (Université Nice Sophia Antipolis
    GREDEG-CNRS)

  • Eric Guerci

    (Université Nice Sophia Antipolis
    GREDEG-CNRS)

Abstract

Human agents happen to judge that a conjunction of two terms is more probable than one of the terms, in contradiction with the rules of classical probabilities|this is the conjunction fallacy. One of the most discussed accounts of this fallacy is currently the quantum-like explanation, which relies on models exploiting the mathematics of quantum mechanics. The aim of this paper is to investigate the empirical adequacy of major such quantum-like models. We first argue that they can be tested in three different ways, in a question order effect configuration which is different from the traditional conjunction fallacy experiment. We then carry out our proposed experiment, with varied methodologies from experimental economics. The experimental results we get are at odds with the predictions of the quantum-like models. This strongly suggests that the quantum-like account of the conjunction fallacy fails. Future possible research paths are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2015. "Quantum-like Models Cannot Account for the Conjunction Fallacy," GREDEG Working Papers 2015-41, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    • Handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2015-41
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers/GREDEG-WP-2015-41.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brandenburger, Adam, 2010. "The relationship between quantum and classical correlation in games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 175-183, May.
    2. Nilsson, Håkan & Andersson, Patric, 2010. "Making the seemingly impossible appear possible: Effects of conjunction fallacies in evaluations of bets on football games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 172-180, April.
    3. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    4. Danilov, V.I. & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., 2008. "Measurable systems and behavioral sciences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 315-340, May.
    5. Charness, Gary & Karni, Edi & Levin, Dan, 2010. "On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding Linda," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 551-556, March.
    6. 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.
    7. V. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2011. "Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 283-328, March.
    8. 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.
    9. V. Danilov & A. Lambert-Mogiliansky, 2010. "Expected utility theory under non-classical uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 25-47, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Diederik Aerts & Sandro Sozzo, 2011. "A Contextual Risk Model for the Ellsberg Paradox," Papers 1105.1814, arXiv.org.
    12. Barker L. & Rolka H. & Rolka D. & Brown C., 2001. "Equivalence Testing for Binomial Random Variables: Which Test to Use?," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 55, pages 279-287, November.
    13. Erceg, Nikola & Galić, Zvonimir, 2014. "Overconfidence bias and conjunction fallacy in predicting outcomes of football matches," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 52-62.
    14. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    15. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    16. Jérôme Busemeyer & Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Zheng Wang, 2009. "Empirical Comparison of Markov and Quantum models of decision-making," Post-Print halshs-00754332, HAL.
    17. Ariane Lambert Mogiliansky & Shmuel Zamir & Herve Zwirn, 2003. "Type Indeterminacy: A Model of the KT(Kahneman-Tversky)-man," Discussion Paper Series dp343, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    18. 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.
    19. Edward W. Piotrowski & Jan Sladkowski, "undated". "An Invitation to Quantum Game Theory," Departmental Working Papers 15, University of Bialtystok, Department of Theoretical Physics.
    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. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gre:wpaper:2015-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Patrice Bougette). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/credcfr.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.