IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03227276.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The triple-store experiment: a first simultaneous test of classical and quantum probabilities in choice over menus

Author

Listed:
  • Ismaël Rafaï

    (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier)

  • Sébastien Duchêne

    (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier)

  • Eric Guerci

    (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

  • Irina Basieva

    (City University London)

  • Andrei Khrennikov

    (ICMM - Iinternational Center for Mathematical Modeling - Växjö University)

Abstract

Recently quantum probability theory started to be actively used in studies of human decision-making, in particular for the resolution of paradoxes (such as the Allais, Ellsberg, and Machina paradoxes). Previous studies were based on a cognitive metaphor of the quantum double-slit experiment - the basic quantum interference experiment. In this paper, we report on an economics experiment based on a three-slit experiment design, where the slits are menus of alternatives from which one can choose. The test of nonclassicality is based on the Sorkin equality (which was only recently tested in quantum physics). Each alternative is a voucher to buy products in one or more stores. The alternatives are obtained from all disjunctions including one, two or three stores. The participants have to reveal the amount for which they are willing to sell the chosen voucher. Interference terms are computed by comparing the willingness to sell a voucher built as a disjunction of stores and the willingness to sell the vouchers corresponding to the singleton stores. These willingness to sell amounts are used to estimate probabilities and to test both the law of total probabilities and the Born Rule. Results reject neither classical nor quantum probability. We discuss this initial experiment and our results and provide guidelines for future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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," Post-Print hal-03227276, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03227276
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-021-09823-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    3. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    4. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    5. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2001. "Temptation and Self-Control," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1403-1435, November.
    6. Danilov, V.I. & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., 2008. "Measurable systems and behavioral sciences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 315-340, May.
    7. 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.
    8. V. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2011. "Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 283-328, March.
    9. 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.
    10. V. Danilov & A. Lambert-Mogiliansky, 2010. "Expected utility theory under non-classical uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 25-47, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Masanari Asano & Irina Basieva & Andrei Khrennikov & Masanori Ohya & Yoshiharu Tanaka, 2017. "A Quantum-like Model of Selection Behavior," Papers 1705.08536, arXiv.org.
    13. 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.
    14. Diederik Aerts & Sandro Sozzo, 2011. "A Contextual Risk Model for the Ellsberg Paradox," Papers 1105.1814, arXiv.org.
    15. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2006. "Random Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 121-146, January.
    16. Jay Lu, 2016. "Random Choice and Private Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1983-2027, November.
    17. Aerts, Diederik & Geriente, Suzette & Moreira, Catarina & Sozzo, Sandro, 2018. "Testing ambiguity and Machina preferences within a quantum-theoretic framework for decision-making," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 176-185.
    18. 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.
    19. Pedram Heydari, 2020. "Stochastic choice over menus," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 257-268, March.
    20. Khrennikov, Andrei, 2015. "Quantum version of Aumann’s approach to common knowledge: Sufficient conditions of impossibility to agree on disagree," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 89-104.
    21. 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.
    22. David S. Ahn & Todd Sarver, 2013. "Preference for Flexibility and Random Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 341-361, January.
    23. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2016. "Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy," Post-Print halshs-01425806, HAL.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Jerome Busemeyer, 2012. "Quantum Type Indeterminacy in Dynamic Decision-Making: Self-Control through Identity Management," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Nobuo Koida, 2018. "Anticipated stochastic choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(3), pages 545-574, May.
    6. V. I. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2012. "Quantum decision making by social agents," Papers 1202.4918, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2015.
    7. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    8. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2019. "Deliberately Stochastic," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2425-2445, July.
      • Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2012. "Deliberately Stochastic," PIER Working Paper Archive 17-013, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 25 May 2017.
    9. Lin, Yi-Hsuan, 2022. "Stochastic choice and rational inattention," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    10. Haven, Emmanuel & Khrennikova, Polina, 2018. "A quantum-probabilistic paradigm: Non-consequential reasoning and state dependence in investment choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 186-197.
    11. Dino Borie, 2013. "Expected utility theory with non-commutative probability theory," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 8(2), pages 295-315, October.
    12. Tang, Rui & Zhang, Mu, 2023. "Motivated naivete," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    13. Godfrey Cadogan, 2012. "Representation theory for risk on markowitz-tversky-kahneman topology," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(4), pages 1-34.
    14. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2021. "Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    15. Piermont, Evan, 2022. "Disentangling strict and weak choice in random expected utility models," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    16. Heydari, Pedram, 2024. "Regret, responsibility, and randomization: A theory of stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Li, Boyao, 2023. "Random utility models with status quo bias," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    19. Yaron Azrieli & John Rehbeck, 2022. "Marginal stochastic choice," Papers 2208.08492, arXiv.org.
    20. Mihm, Maximilian & Ozbek, Kemal, 2018. "Mood-driven choices and self-regulation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 727-760.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • C67 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Input-Output Models
    • D57 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Input-Output Tables and Analysis
    • E17 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • R15 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Econometric and Input-Output Models; Other Methods

    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:hal:journl:hal-03227276. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.