Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1609.07721 · International Journal of Theoretical Physics

Testing Quantum Models of Conjunction Fallacy on the World Wide Web

Diederik Aerts, Jonito Aerts Arguëlles, Lester Beltran, Lyneth Beltran, Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi, Sandro Sozzo, Tomas Veloz

Published Jan 28, 2017• 14 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/s10773-017-3288-8

Related papers

The Conjunction Fallacy in Quantum Decision Theory

Tatyana Kovalenko, Didier Sornette

Studies in systems, decision and control•Jan 1, 2022•7 citations

Towards a quantum World Wide Web

Diederik Aerts, Jonito Aerts Arguëlles, Lester Beltran +5 more

arXiv:1703.06642•Theoretical Computer Science•Mar 19, 2018•32 citations

The conjunction fallacy and interference effects

Riccardo Franco

arXiv:0708.3948•Journal of Mathematical Psychology•Mar 14, 2009•99 citations

Testing Quantum Models of Conjunction Fallacy on the World Wide Web

Diederik Aerts, Jonito Aerts Arguëlles, Lester Beltran +4 more

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New YorkThe ‘conjunction fallacy’ has been extensively debated by scholars in cognitive science and, in recent times, the discussion has been enriched by the proposal of modeling the fallacy using the quantum formalism. Two major quantum approaches have been put forward: the first assumes that respondents use a two-step sequential reasoning and that the fallacy results from the presence of ‘question order effects’; the second assumes that respondents evaluate the cognitive situation as a whole and that the fallacy results from the ‘emergence of new meanings’, as an ‘effect of overextension’ in the conceptual conjunction. Thus, the question arises as to determine whether and to what extent conjunction fallacies would result from ‘order effects’ or, instead, from ‘emergence effects’. To help clarify this situation, we propose to use the World Wide Web as an ‘information space’ that can be interrogated both in a sequential and non-sequential way, to test these two quantum approaches. We find that ‘emergence effects’, and not ‘order effects’, should be considered the main cognitive mechanism producing the observed conjunction fallacies.

•Jan 28, 2017•16 citations

Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy

Thomas Boyer‐Kassem, Sébastien Duchêne, Éric Guerci

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 quantum-like models which represent beliefs with quantum states. 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 this quantum-like account of the conjunction fallacy fails. Future possible research paths are discussed.

arXiv:1606.03430•Theory and Decision•Apr 22, 2016•40 citations

Cognitive science: Quantum models of inference

Stavroula T. Kousta

Nature Human Behaviour•Jul 28, 2017•0 citations
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New YorkThe ‘conjunction fallacy’ has been extensively debated by scholars in cognitive science and, in recent times, the discussion has been enriched by the proposal of modeling the fallacy using the quantum formalism. Two major quantum approaches have been put forward: the first assumes that respondents use a two-step sequential reasoning and that the fallacy results from the presence of ‘question order effects’; the second assumes that respondents evaluate the cognitive situation as a whole and that the fallacy results from the ‘emergence of new meanings’, as an ‘effect of overextension’ in the conceptual conjunction. Thus, the question arises as to determine whether and to what extent conjunction fallacies would result from ‘order effects’ or, instead, from ‘emergence effects’. To help clarify this situation, we propose to use the World Wide Web as an ‘information space’ that can be interrogated both in a sequential and non-sequential way, to test these two quantum approaches. We find that ‘emergence effects’, and not ‘order effects’, should be considered the main cognitive mechanism producing the observed conjunction fallacies.
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 quantum-like models which represent beliefs with quantum states. 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 this quantum-like account of the conjunction fallacy fails. Future possible research paths are discussed.