The aim of this paper is to promote quantum logic as one of the basic tools for analyzing human reasoning. We compare it with classical (Boolean) logic and highlight the role of violation of the distributive law for conjunction and disjunction. It is well known that nondistributivity is equivalent to incompatibility of logical variables — the impossibility to assign jointly the two-valued truth values to these variables. A natural question arises as to whether quantum logical nondistributivity in human logic can be tested experimentally. We show that testing the response replicability effect (RRE) in cognitive psychology is equivalent to testing nondistributivity — under the prevailing conjecture that the mental state update generated by observation is described as orthogonal projection of the mental state vector (the projective update conjecture of Wang and Busemeyer). A simple test of RRE is suggested. In contrast to the previous works in quantum-like modeling, we proceed in the state-dependent framework; in particular, distributivity, compatibility, and RRE are considered in a fixed mental state. In this framework, we improve the previous result on the impossibility to combine question order and response replicability effects by using (von Neumann–Lüders) projective measurements.
The aim of this paper is to promote quantum logic as one of the basic tools for analyzing human reasoning. We compare it with classical (Boolean) logic and highlight the role of violation of the distributive law for conjunction and disjunction. It is well known that nondistributivity is equivalent to incompatibility of logical variables — the impossibility to assign jointly the two-valued truth values to these variables. A natural question arises as to whether quantum logical nondistributivity in human logic can be tested experimentally. We show that testing the response replicability effect (RRE) in cognitive psychology is equivalent to testing nondistributivity — under the prevailing conjecture that the mental state update generated by observation is described as orthogonal projection of the mental state vector (the projective update conjecture of Wang and Busemeyer). A simple test of RRE is suggested. In contrast to the previous works in quantum-like modeling, we proceed in the state-dependent framework; in particular, distributivity, compatibility, and RRE are considered in a fixed mental state. In this framework, we improve the previous result on the impossibility to combine question order and response replicability effects by using (von Neumann–Lüders) projective measurements.
Recently, quantum formalism started to be actively used outside of quantum physics: in psychology, decision-making, economics, finances, and social science. Human psychological behavior is characterized by a few basic effects; one of them is the question order effect (QOE). This effect was successfully modeled (Busemeyer–Wang) by representing questions A and B by Hermitian observables and mental-state transformations (back action of answering) by orthogonal projectors. However, then it was demonstrated that such representation cannot be combined with another psychological effect, known as the response replicability effect (RRE). Later, this no-go result was generalized to representation of questions and state transformations by quantum instruments of the atomic type. In light of these results, the possibility of using quantum formalism in psychology was questioned. In this paper, we show that, nevertheless, the combination of the QOE and RRE can be modeled within quantum formalism, in the framework of theory of non-atomic quantum instruments.
We continue to analyze matching of some basic constraints on human's decision making with quantum theory of measurement. As was found, quantum measurement theory based on the projection postulate does not match with combination of the question order effect (QOE) and the response replicability effect (RRE). This was the alarm signal for quantum-like modeling of decision making. Recently, it was shown that this objection to quantum-like modeling can be removed on the basis of the general measurement theory based on quantum instruments. In the present paper, the problem of combination QOE, RRE with the famous QQ-equality is analyzed. This equality was derived by Busemeyer and Wang and it was shown (in the joint paper with Solloway and Shiffrin) that statistical data from many social opinion polls satisfies it. Now, we construct quantum instruments satisfying QQE, RRE, and QQ-inequality. Moreover, we show that this model reproduces the statistics of the famous Clinton-Gore Poll data almost faithfully with a prior belief state independent of the question order. This model successfully removes the order effect from the data to determine the genuine distribution of the opinion to the Poll. Independently of modeling of the concrete psychological effects, the paper provides psychologist-friendly presentation of the theory of quantum instruments - the most general mathematical framework for quantum measurements. We hope that this theory will attract attention of psychologists and generate further psychological applications.
We continue to analyze basic constraints on human's decision making from the viewpoint of quantum measurement theory (QMT). As has been found, the conventional QMT based on the projection postulate cannot account for combination of the question order effect (QOE) and the response replicability effect (RRE). This was an alarm signal for quantum-like modeling of decision making. Recently, it was shown that this objection to quantum-like modeling can be removed on the basis of the general QMT based on quantum instruments. In the present paper we analyse the problem of combination of QOE, RRE, and the famous QQ-equality (QQE). This equality was derived by Busemeyer and Wang and it was shown (in the joint paper with Solloway and Shiffrin) that statistical data from many social opinion polls satisfies it. Now, we construct quantum instruments satisfying QOE, RRE, and QQE. The general features of our approach are formalized with postulates which generalize {\it Wang-Busemeyer} postulates for quantum-like modeling of decision making. Moreover, we show that our model closely reproduces the statistics of the famous Clinton-Gore Poll data with a prior belief state independent of the question order. This model successfully removes the order effect from the data to determine the genuine distribution of the opinions in the Poll. The paper also provides a psychologist-friendly introduction to the theory of quantum instruments - the most general mathematical framework for quantum measurements. We hope that this theory will attract attention of psychologists and will stimulate further applications.
We characterize the class of quantum measurements that matches the applications of quantum theory to cognition (and decision-making)—quantum-like modelling. Projective measurements describe the canonical measurements of the basic observables of quantum physics. However, the combinations of the basic cognitive effects, such as the question order and response replicability effects (RREs), cannot be described by projective measurements. We motivate the use of the special class of quantum measurements, namely, sharp repeatable non-projective measurements — S R P ¯ . This class is practically unused in quantum physics. Thus, physics and cognition explore different parts of quantum measurement theory. Quantum-like modelling is not the automatic borrowing of the quantum formalism. Exploring the class S R P ¯ highlights the role of non-commutativity of the state-update maps generated by measurement back action . Thus, ‘non-classicality’ in quantum physics as well as quantum-like modelling for cognition is based on two different types of non-commutativity, of operators (observables) and instruments (state-update maps): observable non-commutativity versus state-update-non-commutativity . We speculate that distinguishing quantum-like properties of the cognitive effects is the expression of the latter, or possibly both. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Quantum theory and topology in models of decision making (Part 1)’.
There has been a strong recent interest in applying quantum theory (QT) outside physics, including in cognitive science. We analyze the applicability of QT to two basic properties in opinion polling. The first property (response replicability) is that, for a large class of questions, a response to a given question is expected to be repeated if the question is posed again, irrespective of whether another question is asked and answered in between. The second property (question order effect) is that the response probabilities frequently depend on the order in which the questions are asked. Whenever these two properties occur together, it poses a problem for QT. The conventional QT with Hermitian operators can handle response replicability, but only in the way incompatible with the question order effect. In the generalization of QT known as theory of positive-operator-valued measures (POVMs), in order to account for response replicability, the POVMs involved must be conventional operators. Although these problems are not unique to QT and also challenge conventional cognitive theories, they stand out as important unresolved problems for the application of QT to cognition. Either some new principles are needed to determine the bounds of applicability of QT to cognition, or quantum formalisms more general than POVMs are needed.
This note is devoted to the problem of signaling (marginal inconsistency) in the Bell-type experiments with physical and cognitive systems. It seems that in quantum physics, this problem is still not taken seriously. Only recently have experimenters started to check the signaling hypothesis for their data. For cognitive systems, signaling was statistically significant in all experiments (typically for decision making) performed up to today. Here, one cannot simply ignore this problem. Since signaling contradicts the quantum theory of measurement for compatible observables, its statistical significance in experiments with humans can be considered as an objection for quantum-like modeling—applications of quantum theory to cognition, decision making, psychology, economics and finance, social and political science. In this paper, we point to two possible sources of signaling generation that are consistent with quantum measurement theory. Thus, the signaling objection for quantum-like modeling is not catastrophic. One of these sources is the direct physical signaling about selection of experimental settings, questions or tasks in quantum-like studies. Another possible source is a state modification dependent on experimental settings. The latter was a rather common source of signaling in quantum physics. Since the physical size of the brain is very small comparing with the light velocity, it seems to be impossible to prevent the direct physical signaling (with electromagnetic waves) between the brain’s areas processing two questions a and b. However, if, for these questions, not the electromagnetic waves, but electrochemical communication plays the crucial role, the experimenter may hope to make signaling weaker by answering the questions faster. The problem of question-dependent mental state modification seems to be solvable via smarter experimental design. This paper can be useful both for physicists interested in quantum foundations and for researchers working in quantum-like studies, e.g., applying the quantum theory to model decision making or psychological effects. This paper is solely about quantum theory. Thus, we do not consider general contextual probabilistic models.