Throughout our lives, we are constantly faced with a variety of causal reasoning problems. A challenge for cognitive modelers is developing a comprehensive framework for modeling causal reasoning across different types of tasks and levels of causal complexity. Causal graphical models, based on Bayes’ calculus, have perhaps been the most successful at explaining and predicting judgments of causal attribution. However, some recent empirical studies have reported violations of the predictions of these models, such as the local Markov condition. In this chapter, the authors suggest an alternative approach to modeling human causal reasoning using quantum Bayes nets. They show that their approach can account for a variety of behavioral phenomena including order effects, violations of the local Markov condition, anti-discounting behavior, and reciprocity.
Throughout our lives, we are constantly faced with a variety of causal reasoning problems. A challenge for cognitive modelers is developing a comprehensive framework for modeling causal reasoning across different types of tasks and levels of causal complexity. Causal graphical models, based on Bayes’ calculus, have perhaps been the most successful at explaining and predicting judgments of causal attribution. However, some recent empirical studies have reported violations of the predictions of these models, such as the local Markov condition. In this chapter, the authors suggest an alternative approach to modeling human causal reasoning using quantum Bayes nets. They show that their approach can account for a variety of behavioral phenomena including order effects, violations of the local Markov condition, anti-discounting behavior, and reciprocity.
There is considerable variety in human inference (e.g., a doctor inferring the presence of a disease, a juror inferring the guilt of a defendant, or someone inferring future weight loss based on diet and exercise). As such, people display a wide range of behaviors when making inference judgments. Sometimes, people's judgments appear Bayesian (i.e., normative), but in other cases, judgments deviate from the normative prescription of classical probability theory. How can we combine both Bayesian and non-Bayesian influences in a principled way? We propose a unified explanation of human inference using quantum probability theory. In our approach, we postulate a hierarchy of mental representations, from 'fully' quantum to 'fully' classical, which could be adopted in different situations. In our hierarchy of models, moving from the lowest level to the highest involves changing assumptions about compatibility (i.e., how joint events are represented). Using results from 3 experiments, we show that our modeling approach explains 5 key phenomena in human inference including order effects, reciprocity (i.e., the inverse fallacy), memorylessness, violations of the Markov condition, and antidiscounting. As far as we are aware, no existing theory or model can explain all 5 phenomena. We also explore transitions in our hierarchy, examining how representations change from more quantum to more classical. We show that classical representations provide a better account of data as individuals gain familiarity with a task. We also show that representations vary between individuals, in a way that relates to a simple measure of cognitive style, the Cognitive Reflection Test. (PsycINFO Database Record
People can often outperform statistical methods and machine learning algorithms in situations that involve making inferences about the relationship between causes and effects. While people are remarkably good at causal reasoning in many situations, there are several instances where they deviate from expected responses. This paper examines three situations where judgments related to causal inference problems produce unexpected results and describes a quantum inference model based on the axiomatic principles of quantum probability theory that can explain these effects. Two of the three phenomena arise from the comparison of predictive judgments (i.e., the conditional probability of an effect given a cause) with diagnostic judgments (i.e., the conditional probability of a cause given an effect). The third phenomenon is a new finding examining order effects in predictive causal judgments. The quantum inference model uses the notion of incompatibility among different causes to account for all three phenomena. Psychologically, the model assumes that individuals adopt different points of view when thinking about different causes. The model provides good fits to the data and offers a coherent account for all three causal reasoning effects thus proving to be a viable new candidate for modeling human judgment.
Throughout our lives, we are faced with a variety of causalreasoning problems. Arguably, the most successful models ofcausal reasoning, Causal Graphical Models (CGMs), performwell in some situations, but there is considerable variation inhow well they are able to account for data, both across scenar-ios and between individuals. We propose a model of causalreasoning based on quantum probability (QP) theory that ac-counts for behavior in situations where CGMs fail. WhetherQP or classical models are appropriate depends on the repre-sentation of events constructed by the reasoner. We describean experiment that suggests the representation of events canchange with experience to become more classical, and that therepresentation constructed can vary between individuals, in away that correlates with a simple measure of cognitive ability,The Cognitive Reflection Task.
How can we use quantum theory to model other phenomena of interest to researchers in cognition and decision making? Quantum theory is not easy for researchers in cognition and decision making to accept. In fact, quantum mechanics was not easy for physicists to accept either, but it was forced on them by several paradoxical findings that could not be explained using classical physics. We have a similar problem in cognition and decision making – there are numerous paradoxical findings that just seem irrational according to classic probability theory. For example, under some conditions, people judge the probability of event A and B to be greater than the probability of event B , which is called the conjunction fallacy (Tversky & Kahneman, 1983). Also, under the same conditions, they judge the probability of A or B to be less than the probability of event A (Carlson & Yates, 1989), which is called the disjunction fallacy. In this chapter we examine how quantum probability theory explains these and other puzzling results from human probability judgment research. This chapter has two main parts. In the first part, we use a quantum model to derive qualitative predictions for conjunction errors, disjunction errors, and other closely related findings. The first section provides a general set of predictions that do not depend on specific assumptions about the features used to represent events, and the predictions are parameter free. In the second part, we examine the quantitative predictions of the quantum model for a Bayesian inference task, which we use to explain order effects on inference.
Human reasoning is traditionally modeled through rational-order frameworks that assume stability, separability, and coherence. Yet across judgment, valuation, perception, and social decision-making, empirical work consistently reveals patterned violations of these assumptions. These deviations intensify in real-world contexts shaped by institutional constraints, identity commitments, and collective narratives, where reasoning must navigate incompatible interpretive frames and interdependent evaluative pressures. Existing theories typically treat such phenomena as noise, bias, or bounded rationality, leaving no formal account of how rational-order rules interact with the variability inherent in social domains. This article proposes a structural framework that explains why these two regimes diverge and how their interaction produces systematic mismatches. Building on quantum probability theory, not as a physical metaphor but as a representational tool, it formalizes evaluative states that remain indeterminate until elicited, transform under contextual modulation, and become relationally coupled across agents and domains. Whereas, existing quantum-cognition models primarily address task-level effects such as conjunction errors or order dependence, this framework scales quantum principles to socially and institutionally embedded reasoning. The account identifies contradiction, interference, entanglement, and resolution as recurrent properties of real-world cognition and shows how quantum formalisms provide a coherent vocabulary for capturing these phenomena. To support cumulative progress, the article outlines a research agenda with empirically testable designs for distinguishing incompatible bases, assessing inseparability, modeling context-driven transformations, and integrating multi-level reasoning environments. This program positions quantum and classical approaches within a unified architecture and advances a broader science of reasoning.
Since the 70’s, researchers noticed that people do not follow the rules of probability theory while making decisions under risk.Just like quantum physics was created in order to accommodate paradoxical findings from classical physics, quantum cognition arose as a disciple with the promise of creating models that would accommodate and explain the violations found in human decision-making.In this work, we explore an alternative quantum structure to perform quantum probabilistic inferences. We propose a Quantum Probabilistic Graphical Model in order to predict human decisions under situations with high levels of uncertainty.Under the proposed network, if a node (event) is unobserved, then a particle can enter in a superposition state and produce interference effects. These effects provide some explanation in terms of cognition, since they can be seen as the feeling of confusion or ambiguity.This work also discusses the problem of creating a generalized quantum probabilistic model: the number of quantum parameters grows exponentially. We will see that for a given event, several outcomes are possible through quantum probability. A final question is posed and discussed: is it possible to find a method to assign quantum parameters in order to provide accurate predictions?