This article presents a general framework that allows irrational decision making to be theoretically investigated and simulated. Rationality in human decision making under uncertainty is normatively prescribed by the axioms of probability theory in order to maximize utility. However, substantial literature from psychology and cognitive science shows that human decisions regularly deviate from these axioms. Bistable probabilities are proposed as a principled and straight forward means for modeling (ir)rational decision making, which occurs when a decision maker is in "two minds". We show that bistable probabilities can be formalized by positive-operator-valued projections in quantum mechanics. We found that (1) irrational decision making necessarily involves a wider spectrum of causal relationships than rational decision making, (2) the accessible information turns out to be greater in irrational decision making when compared to rational decision making, and (3) irrational decision making is quantum-like because it violates the Bell-Wigner polytope.
This article presents a general framework that allows irrational decision making to be theoretically investigated and simulated. Rationality in human decision making under uncertainty is normatively prescribed by the axioms of probability theory in order to maximize utility. However, substantial literature from psychology and cognitive science shows that human decisions regularly deviate from these axioms. Bistable probabilities are proposed as a principled and straight forward means for modeling (ir)rational decision making, which occurs when a decision maker is in "two minds". We show that bistable probabilities can be formalized by positive-operator-valued projections in quantum mechanics. We found that (1) irrational decision making necessarily involves a wider spectrum of causal relationships than rational decision making, (2) the accessible information turns out to be greater in irrational decision making when compared to rational decision making, and (3) irrational decision making is quantum-like because it violates the Bell-Wigner polytope.
In cognitive psychology, some experiments of games were reported [1, 2, 3, 4], and these demonstrated that real players did not use the "rational strategy" provided by classical game theory. To discuss probabilities of such "irrational choice", recently, we proposed a decision-making model which is based on the formalism of quantum mechanics [5, 6, 7, 8]. In this paper, we briefly explain the above model and calculate the probability of irrational choice in several prisoner's dilemma (PD) games.
There has been a growing trend to develop cognitive models based on the mathematics of quantum theory. A common theme in the motivation of such models has been findings which apparently challenge the applicability of classical formalisms, specifically ones based on classical probability theory. Classical probability theory has had a singularly important place in cognitive theory, because of its (in general) descriptive success but, more importantly, because in decision situations with low, equivalent stakes it offers a multiply justified normative standard. Quantum cognitive models have had a degree of descriptive success and proponents of such models have argued that they reveal new intuitions or insights regarding decisions in uncertain situations. However, can quantum cognitive models further benefit from normative justifications analogous to those for classical probability models? If the answer is yes, how can we determine the rational status of a decision, which may be consistent with quantum theory, but inconsistent with classical probability theory? In this paper, we review the proposal from Pothos, Busemeyer, Shiffrin, and Yearsley (2017), that quantum decision models benefit from normative justification based on the Dutch Book Theorem, in exactly the same way as models based on classical probability theory.
Classical models of decision-making under uncertainty, grounded in expected utility theory and Bayesian probability, often fail to account for systematic cognitive anomalies such as preference reversals, order effects, ambiguity aversion, and context-dependent choices. Quantum cognition models offer a novel theoretical framework that applies the mathematical principles of quantum probability—such as superposition, interference, and non-commutativity—to cognitive processes without assuming physical quantum mechanisms in the brain. By representing cognitive states as probabilistic superpositions that collapse through decision “measurements,” these models provide parsimonious explanations for violations of classical rationality. This paper examines how quantum cognition frameworks capture contextual influence, belief updating, and interference effects in uncertain decision environments. Drawing on findings from cognitive psychology and behavioral economics, the study highlights the relevance of quantum cognition for applications in economic choice modeling, legal decision analysis, and artificial intelligence. The analysis suggests that quantum probability offers a robust alternative to classical approaches when modeling human decision-making in complex, ambiguous, and context-sensitive situations.
This paper provides the foundations of a unified cognitive decision-making framework (QulBIT) which is derived from quantum theory. The main advantage of this framework is that it can cater for paradoxical and irrational human decision making. Although quantum approaches for cognition have demonstrated advantages over classical probabilistic approaches and bounded rationality models, they still lack explanatory power. To address this, we introduce a novel explanatory analysis of the decision-maker's belief space. This is achieved by exploiting quantum interference effects as a way of both quantifying and explaining the decision-maker's uncertainty. We detail the main modules of the unified framework, the explanatory analysis method, and illustrate their application in situations violating the Sure Thing Principle.
Organizational decision making is often explored with theories from the heuristics and biases research program, which have demonstrated great value as descriptions of how people in organizations make decisions. Nevertheless, rational analysis and classical probability theory are still seen by many as the best accounts of how decisions should be made and classical probability theory is the preferred framework for cognitive modelling for many researchers. The focus of this work is quantum probability theory, an alternative probabilistic framework. Results in decision making, which appear paradoxical from a perspective of classical probability theory, may make perfect sense if one adopts quantum probability theory. We review some cognitive models of decision making based on quantum probability theory. Each of these models is based on a challenge to prescription from classical probability theory. The transition from labeling a particular behavior as irrational, by classical probability standards, to (potentially) rational (or, at any rate, not fallacious), raises interesting possibilities, including that of characterizing certain heuristics in formal, probabilistic terms.
We demonstrate that behavioral probabilities of human decision makers share many common features with quantum probabilities. This does not imply that humans are some quantum objects, but just shows that the mathematics of quantum theory is applicable to the description of human decision making. The applicability of quantum rules for describing decision making is connected with the nontrivial process of making decisions in the case of composite prospects under uncertainty. Such a process involves deliberations of a decision maker when making a choice. In addition to the evaluation of the utilities of considered prospects, real decision makers also appreciate their respective attractiveness. Therefore, human choice is not based solely on the utility of prospects, but includes the necessity of resolving the utility-attraction duality. In order to justify that human consciousness really functions similarly to the rules of quantum theory, we develop an approach defining human behavioral probabilities as the probabilities determined by quantum rules. We show that quantum behavioral probabilities of humans do not merely explain qualitatively how human decisions are made, but they predict quantitative values of the behavioral probabilities. Analyzing a large set of empirical data, we find good quantitative agreement between theoretical predictions and observed experimental data.