Quantum probability theory has successfully provided accurate descriptions of behavior in the areas of judgment and decision making, and here we apply the same principles to two category learning tasks, one task using information-integration categories the other using rule-based categories. Since information-integration categories lack verbalizable descriptions, unlike rule-based ones, we assert information-integration categorization decision results from an intuitive probabilistic reasoning system characterized by quantum probability theory, whereas a rule-based categorization decision results from a logical, rational probabilistic reasoning system characterized classical probability theory. In our experiment, participants learn to categorize simple, visual stimuli as members of either category S or category K during an acquisition phase, and then rate the likelihood on a scale of 0 to 5 that a stimulus belongs to one category and subsequently perform the same likelihood rating for the other category during a transfer phase. Following the principle of complementarity in quantum theory, we expect the category likelihood ratings to exhibit order effects in the information-integration task, but not in the rule-based task. In the information-integration task, we found definitive order effects in the likelihood ratings. But, in the rule-based task, we found that the order effects in the likelihood ratings are not significant.
Quantum probability theory has successfully provided accurate descriptions of behavior in the areas of judgment and decision making, and here we apply the same principles to two category learning tasks, one task using information-integration categories the other using rule-based categories. Since information-integration categories lack verbalizable descriptions, unlike rule-based ones, we assert information-integration categorization decision results from an intuitive probabilistic reasoning system characterized by quantum probability theory, whereas a rule-based categorization decision results from a logical, rational probabilistic reasoning system characterized classical probability theory. In our experiment, participants learn to categorize simple, visual stimuli as members of either category S or category K during an acquisition phase, and then rate the likelihood on a scale of 0 to 5 that a stimulus belongs to one category and subsequently perform the same likelihood rating for the other category during a transfer phase. Following the principle of complementarity in quantum theory, we expect the category likelihood ratings to exhibit order effects in the information-integration task, but not in the rule-based task. In the information-integration task, we found definitive order effects in the likelihood ratings. But, in the rule-based task, we found that the order effects in the likelihood ratings are not significant.
Purpose: Decision-making under uncertainty remains a foundational challenge in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. Classical Bayesian Probability Models (CBM) often fail to explain paradoxical cognitive behaviors such as order effects, ambiguity aversion, and context-dependent reasoning. This study seeks to compare Quantum Probability Theory (QPT) and Classical Bayesian Models in their ability to capture the dynamics of human decision-making. It aims to determine which framework more accurately reflects the cognitive mechanisms underlying reasoning under uncertainty. Methodology: A qualitative, exploratory research design was adopted, involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 experts across psychology, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience. Participants were purposively selected for their theoretical and empirical expertise in probabilistic reasoning. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, guided by the Dual-Process Theory and Busemeyer’s Quantum Cognition framework. The analysis emphasized participants’ perspectives on theoretical assumptions, cognitive plausibility, and predictive utility between QPT and CBM paradigms. Findings: Thematic findings reveal that Quantum Probability Theory offers superior explanatory power in contexts involving cognitive ambiguity, contextual dependence, and non-commutativity of mental operations. Participants consistently reported that QPT better models real-world reasoning tasks where classical logic collapses, capturing the fluid and context-sensitive nature of human judgment. Conversely, while CBM remains effective in structured, low-uncertainty scenarios, it fails to accommodate superposition and interference effects inherent in human cognition. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice, and Policy (Recommendations): The study contributes theoretically by demonstrating how quantum probabilistic models expand existing theories of bounded rationality and probabilistic reasoning in cognitive science. Practically, it encourages interdisciplinary collaboration between cognitive scientists, AI researchers, and philosophers to refine decision models that mirror human intuition more closely. Policy-wise, the findings support the integration of quantum-inspired approaches in the design of intelligent decision-support systems and cognitive architectures. The study recommends continued empirical validation of QPT within applied domains—such as behavioral economics, machine learning, and cognitive modeling—to strengthen its predictive and explanatory robustness.
Categorization is a significant task in decision-making, which is a key part of human behavior. An interference effect is caused by categorization in some cases, which breaks the total probability principle. A negation quantum model (NQ model) is developed in this article to predict the interference. Taking the advantage of negation to bring more information in the distribution from a different perspective, the proposed model is a combination of the negation of a probability distribution and the quantum decision model. Information of the phase contained in quantum probability and the special calculation method to it can easily represented the interference effect. The results of the proposed NQ model is closely to the real experiment data and has less error than the existed models.
A quantum probability model is introduced and used to explain human probability judgment errors including the conjunction and disjunction fallacies, averaging effects, unpacking effects, and order effects on inference. On the one hand, quantum theory is similar to other categorization and memory models of cognition in that it relies on vector spaces defined by features and similarities between vectors to determine probability judgments. On the other hand, quantum probability theory is a generalization of Bayesian probability theory because it is based on a set of (von Neumann) axioms that relax some of the classic (Kolmogorov) axioms. The quantum model is compared and contrasted with other competing explanations for these judgment errors, including the anchoring and adjustment model for probability judgments. In the quantum model, a new fundamental concept in cognition is advanced--the compatibility versus incompatibility of questions and the effect this can have on the sequential order of judgments. We conclude that quantum information-processing principles provide a viable and promising new way to understand human judgment and reasoning.
Categorization is necessary for many decision making tasks. However, the categorization process may interfere the decision making result and the law of total probability can be violated in some situations. To predict the interference effect of categorization, some model based on quantum probability has been proposed. In this paper, a new quantum dynamic belief (QDB) model is proposed. Considering the precise decision may not be made during the process, the concept of uncertainty is introduced in our model to simulate real human thinking process. Then the interference effect categorization can be predicted by handling the uncertain information. The proposed model is applied to a categorization decision-making experiment to explain the interference effect of categorization. Compared with other models, our model is relatively more succinct and the result shows the correctness and effectiveness of our model.
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.
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.