The DOI matches its Crossref record; 227 of the 227 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?
Abstract
Classical (Bayesian) probability (CP) theory has led to an influential research tradition for modeling cognitive processes. Cognitive scientists have been trained to work with CP principles for so long that it is hard even to imagine alternative ways to formalize probabilities. However, in physics, quantum probability (QP) theory has been the dominant probabilistic approach for nearly 100 years. Could QP theory provide us with any advantages in cognitive modeling as well? Note first that both CP and QP theory share the fundamental assumption that it is possible to model cognition on the basis of formal, probabilistic principles. But why consider a QP approach? The answers are that (1) there are many well-established empirical findings (e.g., from the influential Tversky, Kahneman research tradition) that are hard to reconcile with CP principles; and (2) these same findings have natural and straightforward explanations with quantum principles. In QP theory, probabilistic assessment is often strongly context- and order-dependent, individual states can be superposition states (that are impossible to associate with specific values), and composite systems can be entangled (they cannot be decomposed into their subsystems). All these characteristics appear perplexing from a classical perspective. However, our thesis is that they provide a more accurate and powerful account of certain cognitive processes. We first introduce QP theory and illustrate its application with psychological examples. We then review empirical findings that motivate the use of quantum theory in cognitive theory, but also discuss ways in which QP and CP theories converge. Finally, we consider the implications of a QP theory approach to cognition for human rationality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Decision, Probability and Utility · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,474
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241 · cited 1×
“…that participants perhaps adjust their beliefs for the other player’s action, depending on what they are intending to do (this principle was called wishful thinking and follows from cognitive dissonance theory and related hypotheses, e.g., Festinger, 1957, Krueger, DiDonato, & Freestone, 2011).”
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Quantum Computation and Quantum Information
Nielsen, M. A., Chuang, I., & Grover, L. K. (2002) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1463744 · Cited by 21,895
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Quantum computation and quantum information
Law, J. (2001) · ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · doi:10.1145/505482.505499 · Cited by 18,842
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
(2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,122
Cited by
Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition.
Barsalou, L. W. (2020) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.116 · Cited by 319
Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments
Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1407756111 · Cited by 289
Self-citationQuantum cognition: A new theoretical approach to psychology
Bruza, P. D., Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.05.001 · Cited by 273
Self-citationA Quantum Question Order Model Supported by Empirical Tests of an A Priori and Precise Prediction
Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12040 · Cited by 220
Self-citationPothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2022) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-123501 · Cited by 223
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R.
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2013-05-14
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 255-274
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- OpenAlex
- W1985156157
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 227
- FWCI
- 23.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0140525x12001525
- The paper
- Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x12001525
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.