Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments
Open accessAbstract
The hypothesis that human reasoning obeys the laws of quantum rather than classical probability has been used in recent years to explain a variety of seemingly "irrational" judgment and decision-making findings. This article provides independent evidence for this hypothesis based on an a priori prediction, called the quantum question (QQ) equality, concerning the effect of asking attitude questions successively in different orders. We empirically evaluated the predicted QQ equality using 70 national representative surveys and two laboratory experiments that manipulated question orders. Each national study contained 651-3,006 participants. The results provided strong support for the predicted QQ equality. These findings suggest that quantum probability theory, initially invented to explain noncommutativity of measurements in physics, provides a simple account for a surprising regularity regarding measurement order effects in social and behavioral science.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a substantial body of behavioral evidence that human cognition is essentially quantum in nature.
“Aside from this direct biophysical evidence, we also have a substantial body of behavioral evidence that human cognition is essentially quantum in nature (Wang et al. 2014, Pothos and Busemeyer 2022).”
From A quantum microtubule substrate of consciousness is experimentally supported and solves the binding and epiphenomenalism problems (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al. 2014
The Discussion describes an accumulating body of behavioral findings that quantum theory can explain, and the paper reports strong support for a quantum-probability prediction in surveys and experiments. But it does not establish that cognition is essentially quantum in a physical sense: the Discussion says a classical brain could produce behavior following quantum principles and that it is too early to determine whether quantum physics plays a significant role in mental processes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe quantum cognition framework has generated novel, nontrivial quantitative predictions borne out by robust experimental evidence, particularly question order effects.
“The quantum cognition framework has also generated novel, nontrivial quantitative predictions borne out by robust experimental evidence, particularly with regard to question order effects in which people give different answers depending on the order in which pairs of questions are posed (Wang et al. 2014, Pothos and Busemeyer 2022).”
From A quantum microtubule substrate of consciousness is experimentally supported and solves the binding and epiphenomenalism problems (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al. 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
(2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098 · Cited by 2,214 · see citing works
Quantum theory: Concepts and methods
Mermin, N. (1997) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics · doi:10.1016/s1355-2198(97)85538-4 · Cited by 1,914 · see citing works
Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision
Busemeyer, J., & Bruza, P. (2012) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511997716 · Cited by 1,066 · see citing works
Self-citationMeasures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space
Gleason, A. M. (1975) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1795-4_7 · Cited by 1,011 · see citing works
Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes
Tegmark, M. (2000) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.61.4194 · Cited by 776 · see citing works
Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods
Peres, A., & Mayer, M. E. (1994) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.2808757 · Cited by 695 · see citing works
Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space
Gleason, A. M. (1957) · Indiana University Mathematics Journal · doi:10.1512/iumj.1957.6.56050 · Cited by 666 · see citing works
Khrennikov, A. Y. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-05101-2 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Pothos, E. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199957996.013.17 · Cited by 550 · see citing works
Self-citationCan quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12001525 · Cited by 455 · see citing works
Self-citationQuantum computation in brain microtubules: decoherence and biological feasibility
Hagan, S., Hameroff, S. R., & Tuszyński, J. A. (2002) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.65.061901 · Cited by 389 · see citing works
(1996) · Journal of Consciousness Studies · Cited by 385 · see citing works
Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes
Aerts, D., & Aerts, S. (1995) · Foundations of Science · doi:10.1007/bf00208726 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12040 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Self-citationConcepts and Their Dynamics: A Quantum‐Theoretic Modeling of Human Thought
Aerts, D., Gabora, L. M., & Sozzo, S. (2013) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12042 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Measuring New Types of Question-Order Effects
Moore, D. W. (2002) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/338631 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement
Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2010) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/s11238-010-9202-y · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Conscious Events as Orchestrated Space-Time Selections
Hameroff, S. R., & Penrose, R. (2007) · NeuroQuantology · doi:10.14704/nq.2003.1.1.3 · Cited by 201 · see citing works
The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models of Cognition
Wang, Z., Busemeyer, J. R., Harald Atmanspacher, A., & Pothos, E. M. (2013) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12043 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Self-citationContext Effects on Survey Responses to Questions About Abortion
Schuman, H., Presser, S., & Ludwig, J. (1981) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/268652 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Quantum mechanics, interference, and the brain
Acacio de Barros, J., & Suppes, P. (2009) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2009.03.005 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Two models for memory organization using interacting traces
Anderson, J. A. D. W. (1970) · Mathematical Biosciences · doi:10.1016/0025-5564(70)90147-1 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
McKemmish, L. K., Reimers, J. R., McKenzie, R. H., Mark, A. E., & Hush, N. S. (2009) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.80.021912 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Complementarity in Classical Dynamical Systems
Graben, P. B., & Atmanspacher, H. (2006) · Foundations of Physics · doi:10.1007/s10701-005-9013-0 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
A Quantum Probability Perspective on Borderline Vagueness
Blutner, R., Pothos, E. M., & Bruza, P. (2013) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12041 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Fuss, I., & Navarro, D. (2013) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12045 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Epistemic Entanglement due to Non-generating Partitions of Classical Dynamical Systems
Graben, P. B., Filk, T., & Atmanspacher, H. (2012) · International Journal of Theoretical Physics · doi:10.1007/s10773-012-1381-6 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Quantum Type Indeterminacy in Dynamic Decision-Making: Self-Control through Identity Management
Lambert‐Mogiliansky, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2012) · Games · doi:10.3390/g3020097 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [16]Hameroff SR, Penrose R (1996) Conscious events as orchestrated spacetime selections. J Conscious Stud 3(1):36 -53.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Quantum 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 · see citing works
Self-citationOpportunities and challenges for quantum-assisted machine learning in near-term quantum computers
Perdomo-Ortiz, A., Benedetti, M., Realpe-Gómez, J., & Biswas, R. (2018) · Quantum Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/2058-9565/aab859 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2022) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-123501 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Self-citationQuantum probability in decision making from quantum information representation of neuronal states
Khrennikov, A., Basieva, I., Pothos, E. M., & Yamato, I. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-34531-3 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Revisiting the Quantum Brain Hypothesis: Toward Quantum (Neuro)biology?
Jedlicka, P. (2017) · Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnmol.2017.00366 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
A new spin on neural processing: quantum cognition.
Weingarten, C. P., Doraiswamy, P. M., & Fisher, M. P. A. (2016) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00541 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Ozawa, M., & Khrennikov, A. (2021) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102491 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Wiest, M. C. (2025) · Neuroscience of Consciousness · doi:10.1093/nc/niaf011 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“…also generated novel, nontrivial quantitative predictions borne out by robust experimental evidence, particularly with regard to question order effects in which people give different answers depending on the order in which pairs of questions are posed (Wang et al. 2014, Pothos and Busemeyer 2022).”
Coupling quantum-like cognition with the neuronal networks within generalized probability theory
Khrennikov, A., Ozawa, M., Benninger, F., & Shor, O. (2025) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2025.102923 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Quantum spin models for numerosity perception
Yago Malo, J., Cicchini, G. M., Morrone, M. C., & Chiofalo, M. L. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284610 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R. M., & Busemeyer, J. R.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2014-06-16
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 9431-9436
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC4084470
- OpenAlex
- W2057021283
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 22.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- quantum cognition, question order effects, attitude measurement, quantum probability, non-commutativity, judgment and decision making
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Humans, Judgment, Models, Psychological, Probability Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires
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
