A Quantum Question Order Model Supported by Empirical Tests of an A Priori and Precise Prediction
Open accessAbstract
Question order effects are commonly observed in self-report measures of judgment and attitude. This article develops a quantum question order model (the QQ model) to account for four types of question order effects observed in literature. First, the postulates of the QQ model are presented. Second, an a priori, parameter-free, and precise prediction, called the QQ equality, is derived from these mathematical principles, and six empirical data sets are used to test the prediction. Third, a new index is derived from the model to measure similarity between questions. Fourth, we show that in contrast to the QQ model, Bayesian and Markov models do not generally satisfy the QQ equality and thus cannot account for the reported empirical data that support this equality. Finally, we describe the conditions under which order effects are predicted to occur, and we review a broader range of findings that are encompassed by these very same quantum principles. We conclude that quantum probability theory, initially invented to explain order effects on measurements in physics, appears to be a powerful natural explanation for order effects of self-report measures in social and behavioral sciences, too.
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?
Several models have been proposed to explain cognition using quantum formalism.
“Several models have been proposed to explain cognition using quantum formalism [4,5,6,7,8,9].”
From Quantum-Inspired and Non-Classical Approaches to Consciousness: Models, Evidence and Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 220
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Howard R. A., 1971, Dynamic probability systems
- Authors
- Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Zheng
- Venue
- Topics in Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-09-11
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 689-710
- ISSN
- 1756-8757 (ISSN-L)
- 1756-8765
- OpenAlex
- W1980333612
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 34.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Topics in Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0818277, 1153846)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- question order effects, quantum probability, self-report measures, attitude measurement, a priori prediction, Bayesian model, Markov model
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Humans, Judgment, Mathematics, Models, Psychological, Probability, Probability Theory, Quantum Theory, Models, Statistical, Empirical Research, Self Report
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