Perspectives on correctness in probabilistic inference from psychology

• Emmanuel M. Pothos ^[1] ; Irina Basieva ^[1] ; Andrei Khrennikov ^[2] ; James M. Yearsley ^[1]
  1. [1] University of London

     University of London

     Reino Unido

     
  2. [2] Linnéuniversitetet (Sweden)
• Localización: The Spanish Journal of Psychology, ISSN 1138-7416, Nº 22, 2019, págs. 1-12
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.1017/sjp.2019.48
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Research into decision making has enabled us to appreciate that the notion of correctness is multifaceted. Different normative framework for correctness can lead to different insights about correct behavior. We illustrate the shifts for correctness insights with two tasks, the Wason selection task and the conjunction fallacy task; these tasks have had key roles in the development of logical reasoning and decision making research respectively. The Wason selection task arguably has played an important part in the transition from understanding correctness using classical logic to classical probability theory (and information theory). The conjunction fallacy has enabled a similar shift from baseline classical probability theory to quantum probability. The focus of this overview is the latter, as it represents a novel way for understanding probabilistic inference in psychology. We conclude with some of the current challenges concerning the application of quantum probability theory in psychology in general and specifically for the problem of understanding correctness in decision making.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Anderson J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Anderson J. R. (1991a). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 471–485. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0140525X00070801
  • Anderson J. R. (1991b). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98, 409–429. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.3.409
  • Asano M. Basieva I., Khrennikov A., Ohya M., & Tanaka Y. (2012). Quantum-like generalization of the Bayesian updating scheme for objective...
  • Asano A., Basieva I., Khrennikov A., Ohya M., & Yamato I. (2013). Non-Kolmogorovian approach to the contextdependent systems breaking...
  • Asano M., Basieva I., Pothos E. M., & Khrennikov A. (2018). State entropy and differentiation phenomenon. Entropy, 20, 394–408. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20060394
  • Bergus G. R., Chapman G. B., Levy B. T., Ely J. W., & Oppliger R. A. (1998). Clinical diagnosis and order of information. Medical Decision...
  • Braine M. D. S., O’Brien D. P., Noveck I. A., Samuels M. C., Lea R. B., Fisch S. M., & Yang Y. (1995). Predicting intermediate and multiple...
  • Bruza P. D., Wang Z., & Busemeyer J. R. (2015). Quantum cognition: A new theoretical approach to psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,...
  • Busemeyer J. R., & Bruza P. (2011). Quantum models of cognition and decision making. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Busemeyer J. R., Pothos E., Franco R., & Trueblood J. S. (2011). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological...
  • Cervantes V. H., & Dzhafarov E. N. (2018). Snow queen is evil and beautiful: Experimental evidence for probabilistic contextuality in...
  • Chater N., & Oaksford M. (1993). Logicism, mental models and everyday reasoning. Mind & Language, 8, 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1993.tb00271.x
  • Cheng P. W., & Holyoak K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391–416. https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0285(85)90014-3
  • De Finetti B., Machi A., & Smith A. (1993). Theory of Probability: A critical introductory treatment. New York, NY: Wiley.
  • Dulany D. E., & Hilton D. J. (1991). Conversational implicature, conscious representation, and the conjunction fallacy. Social Cognition,...
  • Dzhafarov E. N., Kujala J. V., Cervantes V. H., Zhang R., & Jones M. (2016). On contextuality in behavioral data. Philosophical Transactions...
  • Elqayam S., & Evans J. S. B. T. (2013). Rationality in the new paradigm: Strict versus soft bayesian approaches. Thinking and Reasoning,...
  • Evans J. S. B. T. (1991). Theories of human reasoning: The fragmented state of the art. Theory & Psychology, 1, 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354391011006
  • Evans J. S. B. T., Newstead S. E., & Byrne R. J. M. (1991). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Evans J. S. B. T., Handley S. J., Neilens H., & Over D. E. (2007). Thinking about conditionals: A study of individual differences. Memory...
  • Feldman J. (2000). Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature, 407, 630–633. https:// doi.org/10.1038/35036586
  • Gamez-Djokic M., & Molden D. (2016). Beyond affective influences on deontological moral judgment: The role of motivations for prevention...
  • Garner W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. New York, NY: Lea.
  • Gigerenzer G., & Goldstein D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4),...
  • Gilboa I. (2000). Theory of decision under uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press:
  • Goodman N. D., Tenenbaum J. B., & Gerstenberg T. (2015). Concepts in probabilistic language of thought. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence...
  • Grice H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). San Diego,...
  • Griffiths T. L., Lieder F., & Goodman N. D. (2015). Rational use of cognitive resources: Levels of analysis between the computational...
  • Haven E., & Khrennikov A. (2013). Quantum Social Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  • Howson C. & Urbach P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
  • Kahane G., & Shackel N. (2010). Methodological issues in the neuroscience of moral judgement. Mind & Language, 25, 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017....
  • Kahneman D. (2001). Thinking fast and slow. London, UK: Penguin.
  • Kahneman D., Slovic P., & Tversky A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kolmogorov A. N. (1933). Foundations of the theory of probability. New York, NY: Chelsea Publishing Co.
  • Khrennikov A. Y. (2010). Ubiquitous quantum structure: From psychology to finance. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
  • Khrennikov A., & Basieva I. (2014). Possibility to agree on disagree from quantum information and decision making. Journal of Mathematical...
  • Khrennikov A., Basieva I., Pothos E. M., & Yamato I. (2018). Quantum probability in decision making from quantum information representation...
  • Lake B. M., Salakhutdinov R., & Tenenbaum J. B. (2015). Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science,...
  • McKenzie C. R. M., Lee S. M., & Chen K. K. (2002). When negative evidence increases confidence: Change in belief after hearing two sides...
  • Miller G. A. (1958). Free recall of redundant strings of letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044933
  • Moro R. (2009). On the nature of the conjunction fallacy. Synthese, 171, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-0089377-8
  • Oaksford M., & Chater N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631....
  • Oaksford M., & Chater N. (2009). Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,...
  • Perfors A., Tenenbaum J. B., Griffiths T. L., & Xu F. (2011). A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition,...
  • Pothos E. M., & Busemeyer J. R. (2013). Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behavioral & Brain...
  • Pothos E. M., Busemeyer J. R., & Trueblood J. S. (2013). A quantum geometric model of similarity. Psychological Review, 120, 679–696....
  • Pothos E. M., Busemeyer J. R., Shiffrin R. M., & Yearsley J. M. (2017). The rational status of quantum cognition. Journal of Experimental...
  • Shafir E., & Tversky A. (1992). Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 449–474....
  • Sloman S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
  • Sorkin R. D. (1994). Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Measure Theory. Modern Physics Letters A, 9, 3119–3127. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021773239400294X
  • Tenenbaum J. B, Kemp C., Griffiths T. L., & Goodman N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science,...
  • Tentori K., Bonini N., & Osherson D. (2004). The conjunction fallacy: A misunderstanding about conjunction? Cognitive Science, 28, 467–477....
  • Trueblood J. S., & Busemeyer J. R. (2011). A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognitive Science, 35, 1518–1552....
  • Tversky A., & Kahneman D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological...
  • Valdesolo P., & DeSteno D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 476–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.x
  • Wang Z., Busemeyer J. R., Atmanspacher H., & Pothos E. M. (2013). The potential of using quantum theory to build models of cognition....
  • Wason P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14640746808400161
  • Wason P. C., & Johnson-Laird P. N. (1972). The psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Wedell D. H., & Moro R. (2008). Testing boundary conditions for the conjunction fallacy: Effects of response mode, conceptual focus, and...
  • White L. C., Pothos E. M., & Busemeyer J. R. (2014). Sometimes it does hurt to ask: The constructive role of articulating impressions....
  • Yearsley J. M., & Busemeyer J. R (2016). Quantum cognition and decision theories: A tutorial. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74,...