Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy

Thomas Boyer-Kassem (), Sébastien Duchêne and Eric Guerci
Additional contact information
Thomas Boyer-Kassem: Tilburg University

Theory and Decision, 2016, vol. 81, issue 4, No 2, 479-510

Abstract: Abstract Human agents happen to judge that a conjunction of two terms is more probable than one of the terms, in contradiction with the rules of classical probabilities—this is the conjunction fallacy. One of the most discussed accounts of this fallacy is currently the quantum-like explanation, which relies on models exploiting the mathematics of quantum mechanics. The aim of this paper is to investigate the empirical adequacy of major quantum-like models which represent beliefs with quantum states. We first argue that they can be tested in three different ways, in a question order effect configuration which is different from the traditional conjunction fallacy experiment. We then carry out our proposed experiment, with varied methodologies from experimental economics. The experimental results we get are at odds with the predictions of the quantum-like models. This strongly suggests that this quantum-like account of the conjunction fallacy fails. Future possible research paths are discussed.

Keywords: Conjunction fallacy; Quantum-like model; Experimental economics; Empirical adequacy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-016-9549-9 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy (2016)
Working Paper: Quantum-like Models Cannot Account for the Conjunction Fallacy (2015)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:theord:v:81:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s11238-016-9549-9

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ry/journal/11238/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s11238-016-9549-9

Access Statistics for this article

Theory and Decision is currently edited by Mohammed Abdellaoui

More articles in Theory and Decision from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().