A lot of research in cognition and decision making suffers from a lack of formalism. The quantum probability program could help to improve this situation, but we wonder whether it would provide even more added value if its presumed focus on outcome models were complemented by process models that are, ideally, informed by ecological analyses and integrated into cognitive architectures.

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. (shrink)

Over the past decades psychological theories have made significant headway into economics, culminating in the 2002 (partially) and 2017 Nobel prizes awarded for work in the field of Behavioral Economics. Many of the insights imported from psychology into economics share a common trait: the presumption that decision makers use shortcuts that lead to deviations from rational behaviour (the Heuristics-and-Biases program). Many economists seem unaware that this viewpoint has long been contested in cognitive psychology. Proponents of an alternative program (the Ecological-Rationality (...) program) argue that heuristics need not be irrational, particularly when judged relative to characteristics of the environment. We sketch out the historical context of the antagonism between these two research programs and then review more recent work in the Ecological-Rationality tradition. While the heuristics-and-biases program is now well-established in (mainstream neo-classical) economics via Behavioral Economics, we show there is considerable scope for the Ecological-Rationality program to interact with economics. In fact, we argue that there are many existing, yet overlooked, bridges between the two, based on independently derived research in economics that can be construed as being aligned with the tradition of the Ecological-Rationality program. We close the paper with a discussion of the open challenges and difficulties of integrating the Ecological Rationality program with economics. (shrink)

Original and cumulative prospect theory differ in the composition rule used to combine the probability weighting function and the value function. We test the predictive power of these composition rules by performing a novel out-of-sample prediction test. We apply estimates of prospect theory’s weighting and value function obtained from two-outcome cash equivalents, a domain where original and cumulative prospect theory coincide, to three-outcome cash equivalents, a domain where the composition rules of the two theories differ. Although both forms of prospect (...) theory predict three-outcome cash equivalents very well, at the aggregate level, we find small but systematic under-prediction of cash equivalents for cumulative prospect theory and small but systematic over-prediction of cash equivalents for original prospect theory. We also observe substantial heterogeneity across subjects and types of gambles, some of which is accounted for by differences in the curvature and elevation of the weighting function across individuals. We also find differences in prediction related to whether the worst outcome is zero or non-zero. (shrink)

The paper shows why and how an empirical study of fast-and-frugal heuristics can provide norms of good reasoning, and thus how (and how far) rationality can be naturalized. We explain the heuristics that humans often rely on in solving problems, for example, choosing investment strategies or apartments, placing bets in sports, or making library searches. We then show that heuristics can lead to judgments that are as accurate as or even more accurate than strategies that use more information and computation, (...) including optimization methods. A standard way to defend the use of heuristics is by reference to accuracy-effort trade-offs. We take a different route, emphasizing ecological rationality (the relationship between cognitive heuristics and environment), and argue that in uncertain environments, more information and computation are not always better (the “less-can-be-more” doctrine). The resulting naturalism about rationality is thus normative because it not only describes what heuristics people use, but also in which specific environments one should rely on a heuristic in order to make better inferences. While we desist from claiming that the scope of ecological rationality is unlimited, we think it is of wide practical use. (shrink)

Computational models of learning and the theories they represent are often validated by calibrating them to human data on decision outcomes. However, only a few models explain the process by which these decision outcomes are reached. We argue that models of learning should be able to reflect the process through which the decision outcomes are reached, and validating a model on the process is likely to help simultaneously explain both the process as well as the decision outcome. To demonstrate the (...) proposed validation, we use a large dataset from the Technion Prediction Tournament and an existing Instance-based Learning model. We present two ways of calibrating the model’s parameters to human data: on an outcome measure and on a process measure. In agreement with our expectations, we find that calibrating the model on the process measure helps to explain both the process and outcome measures compared to calibrating the model on the outcome measure. These results hold when the model is generalized to a different dataset. We discuss implications for explaining the process and the decision outcomes in computational models of learning. (shrink)

One of the interesting research questions in multi-attribute decision-making is what affects the consideration of shared information between two alternatives. Previous studies have suggested two approaches in finding what characteristics of common features affect their consideration. Two bottom-up factors were found, but no top-down factors were discovered. In the current study, we followed the top-down approach and investigated how subjective importance of a common feature affects its consideration. In two studies, we consistently found that, on both the general and individual (...) level, the level of consideration increased with the SI of the common feature. This result provided a new explanation for the effect of common feature consideration and its individual difference; it also provided insights in explaining the underlying process of multi-attribute decision making. (shrink)