Please wait a minute...
心理科学进展  2018, Vol. 26 Issue (8): 1365-1373    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01365
  研究方法 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
一种新决策模型——量子决策模型
辛潇洋,徐晨虹,陈宏玉,李瑛()
陕西师范大学心理学院暨陕西省行为与认知神经科学重点实验室, 西安 710062
Quantum models for decision making
Xiaoyang XIN,Chenhong XU,Hongyu CHEN,Ying LI()
School of psychology, Shaanxi Normal University & Key Laboratory of behavioral and cognitive neuroscience of Shaanxi Province, Xi’an 710062, China
全文: PDF(757 KB)   HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

近10年以来, 一些学者基于量子理论研究思想与方法探索出了量子决策模型。由于该模型独特的理论结构, 它可被用于解释传统决策理论所难以解释的问题, 尤其是个体在不确定情况下的决策行为。该模型解释了诸如分离效应、分类决策的干涉效应以及合取谬误等传统决策模型很难解释的问题, 研究者已经证实其中一种称为量子问题等式的决策模型可以精确地预测决策中的顺序效应。作为一个有助于分析心理学中决策现象的新研究领域, 量子决策模型具有深入研究的理论意义和实践意义。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
辛潇洋
徐晨虹
陈宏玉
李瑛
关键词 量子决策模型概率    
Abstract

During the recent decade, quantum decision-making models were established based on the mathematical structure and methodologies of quantum mechanics. Owing to its unique theoretical structure, the quantum decision-making models can be applied to explain problems that violate the classical decision models, especially for judgments under uncertainty and decisions under conflicts. Quantum decision-making models have been used to explain phenomena such as disjunction effect, conjunction fallacy and interference of categorization on decision making which are difficult to account for with classical decision models. A model called quantum question equality has been tested for its accurate prediction of order effects. Being a new research field contributing to analysis of decision making, quantum decision-making models worth further investigations both in theoretical and applicative levels.

Key wordsquantum    decision making    model    probability
收稿日期: 2017-04-14      出版日期: 2018-07-02
PACS:  B841.2  
基金资助:国家社会科学基金教育学青年课题(CCA110105);陕西师范大学教师教育研究专项(JSJY2017006)
通讯作者: 李瑛     E-mail: liying@snnu.edu.cn
引用本文:   
辛潇洋, 徐晨虹, 陈宏玉, 李瑛. (2018). 一种新决策模型——量子决策模型. 心理科学进展, 26(8), 1365-1373.
Xiaoyang XIN, Chenhong XU, Hongyu CHEN, Ying LI. (2018). Quantum models for decision making. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(8), 1365-1373.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01365      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/Y2018/V26/I8/1365
1 顾樵 . ( 2014). 量子力学Ⅰ. 北京: 科学出版社.
2 李红, 谢松法 . ( 2013). 复变函数与积分变换 (第4版). 北京: 高等教育出版社.
3 刘程浩, 徐富明, 王伟, 李燕, 史燕伟 . ( 2015). 概率判断中的合取谬误. 心理科学进展, 23( 6), 967-978.
4 罗俊明 . ( 2002). 概率论与数理统计. 郑州: 郑州大学出版社.
5 史荣昌, 魏丰 . ( 2010). 矩阵分析 (第3版). 北京: 北京理工大学出版社.
6 苏汝铿 . ( 2002). 量子力学 (第2版). 北京: 高等教育出版社.
7 孙炯, 王万义, 赫建文 . ( 2010). 泛函分析. 北京: 高等教育出版社.
8 汪祚军, 李纾 . ( 2008). 行为决策中出现的分离效应. 心理科学进展, 16( 4), 513-517.
9 曾谨言 . ( 2014). 量子力学教程 (第3版). 北京: 科学出版社.
10 Aerts, D . ( 2009). Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53( 5), 314-348.
11 Aerts, D., & Gabora, L . ( 2005). A theory of concepts and their combinations II: A Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes, 34( 1-2), 192-221.
12 Aerts D., Gabora L., & Sozzo S . ( 2013). Concepts and their dynamics: A quantum-theoretic modeling of human thought. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5( 4), 737-772.
13 Aerts D., Sozzo S., & Veloz T . ( 2016). New fundamental evidence of non-classical structure in the combination of natural concepts. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 374(2058), 20150095.
14 Artemenkov, S. L . ( 2006). Kansei versus extensional reasoning: The scientific illusion of the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Kansei ( pp. 8-11). Fukuoka, Japan.
15 Asano M., Basieva I., Khrennikov A., Ohya M., & Tanaka Y . ( 2012). Quantum-like generalization of the Bayesian updating scheme for objective and subjective mental uncertainties. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56( 3), 166-175.
16 Atmanspacher, H., & Filk, T. . ( 2010). A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54( 3), 314-321.
17 Bagassi, M., & Macchi, L . ( 2006). Pragmatic approach to decision making under uncertainty: The case of the disjunction effect. Thinking & Reasoning, 12( 3), 329-350.
18 Baron, J . ( 1988). Thinking and deciding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19 Blutner R., Pothos E. M., & Bruza P . ( 2013). A quantum probability perspective on borderline vagueness. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5( 4), 711-736.
20 Brainerd C. J., Wang Z., & Reyna V. F . ( 2013). Superposition of episodic memories: Overdistribution and quantum models. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5( 4), 773-799.
21 Bruza P., Kitto K., Nelson D., & McEvoy C . ( 2009). Is there something quantum-like about the human mental lexicon? Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53( 5), 363-377.
22 Bruza P. D., Wang Z., & Busemeyer J. R . ( 2015). Quantum cognition: A new theoretical approach to psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19( 7), 383-393.
23 Busemeyer J. R., & Bruza, P. D. .( 2012) . Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24 Busemeyer, J. R., & Wang, Z. . ( 2015). What is quantum cognition, and how is it applied to psychology? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24( 3), 163-169.
25 Busemeyer J. R., Wang Z., Khrennikov A., & Basieva I . ( 2014). Applying quantum principles to psychology. Physica Scripta, 2014, 014007.
26 Busemeyer J. R., Wang Z., & Lambert-Mogiliansky A . ( 2009). Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53( 5), 423-433.
27 Busemeyer J. R., Wang Z., & Townsend J. T . ( 2006). Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50( 3), 220-241.
28 Chater N., Tenenbaum J. B., & Yuille A . ( 2006). Probabilistic models of cognition: Conceptual foundations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10( 7), 287-291.
29 De Barros, J. A., & Suppes, P . ( 2009). Quantum mechanics, interference, and the brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53( 5), 306-313.
30 Gilboa, I . ( 2009). Theory of decision under uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31 Lewinski, P . ( 2015). Commentary: Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1832.
32 Li S., Jiang C. M., Dunn J. C., & Wang Z. J . ( 2012). A test of “reason-based” and “reluctance-to-think” accounts of the disjunction effect. Information Sciences, 184( 1), 166-175
33 Li, S., & Taplin, J . ( 2002). Examining whether there is a disjunction effect in prisoner's dilemma games. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 44( 1), 25-46.
34 Moore, D. W . ( 2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects: Additive and subtractive. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66( 1), 80-91.
35 Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R . ( 2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of 'rational' decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276( 1665), 2171-2178.
36 Pothos E. M., Busemeyer J. R., & Trueblood J. S . ( 2013). A quantum geometric model of similarity. Psychological Review, 120( 3), 679-696.
37 Savage L J . ( 1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.
38 Sun Y., Li S., & Li Y. M . ( 2008). Reexamining the role of the description of problem texts in the disjunction effect. The Journal of Psychology, 142( 3), 261-265.
39 Tenenbaum J. B., Griffiths T. L., & Kemp C . ( 2006). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10( 7), 309-318.
40 Townsend J. T., Smith J. S., Wenger M. J., & Silva K. M . ( 2000). Exploring the relations between categorization and decision making with regard to realistic face stimuli. Pragmatics & Cognition, 8( 1), 83-106.
41 Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R . ( 2012). A quantum probability model of causal reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 138.
42 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D . ( 1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185( 4157), 1124-1131.
43 Tversky, A., & Shafir, E . ( 1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3( 5), 305-309.
44 Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R . ( 2013). A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an A priori and precise prediction. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 689-710.
45 Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R . ( 2016). Interference effects of categorization on decision making. Cognition, 150, 133-149.
46 Wang Z. J., Li S., & Jiang C. M . ( 2012). Emotional response in a disjunction condition. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33( 1), 71-78.
47 Yearsley, J. M., & Busemeyer, J. R . ( 2016). Quantum cognition and decision theories: A tutorial. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74, 99-116.
[1] 雷铭, 李朋波. 不同注意形式调节听感觉门控的神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(8): 1232-1245.
[2] 褚昕宇, 王泽军, 肖焕禹. 身体活动的双系统理论:一种强化学习的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(8): 1337-1350.
[3] 刘毅, 王君起, 邬辛佳. 双系统模型视角下的罪犯自我控制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(8): 1379-1391.
[4] 张银花,李红,吴寅. 计算模型在道德认知研究中的应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1042-1055.
[5] 温芳芳,佐斌,马书瀚,谢志杰. 面孔识别的自我群体偏向[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1164-1171.
[6] 王志成,赵曙明,杨杰. 多层次知识隐藏行为的形成与后果:基于地位竞争的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(6): 893-903.
[7] 徐富明,黄龙,张慧,相鹏,刘腾飞,李亚红. 行为贫困陷阱的心理机制与管理对策:基于认知与动机双视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(5): 681-691.
[8] 李庆功,王震炎,孙捷元,师妍. 网约车场景中声誉和面孔可信度对女性信任判断的影响以及直觉性思维的调节作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(5): 746-751.
[9] 刘昕鹤,王宁,王锦琰,罗非. 疼痛背景下时距知觉的变化[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(5): 766-777.
[10] 严瑜,赵颖. 辱虐管理的应对:基于人际拒绝的多动力模型分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(5): 844-854.
[11] 杨洁,张露,黄勇. 互联网企业玩兴氛围对创新行为的跨层次作用机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(4): 523-534.
[12] 张紫琦,贺则宇,罗文波,伍海燕. 元认知中自信心对联合决策的预测作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(4): 604-611.
[13] 何清华,李丹丹. 中国儿童青少年跨期决策的发展与脑发育机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(3): 381-389.
[14] 董健宇,韦文棋,吴珂,妮娜,王粲霏,付莹,彭歆. 机器学习在抑郁症领域的应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(2): 266-274.
[15] 张晶,李伟贺,史燕伟,张南,马红宇. 工作反刍及其“双刃剑”效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(2): 358-367.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn