DOI: 10.14704/nq.2015.13.3.857

Quantum Decision-making in Newcomb’s Problem: Effect of Reward Size

Nobuye Ishibashi-Ohmura, Taiki Takahashi

Abstract


This study experimentally examined people’s decision making in the Newcomb’s problem. We observed that Savage’s sure-thing principle and Kolmogorovian law of probability was violated. Also, the degree of the violation increased as the reward size increased. By adopting quantum decision theory, we further quantified interference effect as a quantum phase factor. The quantum phase also depended on the reward size; i.e., it increased as the reward size in the unknown box in the Newcomb’s problem increased. Future directions in the application of the present theory to studies in quantum decision theory and neuroeconomics are discussed.

Keywords


Uncertainty; Newcomb’s paradox; Quantum decision theory: Risk

Full Text:

Full Text PDF

References


Aerts D, D’Hooghe B, Sozzo S. A quantum cognition analysis of the Ellsberg paradox. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 7052 LNCS, pp. 95–104). 2011.

Asano M, Basieva I, Khrennikov A, Ohya M, Tanaka Y, Yamato I. Quantum-like model for the adaptive dynamics of the genetic regulation of E. coli’s metabolism of glucose/lactose. Systems and Synthetic Biology 2012; 6(1-2): 1–7.

Bar-Hillel M, Margalit A. Newcomb’s paradox revisited. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1972; 23(4): 295–304.

Bar-Hillel M, Neter E. How alike is it versus how likely is it: A disjunction fallacy in probability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993.

Busemeyer JR, Bruza PD. Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Busemeyer JR, Pothos EM, Franco R, Trueblood JS. A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review 2011; 118(2): 193–218.

Campbell R, Sowden L. (Eds.). Paradoxes of rationality and cooperation: prisoner’s dilemma and Newcomb's problem. University of British Columbia Press, 1985.

Cavalcanti EG. Causation, Decision Theory, and Bell’s Theorem: A Quantum Analogue of the Newcomb Problem. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2010; 61(3): 569–597.

Cheon T, Takahashi T. Interference and inequality in quantum decision theory. Physics Letters, Section A: General, Atomic and Solid State Physics 2010; 375(2): 100–104.

Cheon T, Takahashi T. Quantum phenomenology of conjunction fallacy. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 2012; 81(10): 1–5.

Croson R. The Disjunction Effect and Reason-Based Choice in Games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1999; 80(2): 118–133.

Ellsberg D. Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1961; 75: 643–669.

Gibbard A, Harper WL. Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility. In Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory (I): Theoretical Foundations (Vol. 1, pp. 125–162). 1978.

Goldberg J. Symmetry and the Illusion of Control as Bases for Cooperative Behavior. Rationality and Society. 2005.

Hurley SL. Newcomb’s Problem, Prisoners' Dilemma, and collective action. Synthese 1991; 86(2): 173–196.

Ken Binmore. Rational Decisions. Princeton University Press, 2008.

Khrennikov A. Ubiquitous quantum structure: From psychology to finance. Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.

Lewis D. Prisoner’s Dilemma is a Newcomb Problem. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1979; 8(3): 235–240.

Lewis D. Causal decision theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 1981; 59(1): 5–30.

Li S, Wang Z-J, Rao L-L, Li Y-M. Is There a Violation of Savage’s Sure-Thing Principle in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game? Adaptive Behavior 2010; 18(3-4): 377–385.

Mihara T. A Study of Quantum Strategies for Newcomb’s Paradox. iBusiness 2010; 02(01): 42–50.

Montague PR. The Scylla and charybdis of neuroeconomic approaches to psychopathology. Biological Psychiatry 2012; 72(2): 80–81.

Nozick R. Newcomb’s Problem and Two Principles of Choice. In Essays in Honor of Carl G Hempel (pp. 114–146). Reidel, 1969.

Piotrowski EW, Sładkowski J. Solution to the Newcomb’s Paradox. International Journal of Quantum Information 2003; 1(3): 395–402.

Pothos EM, Busemeyer JR. A quantum probability explanation for violations of “rational” decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2009; 276(1665): 2171–2178.

Rapoport A, Chammah AM. Prisoner’s dilemma: a study in conflict and cooperation. 1965.

Savage LJ. The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley and Sons, 1954.

Shafir E, Tversky A. Thinking through uncertainty: nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology 1992; 24(4): 449–474.

Stanovich KE, West RF. Discrepancies between normative and descriptive models of decision making and the understanding/acceptance principle. Cognitive Psychology 1999; 38(3): 349–385.

Takahashi T. Theoretical frameworks for neuroeconomics of intertemporal choice. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 2009; 2(2): 75–90.

Takahashi T. Quantum Decision Theory for Computational Psychiatry. NeuroQuantology 2012; 10(4): 688–691.

Tversky A, Shafir E. The Disjunction Effect in Choice Under Uncertainty. Psychological Science. 1992.


Supporting Agencies

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (23118001 & 23118002 Adolescent Mind & Self-Regulation; 15K13387, Decision making by single photons; Challenging Exploratory Research 25610109)



| NeuroScience + QuantumPhysics> NeuroQuantology :: Copyright 2001-2018