Advertisement

Unifying Decision-Making: A Review on Evolutionary Theories on Rationality and Cognitive Biases

  • Catarina MoreiraEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 414)

Abstract

In this paper, we make a review on the concepts of rationality across several different fields, namely in economics, psychology and evolutionary biology and behavioural ecology. We review how processes like natural selection can help us understand the evolution of cognition and how cognitive biases might be a consequence of this natural selection. In the end we argue that humans are not irrational, but rather rationally bounded and we complement the discussion on how quantum cognitive models can contribute for the modelling and prediction of human paradoxical decisions.

Keywords

Rationality Cognitive bias Evolutionary biology Behavioural ecology Quantum cognition Decision-making 

References

  1. Aerts, D. (1995). Quantum structures: An attempt to explain the origin of their appearance in nature. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 34, 1–22.Google Scholar
  2. Aerts, S. (1996). Conditional probabilities with a quantal and kolmogorovian limit. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 2245.Google Scholar
  3. Aerts, S. (1998). Interactive probability models: Inverse problems on the sphere. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 37, 305–309.Google Scholar
  4. Aerts, D. (2014). Quantum theory and human perception of the macro-world. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–19.Google Scholar
  5. Aerts, D., & Aerts, S. (1994). Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Journal of Foundations of Science, 1, 85–97.Google Scholar
  6. Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., & Gabora, L. (2011). A case for applying an abstracted quantum formalism to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 136–146.Google Scholar
  7. Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., Gabora, L., & Sozzo, S. (2013a). Quantum structure and human thought. Journal of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 274–276.Google Scholar
  8. Aerts, D., Gabora, L., & Sozzo, S. (2013b). Concepts and their dynamics: A quantum-theoretic modelling of human thought. Topics in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 737–772.Google Scholar
  9. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’École americaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.Google Scholar
  10. Busemeyer, J. (2015). Cognitive science contributions to decision science. Cognition, 135, 43–46.Google Scholar
  11. Busemeyer, J., & Bruza, P. (2012). Quantum model of cognition and decision (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  12. Busemeyer, J., & Wang, Z. (2014). Quantum cognition: Key issues and discussion. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 43–46.Google Scholar
  13. Busemeyer, J., Matthew, M., & Wang, Z. (2006a). A quantum information processing explanation of disjunction effects. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual COnference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  14. Busemeyer, J., Wang, Z., & Townsend, J. (2006b). Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 220–241.Google Scholar
  15. Carlson, B., & Yates, J. (1989). Disjunction errors in qualitative likelihood judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 368–379.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, M. K., Lakshminarayanan, V. R., & Santos, L. (2006). How basic are behavioural biases? evidence from capuchin monkey trading behaviour. Journal of Political Economy, 114, 517–532.Google Scholar
  17. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms. Quaterly Economics, 75, 643–669.Google Scholar
  18. Friedman, M., & Savage, L. (1952). The expected-utility hypothesis and the measurability of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 50, 463–474.Google Scholar
  19. Gabora, L., & Aerts, D. (2002). Contextualising concepts using a mathematical generalisation of the quantum formalism. Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14, 327–358.Google Scholar
  20. Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Dahlem workshop reports.Google Scholar
  21. Glimcher, P., & Fehr, E. (Eds.). (2014). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. Amsterdam: Academic/Elsvier.Google Scholar
  22. Griffiths, T., Kemp, C., & Tenenbaum, J. (2008). Bayesian models of inductive learning. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  23. Houston, A., McNamara, J., & Steer, M. (2007). Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviour? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 1531–1543.Google Scholar
  24. Kacelnik, A. (2006). Meanings of rationality. In S. Hurley & M. Nudds (Eds.), Rational animals?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kacelnik, A., & Marsh, B. (2002). Cost can increase preference in starlings. Animal Behaviour, 63, 245–250.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability – a judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Khrennikov, A. (2010). Contextual approach to quantum formalism. Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Koller, D., & Friedman, N. (2009). Probabilistic graphical models: Principles and techniques. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lakshminarayanan, V. R., Chen, M. K., & Santos, L. (2011). The evolution of decision-making under risk: Framing effects in monkey risk preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 689–693.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, M. D., & Vanpaemel, W. (2013). Quantum models of cognition as orwellian newspeak. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 295–296.Google Scholar
  32. Li, S., & Taplin, J. (2002). Examining whether there is a disjunction effect in prisoner’s dilemma game. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 44, 25–46.Google Scholar
  33. Machina, M. (2009). Risk, ambiguity, and the rank-dependence axioms. Journal of Economic Review, 99, 385–392.Google Scholar
  34. Moreira, C., & Wichert, A. (2014). Interference effects in quantum belief networks. Applied Soft Computing, 25, 64–85.Google Scholar
  35. Moreira, C., & Wichert, A. (2016). Quantum-like bayesian networks for modelling decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 11.Google Scholar
  36. Murdoch, D. (1989). Niels Bohr’s philosophy of physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pothos, E., & Busemeyer, J. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of rational decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 2171–2178.Google Scholar
  38. Santos, L. R., & Rosati, A. G. (2015). The evolutionary roots of human decision-making. Annual Review in Psychology, 3, 321–347.Google Scholar
  39. Savage, L. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Shah, A., & Oppenheimer, D. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207–222.Google Scholar
  41. Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.Google Scholar
  42. Sloman, S. (2014). Comments on quantum probability theory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 47–52.Google Scholar
  43. Stevens, J. (2008). The evolutionary biology of decision-making. In C. Engel & W. Singer (Eds.), Better than conscious? Decision-making, the human mind and implications for institutions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.Google Scholar
  46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59, 251–278.Google Scholar
  47. Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3, 305–309.Google Scholar
  48. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Yukalov, V., & Sornette, D. (2011). Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision, 70, 283–328.Google Scholar
  50. Zadeh, L. (2006). Generalised theory of uncertainty (gtu) – principal concepts and ideas. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 51, 15–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Systems, Faculty of Science and TechnologyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations