Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transparency in Public Life: A Quantum Cognition Perspective

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Quantum Interaction (QI 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 8951))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the implications of assuming that citizens are cognitively constrained for transparency in public life. We model cognitive limitations as reflecting a quantum property of people’s mental representations of the world. There exists a multiplicity of incompatible (Bohr) complementary mental representations of a situation. As a consequence the framing of information plays a crucial role. We show that additional information can be detrimental to a quantum cognitively constrained agent: he may become more confused. We suggest some implications for the design of a public agency’s website.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    If a state is dispersion-free, i.e., the outcome of every possible measurement is uniquely determined, there is no reason for the state to change. If all pure states are dispersion-free then measurements do not impact on pure states and therefore all measurements are compatible. On the contrary, if a state is dispersed then by necessity it will be modified by an appropriate measurement. On the other hand, the change in a pure state is the reason for incompatibility of measurements. The initial outcome of a first measurement is not repeated because the system has been modified by a second measurement (see Danilov and Lambert-Mogiliansky [4, 5]).

  2. 2.

    All the representations \(R\), \(R^{*}\), etc. that we consider in this contribution have eigenspaces of dimension exactly equal to one. All these eigenstates are maximal information states for the individual.

  3. 3.

    A measurement \(M^{\prime }\) is coarser than \(M\ \)if every eigenset of \(M\) is contained in some eigenset of \(M^{\prime }\), see Danilov and Lambert-Mogiliansky [4, 5] p. 334.

  4. 4.

    In the process of preparation a system is put into a specific state.

  5. 5.

    We talk about the entropy of dispersion rather than of probability distribution, because we are dealing with a pure state. See discussion above.

  6. 6.

    In the example “learning that the administration lacks standard of ethics” is equivalent to learning “it is worthwhile to complaint”. The point is before the agent processed the information in his own frame (step 2), he is not aware of this.

  7. 7.

    After the introspective process, he will end up believing \(r_{2}^{*}\) with some probability less than 1.

  8. 8.

    Some consider also Bayesain updating with multiple priors (see e.g., Hanany and Klibanov [12]). But there is no consensus as to how to proceed - in sharp contrast with Bayesian updating of single priors.

  9. 9.

    The general result is a transposition into cognition of the basic feature of quantum mechanics namely that it is not possible for complementary properties to have a determinate value simultaneously.

  10. 10.

    If the citizen pictures the administration as lacking ethical standard, that comforts his suspicion and he will definitely file a complaint. Conversely, if he is convinced the administration has high ethical standards, he will not file.

References

  1. Busemeyer, J.R., Bruza, P.: Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Busemeyer, J.R., Wang, Z., Townsend, J.T.: Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. J. Math. Psychol. 50, 220–241 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Busemeyer, J.R., Weg, E., Barkan, R., Li, X., Ma, Z.: Dynamic and consequential consistency of choices between paths of decision trees. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 129, 530–545 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Danilov, V.I., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A.: Measurable systems and behavioral sciences. Math. Soc. Sci. 55, 315–340 (2008)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Danilov V.I., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A.: Decision-making under non-classical uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the second interaction symposium (QI 2008), pp. 83–87 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Danilov, V.I., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A.: Expected utility under non-classical uncertainty. Theory Decis. 2010(68), 25–47 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawes, S.: Stewardship and usefulness: policy principles for information-based transparency. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(4), 377–383 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein, L., Noor, J., Sandroni, A.: Non-Bayesian updating: a theoretical framework. Theor. Econ. 3, 193–229 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gioia, D.: Symbols, script and sense-making: creating meaning in the organizational experience. In: Sims, H., Gioia, D. Jr., Associates (eds.) Thinking Organization. Jossey Bass San-Fransisco, pp. 49–74 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gilboa, I., Schmeidler, D.: Maxmin utility with non-unique priors. J. Math. Econ. 18, 141–153 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Gilboa, I., Postlewaite, A., Schmeidler, D.: Rationality of beliefs or: why Savage’s axioms are neither necessary nore sufficient for rationality. Synthese 187, 11–31 (2012)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Hanany, E., Klibanov, P.: Updating preferences with multiple priors. Theor. Econ. 2, 261–298 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (eds.): Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Busemeyer, J.R.: Quantum indeterminacy in dynamic decision-making: self-control through identity management. Games 3(2), 97–118 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Khrennikov, A.: Ubiquitous Quantum Structure - from Psychology to Finance. Springer, Berlin (2010)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Zamir, S., Zwirn, H.: Type indeterminacy - a model of the KT(Khaneman Tversky)- man. J. Math. Psychol. 53(5), 349–361 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. La Mura, P.: Projective expected utility. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 408–414 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Noveck, B.: Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Orlikowsky, W.J., Gash, D.C.: Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (TOIS) 12(2), 174–207 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Savage, L.: The Foundation of Statistics. Dover publication inc, New York (1954)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Paris School of Economics, 48 Bd Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France

    Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky

  2. Department of Mathematics, University Paris Sud, Orsay, France

    François Dubois

  3. Structural Mechanics and Coupled Systems Laboratory, CNAM Paris, Paris, France

    François Dubois

Authors
  1. Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. François Dubois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to François Dubois .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Harald Atmanspacher

  2. Universitätsspital Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Claudia Bergomi

  3. University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Thomas Filk

  4. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Kirsty Kitto

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Dubois, F. (2015). Transparency in Public Life: A Quantum Cognition Perspective. In: Atmanspacher, H., Bergomi, C., Filk, T., Kitto, K. (eds) Quantum Interaction. QI 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8951. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15931-7_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15931-7_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15930-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15931-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation