Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Quantum Probability Model for the Constructive Influence of Affective Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Quantum Models in Social Science

Abstract

People experience simple affective evaluations every day. Commonplace events, such as listening to breakfast radio, deliberating over what to have for lunch, or unwinding in front of the television in the evening, all have the potential to generate a positive or negative affective impression, depending on how we feel about the music on the radio, the menu choices, or the television program we are watching. Affective evaluation is a fundamental and basic activity of the human cognitive system and is central to most theories of cognition and emotion (Musch and Klauer 2003). Research on affective priming suggests that affective evaluations can be formed automatically, independently of other cognitive processes, without fully processing the features of the stimulus and can be generated in response to novel stimuli (e.g., Bargh et al. 1992; Damasio 1994; Duckworth et al. 2002; Fazio et al. 1986; Greenwald et al. 1989; LeDoux 1996; Zajonc 1980). What is perhaps more surprising is that the process of articulating an affective evaluation might also be constructive. That is, the simple affective impression that we might form in response to music, food, or a television program, can alter relevant representations depending on whether or not we are required to state our affective impression. This was the main premise in recent research by White et al. (2013, 2014), which was inspired by cognitive applications of quantum probability (QP) theory.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aerts, D., & Aerts, S. (1995). Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Foundations of Science, 1, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., & Norton, M. I. (2008). How actions create – not just reveal – preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 13–16. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asano, M., Ohya, M., Tanaka, Y., Basieva, I., & Khrennikov, A. (2011a). Quantum-like model of brain’s functioning: decision making from decoherence. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 281, 56–64. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.04.022.

  • Asano, M., Ohya, M., Tanaka, Y., Khrennikov, A., & Basieva, I. (2011b). On application of Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan-Lindblad equation in cognitive psychology. Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 18, 55–69. doi:10.1142/S1230161211000042.

  • Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1992). The generality of the automatic evaluation activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893–912. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basieva, I., & Khrennikov, A. (2014). Complementarity of mental observables. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 74–78. doi:10.1111/tops.12061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200. doi:10.1037/h0024835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic physics and human knowledge. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordley, R. (1998). Quantum mechanical and human violations of compound probability principles: Toward a generalized Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Operations Research, 46(6), 923–926. doi:10.1287/opre.46.6.923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordley, R., & Kadane, J. B. (1999). Experiment-dependent priors in psychology and physics. Theory and Decision, 47(3), 213–227. doi:10.1023/A:1005107029264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J. W. (1956). Post-decision changes in the desirability of choice alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384–389. doi:10.1037/h0041006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J. W., & Miron, A. M. (2006). Can the simultaneous experience of opposing emotions really occur? Motivation and Emotion, 30(1), 13–30. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9007-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. (2011). Quantum models of cognition and decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2011). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment ‘errors’. Psychological Review, 118(2), 193–218. doi:10.1037/a0022542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223–242. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960070402.

  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 120–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. K. (2008). Rationalization and cognitive dissonance: Do choices affect or reflect preferences? (Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1669). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. K., & Risen, J. L. (2009). Is choice a reliable predictor of choice? A comment on Sagarin and Skowronski. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 427–429. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth, K. L., Bargh, J. A., Garcia, M., & Chaiken, S. (2002). The automatic evaluation of novel stimuli. Psychological Science, 13(6), 513–519. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 18(11), 978–983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, L. C., Bloom, P., & Santos, L. R. (2010). Choice-induced preferences in the absence of choice: Evidence from a blind two choice paradigm with young children and capuchin monkeys. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 204–207. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.014.

  • Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535–1551. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02687.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391–396. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229–238. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., Klinger, M. R., & Liu, T. J. (1989). Unconscious processing of dichoptically masked words. Memory & Cognition, 17, 35–47. doi:10.3758/BF03199555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. Y. (2013). Quantum social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-J.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. I. G. (1989). The structure and interpretation of quantum mechanics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isham, C. J. (1989). Lectures on quantum theory. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161–1167. doi:10.1177/01461672952111004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011). Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 169–231. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10003134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: Do people know what they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3), 187–200. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960050304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khrennikov, A. Y., & Haven, E. (2009). Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure-thing principle: The use of probability interference and other concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 378–388. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Zamir, S., & Zwirn, H. (2009). Type indeterminacy: A model of the KT (Kahneman-Tversky)-man. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 349–361. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laming, D. R. J. (1984). The relativity of “absolute” judgments. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 152–183. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1984.tb00798.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. D., Ochsner, K. N., Gilbert, D. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2001). Do amnesics exhibit cognitive dissonance reduction? The role of explicit memory and attention in attitude change. Psychological Science, 12(2), 135–140. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, C. A. (2001). Atom and archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932-1958. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N., & Campbell, D. T. (1959). Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. W. (2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(1), 80–91. doi:10.1086/338631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musch, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). The psychology of evaluation: An introduction, In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (Kindle ed., pp. 1–4). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136–164. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1038–1052. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 84–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2009). Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 69–120. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09000284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peres, A. (1998). Quantum theory: Concepts and methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 255–327. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, W. T., & Simonson, I. (1991). Evaluations of pairs of experiences: A preference for happy endings. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(4), 273–282. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960040405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., & Shoemaker, P. J. H. (1989). Decision traps. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D. A., & Johnson, E. J. (1989). Cognitive processes in preference reversals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 203–231. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90025-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharot, T., Velasquez, C. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2010). Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1231–1235. doi:10.1177/0956797610379235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, S. J. (1980). On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 211–221. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.2.211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50(5), 364–371. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.50.5.364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2005). Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychological Review, 112(4), 881–911. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Switzer, F., & Sniezek, J. A. (1991). Judgmental processes in motivation: Anchoring and adjustment effects on judgment and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 208–229. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90049-Y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331, 1279–1285. doi:10.1126/science.1192788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1518–1552. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01197.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Griffin, D. (1990). On the dynamics of hedonic experience: Endowment and contrast in judgements of well-being. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwartz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (Vol. 21). New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4). doi:10.1111/tops.12040.

  • Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1407756111.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. C., Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). A quantum probability perspective on the nature of psychological uncertainty. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1599–1604). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. C., Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Sometimes it does hurt to ask: The constructive role of articulating impressions. Cognition, 133(1), 48–64. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(4), 387–402. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2008). Quantum decision theory as quantum theory of measurement. Physics Letters A, 372(46), 6867–6871. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2008.09.053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2009). Processing information in quantum decision theory. Entropy, 11(4), 1073–1120. doi:10.3390/e11041073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.35.2.151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK

    Lee C. White

  2. Department of Psychology, City University London, London, EC1V 0HB, UK

    Emmanuel M. Pothos

  3. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Jerome R. Busemeyer

Authors
  1. Lee C. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuel M. Pothos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jerome R. Busemeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee C. White .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, University of Leicester School of Management, Leicester, United Kingdom

    Emmanuel Haven

  2. Vaexjoe-Kalmar, Sweden

    Andrei Khrennikov

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

White, L.C., Pothos, E.M., Busemeyer, J.R. (2017). A Quantum Probability Model for the Constructive Influence of Affective Evaluation. In: Haven, E., Khrennikov, A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Quantum Models in Social Science. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49276-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49276-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-49275-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-49276-0

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation