Abstract
Politics is regarded as a vital area of social science and strongly relies on the assumptions of voters’ rationality and as such the stability of preferences (at least in decisions that are made simultaneously). The phenomenon of divided government that has dominated the US political arena for many election periods over the last 40 years is not consistent with the notion of stable preferences of voters. The authors claim that there is no well defined ranking of their preferences on their utility function of “political preferences.” Recently, this problem has been handled by using the novel approach based on the formalism of quantum mechanics. The theory of quantum decision-making is applicable to the modeling of irrational and biased behavior of voters as well as to the nonseparability of their preferences. Irrationality, biases, and nonseparability lead to a deeper uncertainty than classical probabilistic uncertainty. In particular, quantum probability describes well the violation of Bayesian rationality. The authors model this nonclassical uncertainty in voters’ preferences by using elements of the fundamental quantum information structures such as superposition and entanglement. The chapter is an introduction to the quantum modeling of the behavior of an electorate with unstable preferences (contextual preferences) and the authors use one of the most potent theories of adaptive dynamics, namely, the theory of open quantum systems. In this model a voter’s decision is created in the process of interaction with an information bath in which the mass media play the key role.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aerts, D., d’Hooghe, B., & Haven, E. (2010). Quantum experimental data in psychology and economics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49(12), 2971–2990.
Aerts, D., Sozzo, S., & Tapia, J. (2014). Identifying quantum structures in the Ellsberg Paradox. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 53, 3666–3682.
Alvarez, R. M., & Schousen, M. (1993). Policy moderation or conflicting expectations? Testing the intentional model of split-ticket voting. American Politics Quarterly, 21, 410–438.
Arterton, F. (1984). Media politics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Asano, M., Ohya, M., Tanaka, Y., Basieva, I., & Khrennikov, A. (2011). Quantum-like model of brain’s functioning: Decision making from decoherence. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 281, 56–64.
Bagarello, F. (2015). An operator view on alliances in politics. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 75(2), 564–484.
Bagarello, F., & Haven, E. (2015). Towards a formalization of a two traders market with information exchange. Physica Scripta, 90 015203.
Brams, S. J., Kilgour, M., & Zwicker, W. S. (1997). The paradox of multiple elections. Social Choice and Welfare, 15, 211–236.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2011). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgement errors. Psychological Review, 118(2), 193–218.
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., Khrennikov, A., & Basieva, I. (2014). Applying quantum principles to psychology. Physica Scripta, 014007.
Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Townsend, T. J. (2006). Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 220–241.
Conte, E., Khrennikov, A. Y., Todarello, O., Federici, A., Mendolicchio, L., & Zbilut, J.P. (2009). Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. Open Systems and Information Dynamics, 16, 1–17.
Danilov, V. I., & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. (2010). Expected utility theory under non-classical uncertainty. Theory and Decision, 68, 25–47.
De Barros, J. A., & Suppes, P. (2009). Quantum mechanics, interference and the brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 306–313.
Dzhafarov, E. N., & Kujala, J. V. (2012). Quantum entanglement and the issue of selective influences in psychology. An overview. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7620, 184–195.
Enelow, J., & Melvin, J. H. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Finke, D., & Fleig, A. (2013). The Merits of adding complexity: non-separable preferences in spatial models of European Union politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 25(4), 546–575.
Fiorina, M. P. (1992). Divided government. New York: MacMillan.
Franco, R. (2009). The conjunction fallacy and interference effects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 415–422.
Graber, D. (1989). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2013). Quantum social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2016). A brief introduction to quantum formalism. In E. Haven & A. Khrennikov (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of quantum models in social science: Applications and grand challenges. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Ingarden, R.S., Kossakowski, A., & Ohya, M. (1997). Information dynamics and open systems: Classical and quantum approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Khrennikov, A. (2016). Why quantum? In E. Haven & A. Khrennikov (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of quantum models in social science: Applications and grand challenges. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Khrennikov, A., Basieva, I., Dzhafarov, E. N., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Quantum models for psychological measurements: An unsolved problem. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110909. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0110909.
Khrennikov, A., & 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, 378–388.
Khrennikova, P. (2014a). Order effect in a study on US voters’ preferences: Quantum framework representation of the observables. Physica Scripta, 014010.
Khrennikova, P. (2014b). A quantum framework for ‘Sour Grapes’ in cognitive dissonance. In H. Atmanspacher, E. Haven, et al. (Eds) (Vol. 8369, pp. 270–280). Lecture notes in computer science.
Khrennikova, P., & Haven, E. (2015). Instability of political preferences and the role of mass-media: A dynamical representation in quantum framework. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374(2058), 20150106.
Khrennikova, P., Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2014). An application of the theory of open quantum systems to model the dynamics of party governance in the US political system. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 53(4), 1346–1360.
Kolmogorov, A. (1950). Foundations of probability. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company (1993).
Lacy, D. (2001). A Theory of nonseparable preferences in survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 239–258.
Lacy, D., & Niou, E. (1998). Elections in Double-Member districts with nonseparable voter preferences. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10, 89–110.
Lacy, D., & Niou, E. (2000). A problem with referendums. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12(1), 5–31.
Ohya, M., & Tanaka, Y. (2016). Adaptive dynamics and an optical illusion. In E. Haven & A. Khrennikov (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of quantum models in social science: Applications and grand challenges. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Ohya, M., & Volovich, I. (2011). Mathematical foundations of quantum information and computation and its applications to nano-and bio-systems. Heidelberg, Berlin, New York: Springer.
Plotnitsky, A. (2009). Epistemology and probability: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger and the nature of quantum-theoretical thinking. Heidelberg, Berlin, New York: Springer.
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of “rational” decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal society B, 276(1165), 2171–2178.
Smith, C. E., Brown, R. D., Bruce, J. M., & Overby, M. (1999). Party balancing and voting for Congress in the 1996 National Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 737–764.
Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability model for order effects on inference. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1518:1552.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunctive fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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 Sciences, 5, 689–710.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zorn C., & Smith, C. (2011). Pseudo-classical nonseparability and mass politics in Two-Party systems. In D. Song, et al. (eds.) (Vol. 7052, pp. 83–94). Lecture notes in computer science.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Khrennikova, P., Haven, E. (2017). Voters’ Preferences in a Quantum Framework. 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_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49276-0_8
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)