Quantum Probability vs. Classical Bayesian Models in Decision-Making: A Comparative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/nsj.3272Keywords:
Quantum Cognition, Bayesian Reasoning, Decision-Making, Qualitative Study, Probability ModelsAbstract
Purpose: Decision-making under uncertainty remains a foundational challenge in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. Classical Bayesian Probability Models (CBM) often fail to explain paradoxical cognitive behaviors such as order effects, ambiguity aversion, and context-dependent reasoning. This study seeks to compare Quantum Probability Theory (QPT) and Classical Bayesian Models in their ability to capture the dynamics of human decision-making. It aims to determine which framework more accurately reflects the cognitive mechanisms underlying reasoning under uncertainty.
Methodology: A qualitative, exploratory research design was adopted, involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 experts across psychology, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience. Participants were purposively selected for their theoretical and empirical expertise in probabilistic reasoning. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, guided by the Dual-Process Theory and Busemeyer’s Quantum Cognition framework. The analysis emphasized participants’ perspectives on theoretical assumptions, cognitive plausibility, and predictive utility between QPT and CBM paradigms.
Findings: Thematic findings reveal that Quantum Probability Theory offers superior explanatory power in contexts involving cognitive ambiguity, contextual dependence, and non-commutativity of mental operations. Participants consistently reported that QPT better models real-world reasoning tasks where classical logic collapses, capturing the fluid and context-sensitive nature of human judgment. Conversely, while CBM remains effective in structured, low-uncertainty scenarios, it fails to accommodate superposition and interference effects inherent in human cognition.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice, and Policy (Recommendations): The study contributes theoretically by demonstrating how quantum probabilistic models expand existing theories of bounded rationality and probabilistic reasoning in cognitive science. Practically, it encourages interdisciplinary collaboration between cognitive scientists, AI researchers, and philosophers to refine decision models that mirror human intuition more closely. Policy-wise, the findings support the integration of quantum-inspired approaches in the design of intelligent decision-support systems and cognitive architectures. The study recommends continued empirical validation of QPT within applied domains—such as behavioral economics, machine learning, and cognitive modeling—to strengthen its predictive and explanatory robustness.
Downloads
References
Aerts, D., & Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2022). The conceptuality interpretation of quantum physics and human cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 819010. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.819010
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
Asano, M., Ohya, M., Tanaka, Y., & Khrennikov, A. (2020). Quantum adaptivity in biology: From genetics to cognition. Springer.
Asano, M., Ohya, M., Tanaka, Y., Khrennikov, A., & Basieva, I. (2021). Quantum adaptivity in biology: From genetics to cognition. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70563-1
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2020). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139087737
Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2021). Quantum models of cognition and decision (2nd ed. or reprint). Cambridge University Press.
Busemeyer, J. R., & Wang, Z. (2023). Quantum cognition and decision-making: Expanding the boundaries of rationality. MIT Press.
Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2020). Quantum models of cognition and decision-making: Past, present, and future. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, Article e16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19002113
Conte, E., Khrennikov, A., & Zbilut, J. P. (2022). Quantum-like models in cognitive science: An overview. Foundations of Science, 27(3), 675–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-021-09800-2
Dzhafarov, E. N., & Kujala, J. V. (2016). Contextuality-by-Default 2.0: Systems with binary random variables. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 11890).
Griffiths, T. L., Lieder, F., & Goodman, N. D. (2020). Rational use of cognitive resources: Levels of analysis between the computational and the algorithmic. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(2), 322–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12462
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLOS ONE, 15(5), Article e0232076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076
Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge University Press.
Khrennikov, A. (2023). Quantum-like modeling of decision making: Foundations and applications. Entropy, 25(5), Article 739. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25050739
Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2022). The Bayesian brain: Predictive coding and probabilistic reasoning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00516-8
Kvam, P. D., Busemeyer, J. R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2021). Quantum models of cognition and decision-making: Empirical tests and theoretical insights. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(4), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211007156
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (2022). Naturalistic inquiry and trustworthiness revisited in digital contexts. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(4), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211028323
Maxwell, J. A. (2021). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (4th ed.). SAGE.
Moreira, C., & Wichert, A. (2022). Quantum cognition in affective decision-making. Entropy, 24(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/xxxxxxx
Morse, J. M. (2021). Ensuring the integrity of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 31(3), 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320974146
Nelson, T. O., & Martin, J. M. (2021). Normative and descriptive approaches to uncertainty in decision-making: A critical review. Cognition, 215, Article 104824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104824
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2021). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211005759
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2021a). Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(5), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211002470
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2021b). Quantum cognition: The puzzling legacy of human rationality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(4), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.12.005
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2021c). The case for quantum cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, e88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20001420
Pothos, E. M., Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2023). Hybrid quantum-Bayesian models for cognition. Cognitive Science, 47(2), Article e13182. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13182
Trueblood, J. S., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2020). A quantum model of decision-making under conflict and ambiguity. Psychological Review, 127(3), 349–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000179
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2020). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 10(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v10n5p1
Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2020). Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(22), 12393–12400. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002711117
Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. PNAS, 111(26), 9431–9436. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407756111
Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2022). Quantum probabilities as behavioral probabilities. Entropy, 24(6), Article 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24060849
Zhang, H., & Maloney, L. T. (2021). Bayesian decision theory and its applications in vision. Annual Review of Vision Science, 7, 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-091718-015117
Zhang, H., Lin, W., & Zhou, Q. (2023). Quantum-inspired neural networks: Bridging classical and quantum cognition. Neural Computation, 35(5), 887–905. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco_a_01571
Zylberberg, A., & Shadlen, M. N. (2020). Understanding decision-making with probabilistic models: Lessons from neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 21(11), 660–673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0338-7
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Chrispine Mulenga Mwambazi, Natalia Zulu, Kasonde Mundende
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
