Is there a problem with quantum models of psychological measurements?

Jerome Busemeyer; Zheng Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187733

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Is there a problem with quantum models of psychological measurements?

Jerome Busemeyer ,

Contributed equally to this work with: Jerome Busemeyer, Zheng Wang

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: jbusemey@indiana.edu

Affiliation Psychological and Brain Sciences/Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7594-1871

⨯
Zheng Wang

Contributed equally to this work with: Jerome Busemeyer, Zheng Wang

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Communication, Transitional Data Analytics Institute /The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America
⨯

Is there a problem with quantum models of psychological measurements?

Jerome Busemeyer,
Zheng Wang

Published: November 8, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187733

Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Continuous spectrum/ INFINITE DIMENSIONAL MENTAL SPACE

Posted by akhrennikov on 02 Dec 2017 at 20:10 GMT

I his reply to my previous comment prof. Busemeyer remarked:
"Beginning with Thurstone 1927, and later signal detection theory 1954, and random utility models (McFadden 1970’s), most psychologists and economists think that evidence or preference is approximately continuously distributed, and a binary choice is a partition on this continuum (e.g., probability of choosing A over B is the probability that a continuously distributed random utility A exceeds B). In fact, a long history of experimental evidence supports the continuous (or approximately continuous) rather than discrete (small number) state models for binary choices (like signal detection – choose signal vs. noise)."

This is very important remark and it seems that in fact the real mental state space is INFINITE DIMENSIONAL! Would you agree?

No competing interests declared.

Subject Areas
?

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.
We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

Probability theory
Is the Subject Area "Probability theory" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Measurement
Is the Subject Area "Measurement" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Time measurement
Is the Subject Area "Time measurement" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Experimental psychology
Is the Subject Area "Experimental psychology" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Quantum state
Is the Subject Area "Quantum state" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Social psychology
Is the Subject Area "Social psychology" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
Social theory
Is the Subject Area "Social theory" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.
United States
Is the Subject Area "United States" applicable to this article?

Thanks for your feedback.

Is there a problem with quantum models of psychological measurements?

Is there a problem with quantum models of psychological measurements?

Reader Comments

Post Your Discussion Comment

Why should this posting be reviewed?

Thank You!

Continuous spectrum/ INFINITE DIMENSIONAL MENTAL SPACE

Posted by akhrennikov on 02 Dec 2017 at 20:10 GMT