Yes, Prime Minister, question order does matter -- and it's certainly not classical! But is it quantum?

Dorje C. Brody
2024-09-13
Abstract:Response to a poll can be manipulated by means of a series of leading questions. We show that such phenomena cannot be explained by use of classical probability theory, whereas quantum probability theory admits a possibility of offering an explanation. Admissible transformation rules in quantum probability, however, do impose some constraints on the modelling of cognitive behaviour, which are highlighted here. Focusing on a recent poll conducted by Ipsos on a set of questions posed by Sir Humphrey Appleby in an episode of the British political satire \textit{Yes, Prime Minister}, we show that the resulting data cannot be explained quite so simply using quantum rules, although it seems not impossible.
Artificial Intelligence,Neurons and Cognition,Quantum Physics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: **How to explain the changes in public opinion poll results caused by a series of leading questions, which cannot be explained by classical probability theory but may be explained by quantum probability theory.** Specifically, the author explores the following issues: 1. **Limitations of classical probability theory**: - Classical probability theory cannot explain the changes in public opinion poll results due to leading questions. For example, in Ipsos public opinion polls, different sequences of leading questions can lead to significantly different support rates for the re - introduction of national service. - According to classical probability theory, conditional probabilities should be consistent, but in actual data, these conditional probabilities are violated. 2. **Possibility of applying quantum probability theory**: - Quantum probability theory allows the influence of leading questions to be explained through incompatible observables. This theory can better handle context - dependent probabilistic outcomes, which classical probability theory cannot do. - However, the author points out that although quantum probability theory provides a possible explanatory framework, the standard quantum cognitive model cannot fully explain Ipsos data. 3. **Analysis of specific experimental data**: - The author analyzes Ipsos experimental data in detail and shows that in some cases these data do not conform to the standard formulation of quantum probability. For example, using entangled states and local observables also cannot explain the effect of leading questions. - The author proposes an alternative, that is, to consider the first question as independent and model the remaining four questions as a set of incompatible observables. This can explain the data changes to a certain extent. ### Formula summary - **Conditional probability formula in classical probability theory**: \[ P(X = \text{Yes})=\sum_{i = 1}^{12}P(X = \text{Yes}|A = A_i)P(A = A_i)=\sum_{i = 1}^{12}P(X = \text{Yes}|B = B_i)P(B = B_i) \] - **Density matrix transformation in quantum probability**: \[ \hat{\rho}_F = p|F\rangle\langle F|+(1 - p)|\bar{F}\rangle\langle \bar{F}| \] \[ P_F(B)=\langle B|\hat{\rho}_F|B\rangle \] - **Probability calculation for binary questions**: \[ \text{tr}(\hat{\rho}_F|B\rangle\langle B|)=p|\langle B|F\rangle|^2+(1 - p)|\langle B|\bar{F}\rangle|^2 \] ### Conclusion The main purpose of the paper is to show that although Ipsos experimental data do not conform to classical probability theory, the existing quantum cognitive models also have limitations and cannot fully explain these data. The author proposes some improved methods and points out the direction for future research.