赵传林,王钰涵,武海娟,孙阳琪,丁力

• 1:北京建筑大学
• 2:土木与交通工程学院

摘要(Abstract)：

量子决策模型是基于量子物理思想的一种新兴决策模型，近年来，在解释个体不确定状态下的决策行为方面展现出独特优势。本文基于量子决策模型研究交通出行决策行为，设计了体现干扰效应、框架效应及顺序效应的调查问卷。首先，将分类-干扰量子决策实验进行改进，在实验范式中引入了交通出行因素，得到了新的干扰系数。其次，借鉴经典的Linda问题研究思路设计了四个与交通出行有关的合取谬误问题，结合数据得出了新的干扰系数和量子几何投影图像，验证了干扰对决策行为的影响。然后，在生命安全、财产损失、时间成本三个维度和积极、消极两种描述方式上使用齐当别理论，解释了框架对决策行为的影响。最后，通过变换问题顺序构建量子问题等式，并使用顺序效应散点图验证了量子问题等式的预测准确性。结果表明：量子理论对决策者不确定状态下决策行为的描述具有理论优势，量子决策模型可以解释交通出行决策行为中的干扰效应、框架效应及顺序效应，拓展了量子思想理论在交通决策行为领域的应用。

关键词(KeyWords)： 城市交通;量子决策模型;实验调查;交通出行;干扰效应;框架效应;顺序效应

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 国家自然科学基金（71971014）;; 北京市教委科技计划项目（KM202010016007）;; 北京建筑大学金字塔人才培养工程项目（JDJQ20200301）;北京建筑大学研究生创新项目（PG2023052）

作者(Author): 赵传林,王钰涵,武海娟,孙阳琪,丁力

DOI: 10.19961/j.cnki.1672-4747.2023.01.001

参考文献(References)：

• [1]李纾.决策心理:齐当别之道[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社, 2016.LI Shu. An equate-to-difference way of decision-making[M]. Shanghai:East China Normal University Press,2016.
• [2]辛潇洋,徐晨虹,陈宏玉,等.一种新决策模型——量子决策模型[J].心理科学进展, 2018, 26(8):1365-1373.XIN Xiao-yang, XU Chen-hong, CHEN Hong-yu, et al.Quantum models for decision making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(8):1365-1373.
• [3] ASANO M, BASIEVA I, KHRENNIKOV A, et al. Quantum-like generalization of the Bayesian updating scheme for objective and subjective mental uncertainties[J].Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2012, 56(3):166-175.
• [4] BUSEMEYER J R, BRUZA P D. Quantum models of cognition and decision[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• [5]苏汝铿.量子力学[M].第2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
• [6] LI S. A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters[J]. Applied Intelligence, 2004, 20(2):147-163.
• [7] AERTS D, SOZZO S, VELOZ T. New fundamental evidence of non-classical structure in the combination of natural concepts[J]. Philosophical Transactions Series A:Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2016,374(2058):20150095.
• [8]孙炯,王万义,赫建文.泛函分析[M].北京:高等教育出版社, 2010.
• [9] POTHOS E M, BUSEMEYER J R. A quantum probability explanation for violations of‘rational’decision theory[J]. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences, 2009, 276(1665):2171-2178.
• [10] LIPOVETSKY S. Quantum paradigm of probability amplitude and complex utility in entangled discrete choice modeling[J]. Journal of Choice Modelling, 2018, 27:62-73.
• [11] BUSEMEYER J R, WANG Z. What is quantum cognition, and how is it applied to psychology?[J] Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2015, 24(3):163-169.
• [12]李晖,韩雪娜.基于量子干涉的比较情境下复合调味品感官评价[J].中国调味品, 2021, 46(8):119-121,126.LI Hui, HAN Xue-na. Sensory evaluation of compound seasonings in comparative context based on quantum interf-erence[J]. China Condiment, 2021, 46(8):119-121,126.
• [13] BUSEMEYER J R, WANG Z, TOWNSEND J T. Quantum dynamics of human decision-making[J]. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2006, 50(3):220-241.
• [14]辛潇洋,李瑛,毕研玲,等.一种齐当别思想下的量子决策模型：对囚徒困境中的分离效应的解释[J].心理学报, 2019, 51(6):724-733.XIN Xiao-yang, LI Ying, BI Yan-ling, et al. Quantum decision-making model based on equate-to-differentiate method:explanation for the disjunction effect in prisoner’s dilemma[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(6):724-733.
• [15]刘立秋,陆勇. Linda问题:“齐当别”抉择模型的解释[J].心理科学进展, 2007, 15(5):735-742.LIU Li-qiu, LU Yong. The linda problem:the equate-todifferentiate interpretation[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2007, 15(5):735-742.
• [16] VITETTA A. A quantum utility model for route choice in transport systems[J]. Travel Behaviour and Society,2016, 3:29-37.
• [17] YU J G, JAYAKRISHNAN R. A quantum cognition model for bridging stated and revealed preference[J].Transportation Research Part B:Methodological, 2018,118:263-280.
• [18] HANCOCK T O, BROEKAERT J, HESS S, et al. Quantum probability:a new method for modelling travel behaviour[J]. Transportation Research Part B:Methodological, 2020, 139:165-198.
• [19]程洋,何秀秀.基于齐当别理论的出行决策框架效应研究[J].综合运输, 2021, 43(11):88-92.CHENG Yang, HE Xiu-xiu. Framing effect of travel decision based on equate-to-differentiate theory[J]. China Transportation Review, 2021, 43(11):88-92.
• [20]齐航,于跃洋,王光超,等.策略性交通出行选择行为研究评述：实验经济学方法的应用[J].交通运输工程与信息学报, 2022, 20(3):141-153.QI Hang, YU Yue-yang, WANG Guang-chao, et al. A literature review of laboratory experimental studies on travel decisions under strategic uncertainty in directed transportation networks:the application of experimental economics methodology[J]. Journal of Transportation Engineering and Information, 2022, 20(3):141-153.
• [21] TOWNSEND J T, SILVA K M, SPENCER-SMITH J, et al. Exploring the relations between categorization and decision making with regard to realistic face stimuli[J].Pragmatics&Cognition, 2000, 8(1):83-105.
• [22] AERTS D, GABORA L. A theory of concepts and their combinations II:a Hilbert space representation[J]. Kybernetes, 2005, 34(1/2):192-221.
• [23]史荣昌,魏丰.矩阵分析[M].第3版.北京:北京理工大学出版社, 2010.
• [24] ACACIO DE BARROS J, SUPPES P. Quantum mechanics, interference, and the brain[J]. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2009, 53(5):306-313.
• [25] BUSEMEYER J R, WANG Z, LAMBERT-MOGILIANSKY A. Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making[J]. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2009, 53(5):423-433.
• [26] TVERSKY A, KAHNEMAN D. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning:the conjunctive fallacy in probability judgment[J]. Psychological Review, 1983, 90:293-315.
• [27]霍雨佳.概率判断中合取谬误的成因与消解[J].自然辩证法通讯, 2023, 45(3):38-45.HUO Yu-jia. The causes and solution of conjunction fallacy in probability judgment[J]. Journal of Dialectics of Nature, 2023, 45(3):38-45.
• [28] TVERSKY A, KAHNEMAN D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice[J]. Science, 1981,211(4481):453-458.
• [29] WANG Z, BUSEMEYER J R. A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction[J]. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2013,5(4):689-710.
• [30] YEARSLEY J M, BUSEMEYER J R. Quantum cognition and decision theories:a tutorial[J]. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2016, 74:99-116.
• [31]周文婧,宁宁,周一丹,等.突发事件情境下框架效应对哈尔滨市某高校医学生风险决策行为的影响[J].医学与社会, 2022, 35(4):23-26.ZHOU Wen-jing, NING Ning, ZHOU Yi-dan, et al. Influence of framing effect on medical students’risk decision-making behavior in a university in the context of emergencies[J]. Medicine and Society, 2022, 35(4):23-26.
• (1)亚洲疾病案例：某国面临一种罕见的疾病预计会使600人死亡，现在有两种方案：可以救200人和有三分之一的可能救600人，三分之二的可能一个也救不了，调查结果显示大多数人更愿意选择前者，因为救人是一种收益；将同样问题换成另一种描述：会使400人死亡和有三分之一的可能无人死亡，有三分之二的可能600人全部死亡，调查结果显示人们更倾向于后者，因为死亡是一种损失。而事实上，两种描述实质内容相同。