Ralf F.A. Cox1, Fred Hasselman1, Michael P. Seevinck2,3 ... underlying quantum mechanics (e.g. Holevo, 1982; Busch, Lahti & Mittelstaedt, 1996), in particular.
A Process Approach to Psychological Measurement: Lessons from Quantum Mechanics Ralf F.A. Cox1, Fred Hasselman1, Michael P. Seevinck2,3 1
Behavioural Science Institute Quantum Probability Research Group 3 Center for the History of Philosophy and Science Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands 2
Recently, the role of measurement has become a renewed topic of debate in psychology (e.g. Van Orden, Kello & Holden, 2010; see also Bruza, Busemeyer & Gabora, 2009). It has been shown, for instance, that psychological variables often do not have a characteristic measurement scale; they are more likely to be fractal in nature. Additionally, contrary to what is commonly assumed, two temporallyseparated measurements of a psychological variable within one person are generally not independent. These notions address the very nature of the kind of systems under study in psychology, viz complex, dynamic and non-ergodic systems. This realization calls for a different attitude towards measurement and the interpretation of measurement outcomes. Here we will introduce a different and novel perspective to this discussion, focussing more directly on the process of measurement itself. Whereas psychological theories generally lack a clear notion of how to incorporate the measurement context and the act of measurement into the description of a phenomenon (Van Orden et al., 2010; see also Hasselman, Seevinck & Cox, 2011), quantum mechanics has more than a century of experience with this issue (see e.g. De Muynck, 2002). By adopting the generalized formalism underlying quantum mechanics (e.g. Holevo, 1982; Busch, Lahti & Mittelstaedt, 1996), in particular POVMs, the distinction between preparation and measurement, and the concept of entanglement, we will outline a conceptual framework for describing the process of psychological measurements more comprehensively. The measurement-process framework will be introduced by applying it to several well-known experimental paradigms in psychology, such as, for instance, Fitts’ tasks, implicit-association tasks, and reaction-time tasks. We will present how the experiments can be described within this framework and analyze the conclusions that can be drawn from this. Finally, we will discuss the larger consequences for the interpretation and attribution of measurement outcomes (i.e. realism) in psychology. References
Bruza, P., Busemeyer, J.R., & Gabora, L. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on quantum cognition, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 303-305. Busch, P., Lahti, P.J., & Mittelstaedt, P. (1996). The quantum theory of measurement. (Lecture notes in physics, Vol. m2). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. De Muynck, W.M. (2002). Foundations of quantum mechanics, an empiricist approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hasselman, F., Seevinck, M.P., & Cox, R.F.A. (2011). Caught in the undertow: The structure beneath the ontic stream. Manuscript submitted to Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence. Holevo, A.S. (1982). Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory. Amsterdam: NorthHolland Publishing Company. Van Orden, G.C., Kello, C.T., & Holden, J.G. (2010). Situated behavior and the place of measurement in psychological theory. Ecological Psychology, 22(1), 24-43.
