Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Quantification of emotions in decision making

  • Soft computing in decision making and in modeling in economics
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of quantification of emotions in the choice between alternatives is considered. The alternatives are evaluated in a dual manner. From one side, they are characterized by rational features defining the utility of each alternative. From the other side, the choice is affected by emotions labeling the alternatives as attractive or repulsive, pleasant or unpleasant. A decision maker needs to make a choice taking into account both these features, the utility of alternatives and their attractiveness. The notion of utility is based on rational grounds, while the notion of attractiveness is vague and rather is based on irrational feelings. A general method, allowing for the quantification of the choice combining rational and emotional features, is described. Despite that emotions seem to avoid precise quantification, their quantitative evaluation is possible at the aggregate level. The analysis of a series of empirical data demonstrates the efficiency of the approach, including the realistic behavioral problems that cannot be treated by the standard expected utility theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Al-Najjar NI, Weinstein J (2009) The ambiguity aversion literature: a critical assessment. Econ Philos 25:249–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Najjar NI, Weinstein J (2009) The ambiguity aversion literature: a critical assessment. Econ Philos 25:357–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amjadzadeh M, Ansari-Asl K (2017) An innovative emotion assessment using physiological signals based on the combination mechanism. Sci Iran D 24:3157–3170

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D (2008) Predictably irrational. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum MH (2008) New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychol Rev 115:463–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clocksin WF (2003) Artificial intelligence and the future. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 361:1721–1748

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • de Silva CW (2003) The role of soft computing in intelligent machines. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 361:1749–1780

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Evans J (2007) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Ann Rev Psychol 59:268–269

  • Favre M, Wittwer A, Heinimann HR, Yukalov VI, Sornette D (2016) Quantum decision theory in simple risky choices. PLoS One 11:0168045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferro GM, Kovalenko T, Sornette D (2021) Quantum decision theory augments rank-dependent expected utility and cumulative prospect theory. J Econ Psychol 86:102417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamshidi M (2003) Tools for intelligent control: fuzzy controllers, neural networks and genetic algorithms. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 361:1781–1808

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Julmi C (2019) When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness. Bus Res 12:291–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helland IS (2018) Epistemic processes. Springer, Cham

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hillson D (2003) Effective opportunity management for projects. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hillson D (2019) Capturing upside risk. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (1982) Judgment under uncertainty, heuristics and biases. Cambridge University, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–292

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

  • Kane R (2005) A contemporary introduction to free will. Oxford University, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim BE, Seligman D, Kable JM (2012) Preference reversals in decision making under risk are accompanied by changes in attention to different attributes. Front Neurosci 6:109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce RD (1959) Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Luce RD, Raiffa R (1989) Games and decisions: introduction and critical survey. Dover, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Machina MJ (2008) Non-expected utility theory. In: Durlauf SN, Blume LE (eds) New Palgrave dictionary of economics. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner AD, Goodale MA (2008) Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia 46:774–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minsky M (2006) The Emotion Machine. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy A, Fu L (2018) The effect of confidence in valuation estimates on arbitrager behavior and market prices. J Behav Finance 19:349–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy RO, ten Brincke RHW (2018) Hierarchical maximum likelihood parameter estimation for cumulative prospect theory: improving the reliability of individual risk parameter estimates. Manag Sci 64:308–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neapolitan RE, Jiang X (2018) Artificial intelligence. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio A (2007) Mind and its evolution: a dual coding theoretical approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

  • Picard R (1997) Affective computing. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Plessner H, Betsch C, Betsch T (2008) Intuition in judgment and decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole DL, Mackworth AK (2017) Artificial intelligence. Cambridge University, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J Econ Behav Org 3:323–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin M (2000) Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: a calibration theorem. Econometrica 68:1281–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russel SJ, Norvig P (2016) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Pearson Education, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Safra Z, Segal U (2008) Calibration results for non-expected utility theories. Econometrica 76:1143–1166

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Savage LJ (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer KR, Moors A (2019) The emotion process: event appraisal and component differentiation. Ann Rev Psychol 70:719–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (2001) Rationality in action. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Tversky A (1974) Who accepts Savage’s axioms? Behav Sci 19:368–373

  • Stanovich KE (2011) Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University, New York

  • Sun R (2002) Duality of the mind. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncert 5:297–323

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vartanov AV, Vartanova II (2018) Four-dimensional spherical model of emotion. Proced Comput Sci 145:604–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vartanov A, Ivanov V, Vartanova I (2020) Facial expressions and subjective assessments of emotions. Cogn Syst Res 59:319–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent S, Kovalenko T, Yukalov VI, Sornette D (2016) Calibration of quantum decision theory: aversion to large losses and predictability of probabilistic choices. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2775279

  • von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang L, Liu HY, Liang WL, Zhou TH (2021) Emotional expression analysis based on fine-grade emotion quantification model via social media. In: Pan JS et al (eds) Advances in intelligent information hiding and multimedia signal processing. Springer, Singapore, pp 211–218

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov VI, Sornette D (2008) Quantum decision theory as quantum theory of measurement. Phys Lett A 372:6867–6871

  • Yukalov VI, Sornette D (2009) Scheme of thinking quantum systems. Laser Phys Lett 6:833–839

  • Yukalov VI, Sornette D (2009) Physics of risk and uncertainty in quantum decision making. Eur Phys J B 71:533–548

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov VI, Sornette D (2011) Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory Decis 70:283–328

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov VI, Sornette D (2014) Manipulating decision making of typical agents. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 44:1155–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov VI, Sornette D (2016) Quantum probability and quantum decision making. Philos Trans R Soc A 374:20150100

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov VI, Sornette D (2018) Quantitative predictions in quantum decision theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 48:366–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov VI (2020) Evolutionary processes in quantum decision theory. Entropy 22:681

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov VI (2021) Tossing quantum coins and dice. Laser Phys 31:055201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukalov VI (2021) A resolution of St. Petersburg paradox. J Math Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2021.102537

  • Zafirovski M (2012) Beneath rational choice: elements of irrational choice theory. Curr Sociol 61:3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang C, Kjellström H (2021) A subjective model of human decision making based on quantum decision theory. arXiv: 2101.05851

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for helpful advise and useful discussions to D. Sornette and E.P. Yukalova. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bogolubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia, 141980

    V. I. Yukalov

  2. Instituto de Fisica de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, CP 369, São Carlos, São Paulo, 13560-970, Brazil

    V. I. Yukalov

Authors
  1. V. I. Yukalov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. I. Yukalov.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yukalov, V.I. Quantification of emotions in decision making. Soft Comput 26, 2419–2436 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-06442-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-06442-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation