It is well known that the paradigm in economy theory consist in maximize the profit with the available resources. Von-Neumann, Morgenstern, Nash, among others have collaborated to the understanding of this idea elaborating formal theories. However, when the economic theoretical principles are deeply revised, a number of paradoxes and wrong predictions emerges from them. It has been proposed that the source of these problems is that people do not decide by applying rational thoughts all the time. More precisely, there are different ways of thinking.

Risk aversion:

Consider a gamble such that it cost $1 to bet and if you win you earn $4. Now suppose that you have $2 in your pocket and you have bet once. Now the question is about betting a second time under the following outcomes for the first gamble:
1) You have win the first bet
2) You have lost the first bet
3) You do not know the outcome of the first bet

By following classical probability theory it is simple to prove that the probability of gambling a second time under condition 3) should be equal or higher that the probability of gambling under condition 2). But several experiments have proven the opposite. This is called risk aversion.

It has been proven that risk aversion violates the postulates of classical probability theory. Moreover, quantum dynamic models of decision-making have been developed. Quantum dynamics describe the evolution of complex valued probability amplitudes over time that generate interference effects, which are not possible with classical models. The choice probabilities and distribution of choice response time for the quantum model have been proven to adjust better to the classical models, suggesting that this kind of models could perform as we humans do.

References

J. R. Busemeyer, Z. Wang, J. T. Townsend, Quantum dynamics of human decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 220-241, 2006.

1.      J.R Busemeyer, E.M Pothos, Emmanuel, R. Franco, J.S. Trueblood, A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors, Psychological Review, 118(2), 193-218, 2011.

D. Aerts, J. Broekaert, M. Czachor and B. D'Hooghe, A quantum-conceptual explanation of violations of expected utility in economics, Proceedings of the Quantum Interaction Meeting 2009, 140-145, 2009