In the Realm of Uncertainty: Quantum Thinking Promotes Tolerance for Ambiguity

Abstract

According to the principles of quantum mechanics, individuals are unable to accurately predict the precise outcome of a measurement or observation. Despite the significant impact of quantum thinking on science, there is a lack of understanding regarding the psychological consequences associated with adopting such a mindset. This research investigates how engaging in quantum thinking, which accepts the universe’s inherent complexities and uncertainties, influences one’s tolerance for ambiguity. To test our hypothesis, we conducted three complementary studies involving diverse populations (students and community adults), multiple measures of tolerance of ambiguity (self-report data and behavioral indicators), and different priming procedures (text reading and sentence scrambling tasks). Study 1 demonstrated that university students exposed to quantum thinking principles exhibited greater tolerance for ambiguity within an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) setting. Moving beyond the educational setting, Study 2 corroborated these observations by evaluating an individual’s ease with uncertainty and unpredictability across different everyday scenarios. Addressing potential self-report biases, Study 3 incorporated a behavioral measure to objectively validate the observed effect. Together, these findings suggest that the thinking mindset prevalent in physics significantly impacts individuals’ cognitive flexibility and behavior, highlighting the broad relevance of quantum thinking beyond its scientific origins.

Keywords

Quantum thinking tolerance for ambiguity social cognition contextual priming uncertainty

Introduction

Imagine a scene in which a group of scientists is examining the effects of a certain medication on a health condition. For instance, they might hypothesize that the medication will lower blood pressure based on the existing medical research, knowledge of biological mechanisms, and empirical findings from previous studies. Conversely, a layperson might may observe a personal decrease in blood pressure subsequent to the administration of this medication. They do not have any formal medical training, so they develop a belief that this medication is universally efficacious in mitigating hypertension. They might even start suggesting to friends that they try it for any kind of heart issue, purely based on personal experience (their cumulatively acquired belief system) and without understanding the complexity of the condition or the medicine itself.

Indeed, although laypeople may lack the formal knowledge to encapsulate general truths and do not always engage in the systematic endeavor to unravel complexities, they are nonetheless capable of organizing their notions and ideas about the worldly phenomena they encounter (e.g., Gopnik & Meltzoff, 1997; Gopnik & Wellman, 1992; Knobe, 2014; Kuhn, 1989). However, their approach diverges fundamentally from that of scientists. While scientists ideally derive their hypotheses through an evidence-based methodology, laypeople’s conclusions typically spring forth from an amalgamation of beliefs accumulated throughout their lives. This mosaic of experiential knowledge allows them to construct lay theories and to classify new information within the framework of their personal lived realities (e.g., Molden & Dweck, 2006; Sloman, 2009).

A decade of psychological research has revealed the significant impact of lay theories on individuals’ cognitive processes, behaviors, and health outcomes (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Job et al., 2010; Li, 2024; Zedelius et al., 2017). These theories, which constitute a set of assumptions about the state of the world or the fundamental principles that govern reality, have profound psychological implications. For instance, individuals seems to have a pervasive inclination to perceive the world as an equitable realm, which instills a belief that moral actions will invariably influence outcomes (Cheng et al., 2020; Lerner, 1980). Based on this observation, Callan et al. (2009) reasoned and demonstrated that adherence to this “just-world hypothesis” could skew memory recall. They found that participants recalled receiving a disproportionately smaller lottery prize when associated with a morally “bad” winner compared to a “good” one, suggesting that memory is influenced by congruence with individuals’ justice expectations—that is, the belief that people ultimately receive what they deserve.

On the other hand, some theories may carry with certain scientific connotation, projecting the layperson into the role of a “naïve scientist” (Clary & Tesser, 1983; Kuhn, 1989; Simon & Newell, 1971). For example, Li (2023) found that participants who perceived lower indoor temperatures also believed that the coronavirus was more contagious. This correlation could be attributed to the common belief that the cold and flu are more prevalent in colder weather, despite research suggesting that an ambient temperature of approximately 4°C might be more conducive to the virus’s transmissibility than 0°C. Thus, these findings underscore the notion that people may interpret their experiences through the lens of these explicit or implicit beliefs, which in turn shape their emotional responses, decision-making processes, and behaviors in ways that can significantly change their life outcomes.

In recent years, researchers have began to investigate how people interpret their experiences based on their beliefs in the field of physics. For example, Biliciler et al. (2022) found that entropy, a fundamental principle from physics, influences consumers’ judgments and decisions. Drawing upon the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy can only increase as time flows, the researchers hypothesized that viewing high-entropy images would shift individuals’ focus towards the past (i.e., contemplating what might have happened before), whereas viewing low-entropy images would shift their focus towards the future (i.e., contemplating what might happen next). Consistent with their predictions, the results showed that consumers showed a more positive attitude toward past-related products when accompanied by high-entropy images, and evaluated future-related products more favorably when accompanied by low-entropy images. These findings support the notion that individuals possess an intuitive understanding of the relationship between entropy and time, akin to that of lay physicists, and utilize entropy cues to infer temporal order.

Based on the findings that high-entropy images invoke a past-focused mindset and low-entropy images invoke a future-focused mindset, Wang et al. (2023) further explored how entropy impacts people’s temporal focus and mental representations of time. They found that Chinese participants exposed to high-entropy images were more likely to conceptualize the past as in front of them, whereas those exposed to low-entropy images were more likely to conceptualize the future as in front of them. These findings provide empirical support for the Temporal Focus Hypothesis, which suggests that individuals metaphorically “focus on” a particular time period, and consequently position it in front of them in their mental models (de la Fuente et al., 2014). That is, they align it with their literal line of sight as if the corresponding temporal events are visible objects. Thus, this observation highlights the idea that individuals can exhibit a kind of naive scientific thinking, spontaneously generating hypotheses or attributions for the events they encounter.

While this emerging body of research sheds light on how individuals, as lay physicists, instinctively grasp certain fundamental laws of physics and incorporate them into their judgments and decisions, such as purchase intention and cognitive processing, the majority of studies have predominantly focused on the concept of entropy. Thus, it remains an open question as to whether other concepts or thinking mindsets in physics have an impact on individuals’ cognition and behavior. In the present investigation, we explore a novel idea that quantum thinking, specifically the notion of the non-deterministic nature of all objects, influences individuals’ capacity to tolerate ambiguity.

Tolerance of ambiguity is a cognitive characteristic that plays a vital role in individuals’ ability to navigate uncertain situations or stimuli (Budner, 1962; Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949). It encompasses their capacity to perceive and manage ambiguity in their personal lives and developmental journeys (Furnham & Marks, 2013; Furnham & Ribchester, 1995). Understanding the correlates of this psychological construct is essential for gaining insights into how individuals navigate diverse contexts and make decisions amidst uncertainty (Durrheim & Foster, 1997). Correlational evidence suggests that this psychological construct is linked to various personality and individual differences variables (Elembilassery & Aggarwal, 2024). For instance, tolerance for ambiguity has been found to be positively associated with both authoritarianism and openness to experience, while it shows a negative relationship with ethnocentrism (Jach & Smillie, 2019; Pawlickp & Almquist, 1973).

Moreover, research has demonstrated that ambiguity tolerance is a malleable dependent variable and can be rapidly shaped by contextual stimuli (Endres et al., 2015; Spinelli et al., 2023). For instance, based on the observations that Christian religious concepts, which promote dichotomous moral categories (e.g., right vs. wrong), Sagioglou and Forstmann (2013) hypothesized that exposure to Christian religious contents would lead to an increased intolerance of ambiguity and judgment. In their systematic cohort of studies, the results consistently showed that semantically activating Christian concepts lead to a decrease in both self-reported and behaviorally measured ambiguity tolerance. These findings suggest that exposure to reminders of the Christian foundations of one’s belief system can influence an individual’s basic cognitions and behaviors.

While Sagioglou and Forstmann’s (2013) study provides valuable insights into how fundamental beliefs about the world impact ambiguity tolerance, their research primarily focused on religious beliefs. It remains unclear whether other perspectives on the physical and social world also influence people’s tolerance for ambiguity. To address this gap, our study aims to investigate the role of different ways of thinking in physics on ambiguity tolerance. Within the world of physics, two pivotal paradigms exist: Newtonian and quantum, which represent radically different modes of thought (Ferrer, 2015; Zohar, 2022).

Newtonian thinking adopts a deterministic worldview, positing that if individuals possess information about the initial conditions of a system alongside the governing laws that describe its behavior, they can predict the future with certainty (Formica et al., 2010). For example, in the context of Newtonian physics, the position, velocity, and forces acting on a billiard ball on a pool table can be precisely calculated to determine the exact location of the ball at any given time (Newton, 2002).

Conversely, quantum thinking introduces probabilistic behavior and characterizes the universe as uncertain, unpredictable, and self-organizing (Zohar, 2022). According to the principles of quantum mechanics, individuals cannot accurately predict the precise outcome of a measurement or observation. Instead, they can only determine the probabilities associated with different outcomes (Yin, 2019). For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one can only express the probability of finding it at a particular location.

Since the two ways of thinking were developed within the field of physics, critics may cast doubt on the predictive power of theories governing subatomic phenomena in explaining cognitive processes outside of physics. In recent years, accumulating evidence suggests that certain abstract principles of quantum theory are relevant to cognitive processes (Mindell, 2012; Pothos & Busemeyer, 2013). Specifically, psychologists have begun to employ the mathematical structure of quantum theory and its dynamic principles for modeling cognition, explaining human behavior in areas including attention, language use, strategic games, memory, perception, problem-solving, and causal reasoning (Bruza et al., 2015; Schwartz et al., 2005).

Busemeyer and Wang (2015) offer two examples, namely, complementarity and superposition, to demonstrate that quantum theory is effective in explaining empirical findings in psychology. In quantum physics, complementarity refers to the principle that objects can either occur as particles or as waves depending on the situation, but these radically different states are mutually exclusive under certain experimental settings (Bohr, 1950). Applying this principle to quantum cognition, complementarity suggests that certain cognitive states or outcomes can be mutually exclusive depending on the context in which they are measured or observed. A paradigmatic example of this phenomenon is the prevalence of order effects in psychological research, where the sequence of treatment conditions can lead to distinct outcomes. This reflects the idea that cognitive processes can have different, mutually exclusive forms based on the manner in which they are approached or queried.

Superposition in quantum physics refers to the idea that an electron can exist in multiple states or locations at once, each with a particular probability of being observed (Romero-Isart et al., 2010). When translated to cognitive science, this principle suggests that a person’s mind can hold multiple potential states (e.g., beliefs, decisions) simultaneously. Only when a decision or a measurement is made does the state converge into a particular outcome. For instance, an individual may harbor several, perhaps contradictory, attitudes or beliefs concurrently. However, when required to express a stance on a specific issue, one attitude or belief predominates.

Despite quantum cognitive models presenting a new research program to complement classical models, which allow deterministic causes, it remains unclear whether these principles from quantum theory are rooted in people’s basic cognitive architecture. As argued, initial data indicated that even laypeople have an intuitive grasp of many laws that govern the physical world (Biliciler et al., 2022). Thus, it is possible that non-experts can also use these sophisticated quantum principles to think about the world, even unconsciously. The dramatic differences between Newtonian thinking and quantum thinking offer an ideal testbed for this theoretical perspective. Specifically, Newtonian thinking offers a deterministic view of the world, enabling precise predictions based on initial conditions and governing laws. On the other hand, quantum thinking introduces probabilistic behavior and uncertainty at the microscopic level, where the likelihoods of certain outcomes supersede certainties.

Based on this fundamental difference, we hypothesize that individuals who embrace quantum thinking will demonstrate greater tolerance for ambiguity compared to adherents of Newtonian thinking. To empirically test this theoretical perspective, we conducted three complementary studies involving diverse populations (students and community adults), multiple measures of tolerance of ambiguity (self-report data and behavioral indicators), and a variety of priming procedures (text reading and sentence scrambling tasks) (see Figure 1 for the research technique).

Figure 1.

Overview of studies.

In Study 1, we asked Chinese university students to read a text outlining the principles of either quantum or Newtonian thinking before they responded to items designed to evaluate their capacity for ambiguity tolerance within a foreign language setting. Study 2 aimed to enhance the generalizability of the findings obtained in Study 1 by examining the impact of quantum thinking on individuals’ tolerance for ambiguity in a broad range of contexts. Employing a more diverse population, Study 3 aimed to replicate the established relationship in a behavioral context. By doing so, we believe that each study addresses specific limitations of the others, thus contributing to a comprehensive and rigorous research package.

Study 1

Method

Participants

In order to detect a medium-sized effect (d = .50) in the present study with 95% power and 5% alpha for a one-factor design, a total of 210 participants were required. To account for potential attrition, such as no-shows, we recruited 239 participants (54.4% females; mean age = 20.7 years, SD = 1.1) from a large university in central China. Participants were compensated with a small monetary reward for their participation. Each participant was randomly assigned to either the Newtonian thinking (N = 120) or quantum thinking condition (N = 119).

Materials and Procedure

In an effort to obscure the primary aim of the study, participants were requested to evaluate the quality of the presented materials and assess their experiences with their English learning experiences. Participants in the Newtonian thinking condition were asked to read a text on the fundamental principles of classical mechanics, whereas participants in the quantum thinking condition read a text on basic quantum concepts and principles. The concluding statements of each vignette provided a summary of the respective thinking mindset. The Newtonian thinking condition concluded with the statement, “In sum, Newtonian thinking offers a deterministic view of the world, allowing for precise predictions and certainties based on initial conditions and governing laws.” The quantum thinking condition concluded with the statement, “In sum, quantum thinking introduces probabilistic behavior and uncertainty at the microscopic level, where we can only speak of the likelihood of certain outcomes rather than certainties.”

To assess the participants’ attention to the materials, two single-choice questions related to the content of the texts were used as an attention check. Only those who had successfully passed this attention check were included into the main analysis. Participants were then asked to rate the quality of the materials using a five-point Likert scale, such as readability and pedagogical benefits, which were used to further disguise the true purpose of the study.

Following this, participants were asked to respond to a Chinese version of the Tolerance of Ambiguity scale in an EFL context (α = 0.82). The scale was originally developed by Herman et al. (2010) and underwent adaptation and empirical validation for Chinese populations by Wei and Hu (2019). It comprises 11-item with five-point Likert scales (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). Sample statements include “I can enjoy being with people whose values are very different from mine” and “I would like to live in a foreign country for a while”.

Upon the completion of all questionnaires, participants underwent a debriefing procedure designed to uncover any insights they might have regarding the study’s true purpose (e.g., “May I inquire as to your perceptions of the study’s core hypothesis?”). Finally, participants were compensated, extended gratitude, and dismissed with courtesy.

Results and Discussion

Eight participants (3 participants in the Newtonian thinking condition and 5 participants in the quantum thinking condition) failed to pass the attention check and were excluded from the main analysis. Debriefing responses indicated that no participants guessed the link between the priming procedure and tolerance of ambiguity. As hypothesized, the results revealed that participants in the quantum thinking condition (M = 3.58, SD = 0.65) exhibited significantly higher levels of tolerance for ambiguity than participants in the Newtonian thinking condition (M = 3.39, SD = 0.52), t (229) = 2.15, p = .01, d = 0.32, 95%CI = [0.0376, 0.3424].

Study 1 provided preliminary evidence for our core hypothesis that engaging in quantum thinking promoted an increased ability to tolerate ambiguity in the EFL context although these attitude statements have no direct relationship with classical or quantum physics. Specifically, our findings revealed that participants who were exposed to statements about quantum thinking demonstrated a greater comfort with ambiguous stimuli or events in a foreign language learning setting compared to those who encountered statements rooted in Newtonian thinking. The observed shifts in ambiguity tolerance, as assessed by self-report measures, cannot be attributed to the resemblance between the phrasing of the experimental study and the priming stimuli, as we meticulously crafted the language to circumvent any circular reasoning. This assertion is further corroborated by debriefing responses indicating that no participants recognized the connection between the priming stimuli and the dependent measures.

Despite Study 1 providing preliminary evidence for the causal effect of quantum thinking on the capacity for tolerate ambiguity, one notable limitation is that the testing of this association was confined to an English as a foreign language setting. Thus, the generalizability of these findings to broader domains remains an open question. To address this issue, Study 2 sought to examine the hypothesized relationship across a variety of contexts.

Study 2

Methods

Participants

Based on the effect size in Study 1 (d = .32) with 80% power and 5% alpha for a one-factor design, a total of 244 participants were required. To account for potential attrition, such as no-shows, we recruited 286 participants (59.1% females; mean age = 21.3”years, SD = 1.4) from a large university in central China. Participants were compensated with a small monetary reward for their participation. Each participant was randomly assigned to either the Newtonian thinking (N = 139) or quantum thinking condition (N = 147).

Materials and Procedure

Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants initially undertook the same priming task as detailed in Study 1. Subsequently, participants responded to the Chinese version of the MacDonald AT-20 Ambiguity Tolerance Index, a widely used scale in diverse cultural populations (Harding & Ren, 2007; MacDonald, 1970). This index consists of 20 dichotomous answer options that assess an individual’s comfort with uncertainty and unpredictability. Sample statements include “Practically every problem has a solution” and “Perfect balance is the essence of all good composition”. The theoretical range of ambiguity tolerance on this scale is 0–20, with higher values indicating higher levels of ambiguity tolerance.

Finally, a funnel debriefing procedure was employed to probe participants' suspicions about the true purpose of the study. Participants were asked open-ended questions such as “What do you think about the real aim of the experiment?” Following the debriefing, participants were thanked, compensated, and dismissed from the study.

Results and Discussion

Seven participants (4 participants in the Newtonian thinking condition and 3 participants in the quantum thinking condition) failed to pass the attention check and were excluded from the main analysis. As hypothesized, the results revealed that participants in the quantum thinking condition (M = 10.86, SD = 2.58) exhibited significantly higher levels of tolerance for ambiguity than participants in the Newtonian thinking condition (M = 9.90, SD = 2.57), t (277) = 3.11, p = .002, d = 0.37, 95% CI = [0.3508, 1.5641].

Study 2 builds on the findings of Study 1 by demonstrating that the influence of quantum thinking extends beyond the context of foreign language learning to more generalized situations. In this study, participants who adopted a quantum thinking mindset were more likely to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable, according to their self-reports, compared to those who engaged in Newtonian thinking. These findings support the proposition that adopting a quantum mindset promotes an increased tolerance for ambiguity, even though these attitude statements are not directly related to the principles of classical or quantum physics.

While Studies 1 and 2 provide converging evidence for our hypothesis that holding different beliefs about the world may have psychological implications, it is important to note that this study primarily relied on student populations and self-report measures. To enhance the reliability and generalizability of our findings, Study 3 was designed to extend the findings methodologically and conceptually by incorporating a diverse population and using behavioral indices to measure ambiguity tolerance. Moreover, a different priming procedure was employed to augment the robustness of our results.

Study 3

Method

Participants

To detect a medium-sized effect (f = .25) in the present study with 95% power and 5% alpha for a within-between interaction using a repeated measures ANOVA, a total of 66 participants were required. We recruited 253 non-student participants (54.2% females; mean age = 31.3 years, SD = 5.7) from southwest China as per the available funding and time frame allowed. Participants received a small monetary reward for their participation.

Since Studies 1 and 2 lacked a control condition, critics may contend that the reduced ability to tolerate ambiguity observed in individuals could be attributed to the exposure to Newtonian thinking, rather than the enhancement of tolerance for ambiguity through quantum thinking. To address this concern, we included a control condition in Study 3. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: Newtonian thinking (N = 87), control (N = 83) or quantum thinking (N = 83).

Materialcs and Procedure

Under the guise of assessing verbal abilities, participants in the three conditions were asked to unscramble words in 16 sentences. In the Newtonian thinking condition, eight sentences pertained to classical mechanics (e.g., “Deterministic laws govern precise predictions of physical phenomena”). In the quantum thinking condition, eight sentences focused on the probabilistic nature of quantum physics (e.g., “Probabilistic nature embraces uncertainty in the microscopic realm”). For both conditions, the remaining eight sentences were neutral and unrelated to physics (e.g., “Universities have two semesters in each academic year”). In the control condition, all sentences were neutral.

Subsequently, participants were presented with two black-and-white pencil drawings depicting female faces: one front-face and the other side-face (refer to Figure 1 in Sagioglou & Forstmann, 2013). Importantly, no words related to uncertainty and unpredictability were incorporated into the task to prevent any potential confounding effects. This precaution was taken to avoid the possibility of congruency effects, where words associated with uncertainty and unpredictability appear both in the priming task and the items assessing the dependent variable.

Prior to the main study, the level of ambiguity in the drawings had been pretested among a separate sample of participants from the same pool (N = 80). The results indicated a significant difference between the ambiguous (M = 5.06, SD = 1.54) and non-ambiguous (M = 2.83, SD = 1.61) drawings, with t (78) = 6.33, p < .001. In the main study, participants were asked to rate their liking for each drawing on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

Results and Discussion

Consistent with our hypothesis, a 3 (priming condition) × 2 (type of drawing) ANOVA on ratings of the drawings revealed the predicted interaction, F (2, 250) = 8.54, p < .001, η_p² = .06 (see Table 1). Simple effects tests revealed that participants who were primed with quantum-thinking exhibited a stronger preference for the ambiguous drawing (M = 5.19, SD = 1.06) compared to those in the Newtonian thinking condition (M = 4.63, SD = 0.97), p = .001, and those in the control condition (M = 4.59 SD = 1.08), p = .001. However, the latter two groups showed no differences in their ratings, p = .96.

Table 1.

Ratings of the Ambiguous and Non-ambiguous Drawing (Study 2) as a Function of Priming Condition.

	The ambiguous drawing	The non-ambiguous drawing
Newtonian thinking condition (N = 87)	4.63 (0.97)	4.80 (0.97)
Quantum thinking condition (N = 83)	5.19 (1.06)	4.61 (1.07)
Control condition (N = 83)	4.59 (1.08)	4.86 (1.01)

In addition, the rating of the non-ambiguous drawing did not differ across conditions, ps > .23. Moreover, participants primed with quantum thinking significantly favored the ambiguous drawing over the non-ambiguous one, p = .001, whereas the Newtonian thinking and control group did not show a preference for either type of drawing (ps > .18). These findings indicate that engaging in quantum thinking induces corresponding changes in ambiguity tolerance, influencing subsequent aesthetic judgments.

The results of Study 3 are noteworthy for three reasons. First, by utilizing a more heterogeneous population, this study replicates the main findings of Studies 1 and 2, providing further evidence in support of our main hypothesis: quantum thinking induces higher levels of ambiguity tolerance. Second, the inclusion of a control condition rules out the possibility that the observed effects stemmed from a reduced ability to tolerate ambiguity among individuals exposed to Newtonian thinking rather than an enhancement of tolerance through quantum thinking. Third, we provide behavioral evidence supporting our central hypothesis in real-world scenarios. This eliminates the possibility that the observed effects are merely artifacts of the self-reported questionnaires.

Discussion

Recent studies have shown that individuals’ fundamental beliefs about themselves and the world shape their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Feibleman, 1943; Forstmann et al., 2012; Gopnik & Meltzoff, 1997; Medin & Ortony, 1989; Zenasni et al., 2008). It is worth noting, however, that prior investigations have predominantly focused on the role of philosophical, religious, and political beliefs (Kuhn, 1989; Li, 2021; Sagioglou & Forstmann, 2013). Limited attention has been given to examining the psychological implications of thinking styles in the context of physics. By addressing this research gap, we conducted three complementary studies and provided the experimental evidence supporting the notion that adopting a quantum thinking approach enhances individuals' tolerance for ambiguity.

In Study 1, we tested whether introducing quantum thinking to university students would make them better at dealing with uncertainty when learning English as a foreign language. The results showed that participants who read a text introducing the basic principle of quantum thinking showed more capacity for tolerance of ambiguity in their foreign language experiences than those who read a text introducing the basic principle of Newtonian thinking. Moving beyond language learning, our second study found similar effects in how comfortable people were with uncertainty in various situations. To circumvent issues surrounding self-report technique, Study 3 provided a behavioral confirmation of the observed effect. Overall, these findings provide converging support for our hypothesis that thinking mindset prevalent in physics significantly impacts individuals’ cognitive flexibility and behavior, highlighting the broad relevance of quantum thinking beyond its scientific origins.

Theoretical Implications

Prior work has shown that a broad range of personality, psychological, and environmental factors—including ethnocentrism, authoritarianism, creativity, and unstable living conditions—are linked to individuals’ tolerance for ambiguity (Furnham & Ribchester, 1995; Nicolaidis & Katsaros, 2011; Zenasni et al., 2008). However, most of these studies are correlational in nature. By employing an experimental design, our research extends these findings by exploring the impact of a previously unexamined factor: quantum thinking. While a growing body of research has begun using quantum theory as a novel conceptual framework to address perplexing empirical phenomena in psychology (Pothos & Busemeyer, 2022; Pothos et al., 2017), it remains uncertain whether laypeople possess an intuitive understanding of the fundamental connections between quantum mechanics and the social world.

Our findings, to the best of our knowledge, provide the first experimental evidence that exposure to quantum thinking has a measurable impact on individuals’ fundamental cognitive processes and behaviors within the social realm. There is no reason to assume that this kind of impact is restricted to people’s thoughts about physics. For example, Biliciler et al. (2022) found that high- and low-entropy visuals influence individuals’ temporal focus, thereby affecting their evaluations of advertisements for traditional and modern brands. Consistent with these findings, we found that adopting a quantum thinking mindset in the field of physics influences individuals’ comfort with uncertain situations that are not directly associated with physics. Thus, these findings suggest that individuals possess an inherent capacity to spontaneously generate hypotheses or attributions, akin to naive scientists, when encountering various events.

Nisbett and Miyamoto (2005) proposed that any kind of practice that reflects particular rules may have the same potential to induce systematic biases in other domains that are unrelated to the original source. For example, Li and Cao (2022) found that adherents of Gelug schools of Tibetan Buddhism showed higher compliance with public health guidelines surrounding COVID-19 than those of Nyingma schools of Tibetan Buddhism. This could be because the former place a higher value on strict observance of the Buddhist law and religious discipline than the latter. These findings suggest that the impact of rules in culturally inspired practices is not limited to the original domains. However, it is important to note that almost all previous studies have focused exclusively on social or cultural rules This raises the question of whether rules in the physical world have the same impact on cognitive processing. Here, we provide evidence that different modes of thought in physics about the rules of the universe can also influence people’s cognitive processes and behaviors in the social world.

Methodological Strengths and Practical Implications

Our research possesses methodological strengths. On one hand, a significant proportion of studies investigating the impacts of various belief systems (e.g., culture, religion, and science) on cognition, behavior, and health have predominantly focused on Western contexts, relying on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) populations (Callan et al., 2009; Forstmann et al., 2012; Molden & Dweck, 2006). This sampling bias raises concerns regarding the applicability of prior findings, given the potential influence of individuals’ cultural background on the outcomes. In our study, we included a diverse sample of non-WEIRD participants, thereby enhancing the generalizability of the obtained results.

On the other hand, critics may argue that the semantic content of priming materials resembles the items assessing the dependent variable. Consequently, it may not be surprising that quantum thinking promotes tolerance for ambiguity, as the experiments prime participants to accept ambiguity. We address these concerns through multiple approaches. First, the majority of statements in the questionnaires used to measure the dependent variable have no explicit associations with tolerance for ambiguity, such as the sample item “I would like to live in a foreign country for a while” from the Tolerance of Ambiguity scale in an EFL context. This assertion is further supported by the debriefing responses, which demonstrate that no participants accurately guessed the true purpose of the study. Furthermore, we examined whether this increased ambiguity tolerance would extend beyond self-reported measures and manifest at a perceptual level by assessing participants’ preference for an ambiguous visual image. Once again, we observed that ambiguity tolerance, as evoked by quantum thinking, similarly elicited a greater preference for an ambiguous piece of art.

Our findings also have significant practical implications for science educators, particularly in the context of fostering creative thinking skills. The abundance of evidence suggests a positive relationship between ambiguity tolerance and creative thinking (Zenasni et al., 2008). Given that quantum thinking can effectively promote tolerance for ambiguity, educators may consider incorporating and adapting content on quantum physics in textbooks for students. By doing so, educators can not only expose students to the latest developments in the field of physics but also foster the development of critical thinking skills in the face of ambiguity. These practical implications have the potential to enhance science education and inspire students to become lifelong learners and contributors to the scientific community.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the theoretical contributions and methodological strengths, the current research also has some limitations that provide fruitful avenues for future research. One notable limitation inherent in this study concerns the recruitment and selection of participants. The absence of stringent control measures poses the possibility of selection bias, which could skew the findings by favoring certain outcomes aligned with the characteristics of the chosen sample over others. Future research utilizing a representative sample that matches the sociodemographic profiles of the general Chinese population would be extremely valuable.

Moreover, there is ambiguity surrounding the participants’ level of comprehension in physics. This factor, which was not systematically assessed, raises questions regarding the ability to accurately interpret the implications of the study and extrapolate the observed effects. The indeterminate knowledge base of participants, particularly in physics, suggests that the findings may not be applicable to a broader demographic with different levels of expertise or cultural backgrounds. In scientific inquiry, especially in areas where prior knowledge can significantly influence cognitive processing and understanding (Li et al., 2011), it is crucial to investigate whether acceptance of the scientific foundation of quantum physics moderates the effects presented here.

Finally, while this research has identified certain effects, it is important to recognize that these effect sizes were, on the whole, relatively minor in magnitude. The presence of small effect sizes requires caution, as it not only increases the susceptibility to type I errors – detecting an effect where there is none due to random chance – but also suggests that other unaccounted-for variables may be influencing the outcomes. These variables could be linked to environmental factors, experimental conditions, or individual differences among participants, all of which can contribute to variability in the results. Therefore, future studies are warranted to explore these effects more robustly by implementing stricter control measures for confounding variables and offering a clearer interpretation of the examined causal relationships.

Conclusion

In this research program, we aim to integrate insights from physics, experimental psychology, and social psychology to explore how quantum thinking influences people’s tolerance for ambiguity. Promoting interdisciplinary research on the science of lay theories—such as how beliefs shape our cognition, behavior, and health—is an emerging research topic in psychological inquiry. We hope our article will inspire future research that synthesizes knowledge from diverse disciplines. By examining how the principles governing natural phenomena, as identified by the natural sciences, interact with the laws of human behavior, as investigated in the social sciences, we can foster a more comprehensive understanding of cognitive processes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Heng Li

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

Author Biographies

Renqiang Wang is a professor of linguistics in the Dictionary Research Center at Sichuan International Studies University, China. His research interests include theoretical and practical lexicography, lexical categorization in cognitive linguistics, linguistic typology and corpus linguistics, with a focus on the paradigm shift from Newtonian thinking to quantum thinking in linguistic inquiry in recent years.

Heng Li is a cognitive linguistics professor at Sichuan International Studies University. His work seeks to explore cultural and individual differences in cognitive processing. His multidisciplinary interests bring him to address this question from various interrelated perspectives: experimental studies, sign language, co-speech gesture and field research.

References

Biliciler

Raghunathan

Ward

A. F.

(2022). Consumers as naive physicists: How visual entropy cues shift temporal focus and influence product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(6), 1010–1031. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab042

Bohr

(1950). On the notions of causality and complementarity. Science, 111(2873), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.111.2873.51

Bruza

P. D.

Wang

Busemeyer

J. R.

(2015). Quantum cognition: A new theoretical approach to psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(7), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.05.001

Budner

(1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x

Busemeyer

J. R.

Wang

(2015). What is quantum cognition, and how is it applied to psychology? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414568663

Callan

M. J.

Kay

A. C.

Davidenko

Ellard

J. H.

(2009). The effects of justice motivation on memory for self- and other-relevant events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 614–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.013

Cheng

Nudelman

Otto

(2020). Belief in a just world and employee voice behavior: The mediating roles of perceived efficacy and risk. Journal of Psychology, 154(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1670126

Clary

E. G.

Tesser

(1983). Reactions to unexpected events: The naive scientist and interpretive activity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(4), 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167283094010

De la Fuente

Santiago

Román

Dumitrache

Casasanto

(2014). When you think about it, your past is in front of you: How culture shapes spatial conceptions of time. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1682–1690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614534695

10.

Durrheim

Foster

(1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(5), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(96)00207-3

11.

Dweck

C. S.

Leggett

E. L.

(1988). A social‐cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.95.2.256

12.

Elembilassery

Jain

N. K.

Aggarwal

(2024). What influences individuals’ tolerance for ambiguity? Exploring the role of social comparison orientation, tendency to maximize and feel regret. Personality and Individual Differences, 217, 112436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112436

13.

Endres

M. L.

Camp

Milner

(2015). Is ambiguity tolerance malleable? Experimental evidence with potential implications for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00619

14.

Feibleman

(1943). A theory of social belief. Journal of Psychology, 16(2), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1943.9917173

15.

Ferrer

(2015). From Newtonian physics to quantum theory; from new science to spiritual philosophy and wisdom: The crucial question of consciousness. Ars Brevis, 21, 92–126. https://raco.cat/index.php/ArsBrevis/article/view/311714

16.

Formica

S. P.

Easley

J. L.

Spraker

M. C.

(2010). Transforming common-sense beliefs into Newtonian thinking through Just-In-Time Teaching. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020106. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevstper.6.020106

17.

Forstmann

Burgmer

Mussweiler

(2012). “The Mind is willing, but the flesh is weak” the effects of mind-body dualism on health behavior. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1239–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612442392

18.

Frenkel-Brunswik

(1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01236.x

19.

Furnham

Marks

(2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 04(09), 717–728. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102

20.

Furnham

Ribchester

(1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14(3), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02686907

21.

Gopnik

Meltzoff

A. N.

(1997). Words, thoughts, and theories. MIT Press.

22.

Gopnik

Wellman

H. M.

(1992). Why the child’s theory of mind really is a theory. Mind & Language, 7(1-2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00202.x

23.

Harding

Ren

(2007). The importance in accounting of ambiguity tolerance at the national level: Evidence from Australia and China. Asian Review of Accounting, 15(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/13217340710763726

24.

Herman

J. L.

Stevens

M. J.

Bird

Mendenhall

Oddou

(2010). The tolerance for ambiguity scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.09.004

25.

Jach

H. K.

Smillie

L. D.

(2019). To fear or fly to the unknown: Tolerance for ambiguity and Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.003

26.

Job

Dweck

C. S.

Walton

G. M.

(2010). Ego depletion-is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1686–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384745

27.

Knobe

(2014). Free will and the scientific vision. In Machery

O’Neill

(Eds.), Current controversies in experimental philosophy (pp. 69–85). Routledge.

28.

Kuhn

(1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.674

29.

Lerner

M. J.

(1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press.

30.

(2021). Philosophy in the flesh: How philosophical view of embodiment motivates public compliance with health recommendations during the COVID-19 crisis. Personality and Individual Differences, 181, 111059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111059

31.

(2023). Getting through a COVID-19 winter: Physical coldness increases the perceived risk of coronavirus disease. Personality and Individual Differences, 200, 111799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111799

32.

(2024). Social power and perceived risk of contagious disease: High power leads to lower risk estimation of catching COVID‐19. Risk Analysis, 44(3), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14189

33.

Cao

(2022). Rules we live by: How religious beliefs relate to compliance with precautionary measures against COVID-19 in Tibetan Buddhists. Journal of Religion and Health, 61(2), 1671–1683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01512-w

34.

Johnson

E. J.

Zaval

(2011). Local warming: Daily temperature change influences belief in global warming. Psychological Science, 22(4), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611400913

35.

MacDonald

A. P.

(1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and validity. Psychological Reports, 26(3), 791–798. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1970.26.3.791

36.

Medin

Ortony

(1989). Psychological essentialism. In Vosniadou

Ortony

(Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge University Press.

37.

Mindell

(2012). Quantum mind: The edge between physics and psychology. Deep Democracy Exchange.

38.

Molden

D. C.

Dweck

C. S.

(2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61(3), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192

39.

Newton

R. G.

(2002). Thinking about physics. Princeton University Press.

40.

Nicolaidis

Katsaros

(2011). Tolerance of ambiguity and emotional attitudes in a changing business environment: A case of Greek it CEOs. Journal of Strategy and Management, 4(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554251111110113

41.

Nisbett

R. E.

Miyamoto

(2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004

42.

Pawlickp

R. E.

Almquist

(1973). Authoritarianism, locus of control, and tolerance of ambiguity as reflected in membership and nonmembership in a women's liberation group. Psychological Reports, 32(3_suppl), 1331–1337. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1973.32.3c.1331

43.

Pothos

E. M.

Busemeyer

J. R.

(2013). Quantum principles in psychology: The debate, the evidence, and the future. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x12003226

44.

Pothos

E. M.

Busemeyer

J. R.

(2022). Quantum cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 749–778. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-123501

45.

Pothos

E. M.

Busemeyer

J. R.

Shiffrin

R. M.

Yearsley

J. M.

(2017). The rational status of quantum cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(7), 968–987. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000312

46.

Romero-Isart

Juan

M. L.

Quidant

Cirac

J. I.

(2010). Toward quantum superposition of living organisms. New Journal of Physics, 12(3), 033015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/12/3/033015

47.

Sagioglou

Forstmann

(2013). Activating Christian religious concepts increases intolerance of ambiguity and judgment certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 933–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.003

48.

Schwartz

J. M.

Stapp

H. P.

Beauregard

(2005). Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: A neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1458), 1309–1327. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1598

49.

Simon

H. A.

Newell

(1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, 26(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030806

50.

Sloman

(2009). Causal models: How people think about the world and its alternatives. Oxford University Press.

51.

Spinelli

Ibrahim

Khoury

(2023). Cultivating ambiguity tolerance through mindfulness: An induction randomized controlled trial. Current Psychology, 42(15), 12929–12947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02597-4

52.

Wang

Yang

(2023). The physics of time: How visual entropy cues influence spatial conceptions of time. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00161.wan

53.

Wei

(2019). Exploring the relationship between multilingualism and tolerance of ambiguity: A survey study from an EFL context. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(5), 1209–1219. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728918000998

54.

Yin

(2019). Review and prospect of quantum management. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 09(12), 2220–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2019.912147

55.

Zedelius

C. M.

Müller

B. C.

Schooler

J. W.

(2017). The science of lay theories. Springer Publishing.

56.

Zenasni

Besançon

Lubart

(2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01080.x

57.

Zohar

(2022). Zero distance. Palgrave Macmillan.