Cited by 169Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Science and Education Research

Resource-rational decision making

Open access
Bhui, Rahul, Lai, Lucy, Gershman, Samuel J·2021·Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.015

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhui, R., Lai, L., & Gershman, S. J.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Gershman, Samuel J
Venue
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-10
Volume
41
Pages
15-21
ISSN
2352-1546 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3146051674
Cited by
168
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
reference dependence, stochastic choice, perseveration, rationality and irrationality, decision bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review