Cited by 892Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsCognitive Science and Education ResearchPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience

Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources

Lieder, Falk, Griffiths, Thomas L.·2020·Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Abstract

Modeling human cognition is challenging because there are infinitely many mechanisms that can generate any given observation. Some researchers address this by constraining the hypothesis space through assumptions about what the human mind can and cannot do, while others constrain it through principles of rationality and adaptation. Recent work in economics, psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics has begun to integrate both approaches by augmenting rational models with cognitive constraints, incorporating rational principles into cognitive architectures, and applying optimality principles to understanding neural representations. We identify the rational use of limited resources as a unifying principle underlying these diverse approaches, expressing it in a new cognitive modeling paradigm called resource-rational analysis . The integration of rational principles with realistic cognitive constraints makes resource-rational analysis a promising framework for reverse-engineering cognitive mechanisms and representations. It has already shed new light on the debate about human rationality and can be leveraged to revisit classic questions of cognitive psychology within a principled computational framework. We demonstrate that resource-rational models can reconcile the mind's most impressive cognitive skills with people's ostensive irrationality. Resource-rational analysis also provides a new way to connect psychological theory more deeply with artificial intelligence, economics, neuroscience, and linguistics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x1900061x

Cites

172 of 172 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Basieva, I., Cervantes, V.H., Dzhafarov, E.N., Khrennikov, A. (in press). True contextuality beats direct influences in human decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
  2. Busemeyer, J. and Bruza, P. (2012) Quantum Models for Cognition and Decision, Cambridge University Press Cervantes, V.H., and Dzhafarov, E.N. (2018). Snow Queen is evil and beautiful: Experimental evidence for probabilistic contextuality in human choices. Decision 5, 193-204.
  3. de Barros, A. and Suppes, P. (2009) Quantum Mechanics, Interference and the Brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 306 - 313.
  4. de Barros, J.A., and Oas, G. (2015). Some examples of contextuality in physics: Implications to quantum cognition. arXiv:1512.00033. Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V. (2014). Contextuality is about identity of random variables. Physica Scripta T163, 014009 · arXiv
  5. Dzhafarov, E.N., & Kujala, J.V. (2016). Context-content systems of random variables: The contextuality-bydefault theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 74, 11-33.
  6. Evans, J. S. B. (2003). In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(10), 454-459.
  7. Machina, M. (2009). Risk, ambiguity, and the rank-dependence axioms. Journal of Economic Review, 99(1), 385-392.
  8. Moreira, C., and Wichert (2018). A., Are quantum-like Bayesian networks more powerful than classical Bayesian networks?, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 82: 73-83
  9. Moreira, C., Haven, E., Sozzo, S., and Wichert (2018). A., Process mining with Real World Financial Loan Applications: Improving Inference on Incomplete Event Logs, PLOS ONE, 13(12): e0207806
  10. Vourdas, A. (2019) Probabilistic Inequalities and Measurements in Bipartite Systems. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 52 085301

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems (DE)
  • Princeton University (US)
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Published
2019-02-04
Volume
43
Pages
e1-e1
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
OpenAlex
W2911589237
Cited by
892
References
172
Citations by year
2026: 129 · 2025: 198 · 2024: 174 · 2023: 114 · 2022: 108 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 14 · 2013: 1
FWCI
55.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
Keywords
human cognition, computational resource constraints, cognitive limitations, principle of optimality, cognitive architecture, neural representations, human rationality, computational modeling of cognition
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Cognition, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Problem Solving, Psychological Theory, Thinking

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.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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