Cited by 230Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsCognitive Science and Education ResearchNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources

Open access
Lieder, Falk, Griffiths, Thomas L., M. Huys, Quentin J., Goodman, Noah D.·2018·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

Cognitive biases, such as the anchoring bias, pose a serious challenge to rational accounts of human cognition. We investigate whether rational theories can meet this challenge by taking into account the mind's bounded cognitive resources. We asked what reasoning under uncertainty would look like if people made rational use of their finite time and limited cognitive resources. To answer this question, we applied a mathematical theory of bounded rationality to the problem of numerical estimation. Our analysis led to a rational process model that can be interpreted in terms of anchoring-and-adjustment. This model provided a unifying explanation for ten anchoring phenomena including the differential effect of accuracy motivation on the bias towards provided versus self-generated anchors. Our results illustrate the potential of resource-rational analysis to provide formal theories that can unify a wide range of empirical results and reconcile the impressive capacities of the human mind with its apparently irrational cognitive biases.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13423-017-1286-8

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous research emphasizes the importance of collaborative decision-making in health care to mitigate individual cognitive biases.

    “This is in line with previous research emphasizing the importance of collaborative decision-making in health care to mitigate individual cognitive biases [47].”

    From Mitigating cognitive biases in clinical decision-making through multi-agent conversations using large language models: simulation study (2024) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Abstract and the section on resource-rationality discuss cognitive biases and limited cognitive resources, but not collaborative decision-making in health care. Searches for collaborative decision-making and for clinical or medical group decisions found no passage addressing whether collaboration mitigates individual biases. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 127 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311-318.
  2. Horvitz, E., Suermondt, H., & Cooper, G. (1989). Bounded condi- tioning: Flexible inference for decisions under scarce resources Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Uncertainty in Artifi- cial Intelligence (pp. 182-193). Mountain View: Association for Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.
  3. Lieder, F., Goodman, N.D., & Huys, Q.J.M. (2013). Controllability and resource-rational planning. In Pillow, J., Rust, N., Cohen, M., & Latham, P. (Eds.) Cosyne Abstracts.
  4. Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R.A. (2002). Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 491-517.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., M. Huys, Q. J., & Goodman, N. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Lieder, Falk
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2017-05-08
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
322-349
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W2613289252
Cited by
230
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (N00014-13-1-0341)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-13-1-0341, ONR MURI N00014-13-1-0341, MURI N00014-13-1-0341, N00014)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (N00014-13-1-0341, FA‐9550‐10‐1‐0232)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
anchoring effect, anchoring and adjustment, bounded rationality, cognitive resources, uncertainty reasoning, numerical estimation, accuracy motivation
MeSH terms
Heuristics, Cognition, Humans, Motivation, Probability, Problem Solving, Bias, Uncertainty

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