The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 127 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Theory of games and economic behavior
Garcia, S. R., & Miller, S. J. (2019) · American Mathematical Society eBooks · doi:10.1090/mbk/121/32 · Cited by 16,777
A BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF RATIONAL CHOICE
Simon, H. A. (1955) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884852 · Cited by 15,877
Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications.
Hastings, W. K. (1970) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 · Cited by 15,195
Diamond, A. (2013) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · Cited by 13,268
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25
Zhang, Y., Sutton, C. A., Storkey, A., & Zoubin Ghahramani, A. (2012) · Cited by 12,653
A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407 · Cited by 8,141
Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice
Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S. T., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1995) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/b14835 · Cited by 7,927
Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice
Arnaud Doucet, B. (2001) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3437-9 · Cited by 7,516
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Horvitz, E., Suermondt, H., & Cooper, G. (1989). Bounded conditioning: Flexible inference for decisions under scarce resources, Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 182–193). Mountain View: Association for Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.
- 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.
- Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1, 161–176.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2020) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1900061x · Cited by 892
Self-citationResolving uncertainty in a social world
FeldmanHall, O., & Shenhav, A. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0590-x · Cited by 298
Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making
Rastogi, C., Zhang, Y., Wei, D., Varshney, K. R., Dhurandhar, A., & Tomsett, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512930 · Cited by 216
Non-Equilibrium Relations for Bounded Rational Decision-Making in Changing Environments
Grau-Moya, J., Krüger, M., & Braun, D. A. (2017) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e20010001 · Cited by 181
A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias
Korteling, J. E., Brouwer, A.-M., & Toet, A. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01561 · Cited by 158
Metadata
- 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
- FWCI
- 1.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
