ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2018
The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Life and Death Decisions and COVID-19: Investigating and Modeling the Effect of Framing, Experience, and Context on Preference Reversals in the Asian Disease Problem.Topics in cognitive science · 2022Trial
- Clarifying the muddle: towards a comprehensive taxonomy of cognitive biases in medicine.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- The Robustness of Anchoring in a Naturalistic VR-Based Task.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Generated outcomes in risky choice reveal biased sampling and sequential dependencies.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Vaccine Incentives Harm Intrinsic Motivation: Evidence From a Priming Experiment.Health economics · 2026Article
- Weighting Bayesian information in human judgment under uncertainty: a hierarchical theory of cognitive biases.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A Resource-Rational Account of Human Eye Movements During Immersive Visual Search.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Teaching common cognitive biases and associated errors in veterinary neurologic diagnosis using clinical vignettes: a narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Information sampling and Bayesian belief formation in statistical judgment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Noise in Cognition: Bug or Feature?Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Article
- Understanding learning through uncertainty and bias.Communications psychology · 2025Review
- Pause before action: Waiting short time as a simple and resource-rational boost.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Clinical Decision-Making Through Multi-Agent Conversations Using Large Language Models: Simulation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Human-artificial intelligence interaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- The autocorrelated Bayesian sampler: A rational process for probability judgments, estimates, confidence intervals, choices, confidence judgments, and response times.Psychological review · 2024Article
- Active reinforcement learning versus action bias and hysteresis: control with a mixture of experts and nonexperts.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Explaining the flaws in human random generation as local sampling with momentum.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Rapid runtime learning by curating small datasets of high-quality items obtained from memory.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Investigation of text-mining methodologies to aid the construction of search strategies in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy-a case study.Research synthesis methods · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28484952What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.