Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40842605›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Cognitive biases as Bayesian probability weighting in context.

Bruno Kopp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Bruno KoppCognitive Neuropsychology, Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Humans often exhibit systematic biases in judgments under uncertainty, such as conservatism bias and base-rate neglect. This study investigates the context dependence of these biases within a Bayesian framework. Methods: Forty-eight participants made subjective probability judgments in 12 scenarios requiring the integration of prior probabilities and evidence likelihoods. Results: Results show that task context mediates the weighting of priors and evidence: small-world scenarios (e.g., urn problems) emphasize priors, thus amplifying the conservatism bias, whereas large-world scenarios (e.g., taxi problems) increase sensitivity to evidence, leading to base-rate neglect. Presenting probabilistic information as relative frequencies rather than probabilities did not attenuate these biases. Discussion: To explain these findings, we propose the Adaptive Bayesian Cognition (ABC) model, which describes how individuals dynamically adjust the weighting of priors and evidence. By integrating normative Bayesian principles with psychological insights, the ABC model recasts cognitive biases as adaptive strategies shaped by capacity constraints and meta-learning in specific contexts. These findings bridge cognitive psychology, behavioral economics, and computational modeling to provide a unified framework for understanding subjective probability, probability weighting, and decision making under uncertainty. This work also informs the design of decision support systems.

Indexed as

Bayesian inferencecognitive biasescomputational modelsdecision makingdecision supportlearning from context

Identifiers

PMID40842605
PMCPMC12366471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.