Literature DB >> 28484952

The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources.

Falk Lieder1,2, Thomas L Griffiths3,4, Quentin J M Huys5,6, Noah D Goodman7.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anchoring-and-adjustment; Bounded rationality; Cognitive biases; Heuristics; Probabilistic reasoning; Rational process models

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28484952     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1286-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  41 in total

1.  Are adjustments insufficient?

Authors:  Nicholas Epley; Thomas Gilovich
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2004-04

2.  Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making.

Authors:  Birte Englich; Thomas Mussweiler; Fritz Strack
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2006-02

3.  The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: why the adjustments are insufficient.

Authors:  Nicholas Epley; Thomas Gilovich
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-04

4.  Decision by sampling.

Authors:  Neil Stewart; Nick Chater; Gordon D A Brown
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2006-01-24       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  Rationality.

Authors:  Eldar Shafir; Robyn A LeBoeuf
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 24.137

6.  A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents.

Authors:  T D Wilson; C E Houston; K M Etling; N Brekke
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1996-12

7.  Computational rationality: linking mechanism and behavior through bounded utility maximization.

Authors:  Richard L Lewis; Andrew Howes; Satinder Singh
Journal:  Top Cogn Sci       Date:  2014-03-20

8.  Empirical evidence for resource-rational anchoring and adjustment.

Authors:  Falk Lieder; Thomas L Griffiths; Quentin J M Huys; Noah D Goodman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-04

9.  Win-Stay, Lose-Sample: a simple sequential algorithm for approximating Bayesian inference.

Authors:  Elizabeth Bonawitz; Stephanie Denison; Alison Gopnik; Thomas L Griffiths
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Neural dynamics as sampling: a model for stochastic computation in recurrent networks of spiking neurons.

Authors:  Lars Buesing; Johannes Bill; Bernhard Nessler; Wolfgang Maass
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 4.475

View more
  14 in total

1.  Empirical evidence for resource-rational anchoring and adjustment.

Authors:  Falk Lieder; Thomas L Griffiths; Quentin J M Huys; Noah D Goodman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-04

2.  Inferring an unobservable population size from observable samples.

Authors:  Jack Cao; Mahzarin R Banaji
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-04

3.  Mind, rationality, and cognition: An interdisciplinary debate.

Authors:  Nick Chater; Teppo Felin; David C Funder; Gerd Gigerenzer; Jan J Koenderink; Joachim I Krueger; Denis Noble; Samuel A Nordli; Mike Oaksford; Barry Schwartz; Keith E Stanovich; Peter M Todd
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-04

Review 4.  Optimality and heuristics in perceptual neuroscience.

Authors:  Justin L Gardner
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 5.  Resolving uncertainty in a social world.

Authors:  Oriel FeldmanHall; Amitai Shenhav
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2019-04-22

6.  A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias.

Authors:  Johan E Korteling; Anne-Marie Brouwer; Alexander Toet
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-09-03

7.  Assess the Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of LACE and HOSPITAL Re-Admission Prediction Models as a Risk Management Tool for Home Care Patients: An Evaluation Study of a Medical Center Affiliated Home Care Unit in Taiwan.

Authors:  Mei-Chin Su; Yi-Jen Wang; Tzeng-Ji Chen; Shiao-Hui Chiu; Hsiao-Ting Chang; Mei-Shu Huang; Li-Hui Hu; Chu-Chuan Li; Su-Ju Yang; Jau-Ching Wu; Yu-Chun Chen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-02-02       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Non-Equilibrium Relations for Bounded Rational Decision-Making in Changing Environments.

Authors:  Jordi Grau-Moya; Matthias Krüger; Daniel A Braun
Journal:  Entropy (Basel)       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 2.524

9.  Decision making biases in the allied health professions: A systematic scoping review.

Authors:  Rebecca Featherston; Laura E Downie; Adam P Vogel; Karyn L Galvin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Rational metareasoning and the plasticity of cognitive control.

Authors:  Falk Lieder; Amitai Shenhav; Sebastian Musslick; Thomas L Griffiths
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.