The Anchoring Bias Reflects Rational Use of Cognitive Resources

Overview

Journal Psychon Bull Rev

Specialty Psychology

Date 2017 May 10

PMID 28484952

Citations 27

Authors

Falk Lieder

Thomas L Griffiths

Quentin J M Huys

Noah D Goodman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Understanding learning through uncertainty and bias.

Bruckner R, Heekeren H, Nassar M Commun Psychol. 2025; 3(1):24.

PMID: 39948273 PMC: 11825852. DOI: 10.1038/s44271-025-00203-y.

Pause before action: Waiting short time as a simple and resource-rational boost.

Shirasuna M, Kagawa R, Honda H Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):4362.

PMID: 39910115 PMC: 11799143. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-87119-z.

Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Clinical Decision-Making Through Multi-Agent Conversations Using Large Language Models: Simulation Study.

Ke Y, Yang R, Lie S, Lim T, Ning Y, Li I J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e59439.

PMID: 39561363 PMC: 11615553. DOI: 10.2196/59439.

Human-artificial intelligence interaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Campion J, OConnor D, Lahiff C World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2024; 16(3):126-135.

PMID: 38577646 PMC: 10989254. DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v16.i3.126.

Active reinforcement learning versus action bias and hysteresis: control with a mixture of experts and nonexperts.

Colas J, ODoherty J, Grafton S PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(3):e1011950.

PMID: 38552190 PMC: 10980507. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011950.

References

Wilson T, Houston C, Etling K, Brekke N . A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996; 125(4):387-402. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.125.4.387. View

Lewis R, Howes A, Singh S . Computational rationality: linking mechanism and behavior through bounded utility maximization. Top Cogn Sci. 2014; 6(2):279-311. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12086. View

Lieder F, Griffiths T, Huys Q, Goodman N . Empirical evidence for resource-rational anchoring and adjustment. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017; 25(2):775-784. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1288-6. View

Epley N, Gilovich T . Are adjustments insufficient?. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004; 30(4):447-60. DOI: 10.1177/0146167203261889. View

Epley N, Gilovich T . The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17(4):311-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x. View

Shafir E, LeBoeuf R . Rationality. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 53:491-517. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135213. View

Bonawitz E, Denison S, Gopnik A, Griffiths T . Win-Stay, Lose-Sample: a simple sequential algorithm for approximating Bayesian inference. Cogn Psychol. 2014; 74:35-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.06.003. View

Buesing L, Bill J, Nessler B, Maass W . Neural dynamics as sampling: a model for stochastic computation in recurrent networks of spiking neurons. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011; 7(11):e1002211. PMC: 3207943. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002211. View

Stewart N, Chater N, Brown G . Decision by sampling. Cogn Psychol. 2006; 53(1):1-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.003. View

10.

Englich B, Mussweiler T, Strack F . Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005; 32(2):188-200. DOI: 10.1177/0146167205282152. View

11.

Epley N, Keysar B, Van Boven L, Gilovich T . Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004; 87(3):327-39. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327. View

12.

Griffiths T, Tenenbaum J . Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17(9):767-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01780.x. View

13.

Frank M, Goodman N . Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science. 2012; 336(6084):998. DOI: 10.1126/science.1218633. View

14.

Diamond A . Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012; 64:135-68. PMC: 4084861. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750. View

15.

Simmons J, LeBoeuf R, Nelson L . The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: do people adjust from provided anchors?. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010; 99(6):917-32. DOI: 10.1037/a0021540. View

16.

Griffiths T, Tenenbaum J . Predicting the future as Bayesian inference: people combine prior knowledge with observations when estimating duration and extent. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011; 140(4):725-43. DOI: 10.1037/a0024899. View

17.

Sanborn A, Griffiths T, Navarro D . Rational approximations to rational models: alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychol Rev. 2010; 117(4):1144-67. DOI: 10.1037/a0020511. View

18.

Bonawitz E, Denison S, Griffiths T, Gopnik A . Probabilistic models, learning algorithms, and response variability: sampling in cognitive development. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014; 18(10):497-500. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.06.006. View

19.

Turner B, Schley D . The anchor integration model: A descriptive model of anchoring effects. Cogn Psychol. 2016; 90:1-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.07.003. View

20.

Tversky A, Kahneman D . Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. View