What do the concepts of representative bias Anchoring bias and hindsight bias all have in common?

• Abbott, J.T., Austerweil, J.L., & Griffiths, T.L. (2015). Random walks on semantic networks can resemble optimal foraging. Psychological Review, 122(3), 558–569.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Abbott, J.T., & Griffiths, T.L. (2011). Exploring the influence of particle filter parameters on order effects in causal learning, In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, Texas: Cognitive Science Society.

  Google Scholar 

• Anderson, J.R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 22(3), 261– 295.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Anderson, J.R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Anderson, J.R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 471–485.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 439–449.

  Google Scholar 

• Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). Win-stay, lose-sample: A simple sequential algorithm for approximating Bayesian inference. Cognitive Psychology, 74, 35–65.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Probabilistic models, learning algorithms, and response variability: Sampling in cognitive development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(10), 497–500.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Bourgin, D. D., Abbott, J. T., Griffiths, T. L., Smith, K. A., & Vul, E. (2014). Empirical evidence for markov chain monte carlo in memory search. In Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, (pp. 224–229).

• Braine, M. D. (1978). On the relation between the natural logic of reasoning and standard logic. Psychological Review, 85(1), 1.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Brewer, N. T., & Chapman, G. B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 65–77.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Buesing, L., Bill, J., Nessler, B., & Maass, W. (2011). Neural dynamics as sampling: A model for stochastic computation in recurrent networks of spiking neurons. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(11), e1002211.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223–242.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Chater, N., & Oaksford, M. (2000). The rational analysis of mind and behavior. Synthese, 122(1), 93–131.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological review, 82(6), 407.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Denison, S., Bonawitz, E., Gopnik, A., & Griffiths, T. (2013). Rational variability in children’s causal inferences: The sampling hypothesis. Cognition, 126(2), 285–300.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual review of psychology, 64, 135.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Doucet, A., De Freitas, N., & Gordon, N. (2001). Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice. New York: Springer.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188–200.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Epley, N. (2004). A tale of tuned decks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustment. In Koehler, D. J., & Harvey, N. (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 240–256). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Are adjustments insufficient? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 447–460.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 199–212.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 327–339.

• Fiser, J., Berkes, P., Orbán, G., & Lengyel, M. (2010). Statistically optimal perception and learning: From behavior to neural representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 119–130.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Frank, M., & Goodman, N. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. The Journal of Political Economy, 279–304.

• Friston, K. (2009). The free-energy principle: A rough guide to the brain?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (7), 293–301.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Friston, K., & Kiebel, S. (2009). Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1211–1221.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Gershman, S. J., Horvitz, E. J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines. Science, 349(6245), 273–278.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Gershman, S. J., Vul, E., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2012). Multistability and perceptual inference. Neural Computation, 24(1), 1–24.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20–29.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2002) In In Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

• Gilks, W., Richardson, S., & Spiegelhalter, D. (1996). Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. London: Chapman and Hall.

  Google Scholar 

• Good, I. J. (1983). Good thinking: The foundations of probability and its applications. USA: Univ Of Minnesota Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Griffiths, T. L., Lieder, F., & Goodman, N. D. (2015). Rational use of cognitive resources: Levels of analysis between the computational and the algorithmic. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 217–229.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2006). Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychological Science, 17(9), 767–773.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2011). Predicting the future as Bayesian inference: People combine prior knowledge with observations when estimating duration and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140 (4), 725–743.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Habenschuss, S., Jonke, Z., & Maass, W. (2013). Stochastic computations in cortical microcircuit models. PLoS Computational Biology, 9(11), e1003311.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Hardt, O., & Pohl, R. (2003). Hindsight bias as a function of anchor distance and anchor plausibility. Memory, 11(4-5), 379–394.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Harman, G. (2013). Rationality. In LaFollette, H., Deigh, J., & Stroud, S. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

  Google Scholar 

• Hastings, W. K. (1970). Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika, 57(1), 97–109.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hedström, P., & Stern, C. (2008). Rational choice and sociology. In Durlauf, S., & Blume, L. (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. 2nd edn. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.

  Google Scholar 

• 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.

  Google Scholar 

• Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161–1166.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lewis, R. L., Howes, A., & Singh, S. (2014). Computational rationality: Linking mechanism and behavior through bounded utility maximization. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(2), 279–311.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• 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.

  Google Scholar 

• Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2015). When to use which heuristic: A rational solution to the strategy selection problem. In Noelle, D. C., & et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Austin. TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  Google Scholar 

• Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Burn-in, bias, and the rationality of anchoring. In Bartlett, P., Pereira, F. C. N., Bottou, L., Burges, C. J. C., & Weinberger, K. Q. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26.

  Google Scholar 

• Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., Huys, Q. J. M., & Goodman, N. D. (2017). Empirical evidence for resource-rational anchoring-and-adjustment.

• Lieder, F., Hsu, M., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). The high availability of extreme events serves resource-rational decision-making., In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  Google Scholar 

• Lieder, F., Plunkett, D., Hamrick, J. B., Russell, S. J., Hay, N. J., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). Algorithm selection by rational metareasoning as a model of human strategy selection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27.

• Lohmann, S. (2008). Rational choice and political science. In Durlauf, S., & Blume, L. (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. 2nd edn. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.

  Google Scholar 

• Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman. Paperback.

• McKenzie, C. R. (1994). The accuracy of intuitive judgment strategies: Covariation assessment and bayesian inference. Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 209–239.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mengersen, K. L., & Tweedie, R. L. (1996). Rates of convergence of the Hastings and Metropolis algorithms. Annals of Statistics, 24(1), 101–121.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mill, J. S. (1882). A system of logic ratiocinative and inductive, 8th edn. New York: Harper and Brothers.

  Google Scholar 

• Moreno-Bote, R., Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2011). Bayesian sampling in visual perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(30), 12491– 12496.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136–164.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Neal, R. (2011) In Brooks, S., Gelman, A., Jones, G., & Meng, X. L. (Eds.), MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics (Vol. 2, pp. 113–162). FL, USA: CRC Press.

• Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 106(3), 226.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review, 65(3), 151–166.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Nisbett, R. E., & Borgida, E. (1975). Attribution and the psychology of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 932–943.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

  Google Scholar 

• Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84–97.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning (Oxford cognitive science series), 1st edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker: Cambridge University Press.

• Pohl, R. F. (1998). The effects of feedback source and plausibility of hindsight bias. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 191–212.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Russell, S. J. (1997). Rationality and intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1-2), 57–77.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Russell, S. J., & Subramanian, D. (1995). Provably bounded-optimal agents. Journal of Articial Intelligence Research, 2, 575–609.

  Google Scholar 

• Russell, S. J., & Wefald, E. (1991). Do the right thing: Studies in limited rationality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1989). Decision traps: Ten barriers to brilliant decision-making and how to overcome them: Simon and Schuster.

• Sanborn, A. N., Griffiths, T. L., & Navarro, D. J. (2010). Rational approximations to rational models: Alternative algorithms for category learning. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1144– 1167.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Schwarz, N. (2014). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods and the logic of conversation. New York: Psychology Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2002). Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 491–517.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Shugan, S. M. (1980). The cost of thinking. Journal of consumer Research, 7(2), 99–111.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Simmons, J. P., LeBoeuf, R. A., & Nelson, L. D. (2010). The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 917–932.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1, 161–176.

  Google Scholar 

• Simon, H. A. (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality. In Kastelein, T. J., Kuipers, S. K., Nijenhuis, W. A., & Wagenaar, G. R. (Eds.), 25 Years of Economic Theory (pp. 65–86). US: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Simonson, I., & Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 681–690.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. In Jungermann, H., & De Zeeuw, G. (Eds.), Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs, (Vol. 16 pp. 7–36). Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

• Sosis, C., & Bishop, M. (2014). Rationality. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Cognitive Science, 5, 27–37.

  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Speirs-Bridge, A., Fidler, F., McBride, M., Flander, L., Cumming, G., & Burgman, M. (2010). Reducing overconfidence in the interval judgments of experts. Risk Analysis, 30(3), 512–523.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 1–26.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Sunnåker, M., Busetto, A. G., Numminen, E., Corander, J., Foll, M., & Dessimoz, C. (2013). Approximate bayesian computation. PLoS Computational Biology, 9(1), e1002803.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Thorngate, W. (1980). Efficient decision heuristics. Behavioral Science, 25(3), 219–225.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Turner, B. M., & Schley, D. R. (2016). The anchor integration model: A descriptive model of anchoring effects. Cognitive Psychology, 90, 1–47.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Turner, B. M., & Sederberg, P. B. (2012). Approximate bayesian computation with differential evolution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 375–385.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 939–984.

• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). The theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton university press.

  Google Scholar 

• Vul, E., Goodman, N. D., Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2014). One and done? Optimal decisions from very few samples. Cognitive Science, 38, 599–637.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(3), 273–281.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(4), 387.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wright, W. F., & Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(1), 68–82.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zhang, Y. C., & Schwarz, N. (2013). The power of precise numbers: A conversational logic analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 944–946.

  Article  Google Scholar 

Page 2

From: The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources