* articles.bib (SimLebNel2010anchoring,AfsSilMis2022design,

 JacKah1995anchoring): New.

articles.bib

@@ -185,6 +185,21 @@ @Article{AfsMieRui2021survey
                   preference information, multiobjective optimization problems}
 }
 
+@Article{AfsSilMis2022design,
+  author       = {Afsar, Bekir} #and# {Silvennoinen, Johanna} #and# {Misitano,
+                  Giovanni} #and# Ruiz_Francisco #and# {Ruiz, Ana B.} #and#
+                  Miettinen,
+  title        = {Designing empirical experiments to compare interactive
+                  multiobjective optimization methods},
+  journal      = jors,
+  year         = 2022,
+  volume       = 74,
+  number       = 11,
+  pages        = {2327--2338},
+  month        = nov,
+  doi          = {10.1080/01605682.2022.2141145}
+}
+
 @Article{AgoPea1973normality,
   doi =          {10.2307/2335012},
   year =         1973,
@@ -8648,6 +8663,36 @@ @Article{JacBru1995:ig
   pages =        {1129--1140}
 }
 
+@Article{JacKah1995anchoring,
+  author       = {Jacowitz, Karen E.} #and# Kahneman,
+  title        = {Measures of {Anchoring} in {Estimation} {Tasks}},
+  journal      = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
+  year         = 1995,
+  volume       = 21,
+  number       = 11,
+  pages        = {1161--1166},
+  month        = nov,
+  issn         = {0146-1672},
+  doi          = {10.1177/01461672952111004},
+  abstract     = {The authors describe a method for the quantitative study of
+                  anchoring effects in estimation tasks. A calibration group
+                  provides estimates of a set of uncertain quantities. Subjects
+                  in the anchored condition first judge whether a specified
+                  number (the anchor) is higher or lower than the true value
+                  before estimating each quantity. The anchors are set at
+                  predetermined percentiles of the distribution of estimates in
+                  the calibration group (15th and 85th percentiles in this
+                  study). This procedure permits the transformation of anchored
+                  estimates into percentiles in the calibration group, allows
+                  pooling of results across problems, and provides a natural
+                  measure of the size of the effect. The authors illustrate the
+                  method by a demonstration that the initial judgment of the
+                  anchor is susceptible to an anchoring-like bias and by an
+                  analysis of the relation between anchoring and subjective
+                  confidence.},
+  language     = {en}
+}
+
 @Article{JacOzcJoh2018,
   author =       {Warren G. Jackson} #and# Ozcan_E #and# {Robert I. John},
   title =        {Move acceptance in local search metaheuristics for cross-domain search},
@@ -16032,6 +16077,47 @@ @Article{SimNew1958heur
   pages =        {1--10},
 }
 
+@Article{SimLebNel2010anchoring,
+  author       = {Simmons, Joseph P. and LeBoeuf, Robyn A. and Nelson, Leif D.},
+  title        = {The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and
+                  adjustment: {Do} people adjust from provided anchors?},
+  journal      = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
+  year         = 2010,
+  volume       = 99,
+  number       = 6,
+  pages        = {917--932},
+  issn         = {1939-1315, 0022-3514},
+  shorttitle   = {The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and
+                  adjustment},
+  doi          = {10.1037/a0021540},
+  abstract     = {Increasing accuracy motivation (e.g., by providing monetary
+                  incentives for accuracy) often fails to increase adjustment
+                  away from provided anchors, a result that has led researchers
+                  to conclude that people do not effortfully adjust away from
+                  such anchors. We challenge this conclusion. First, we show
+                  that people are typically uncertain about which way to adjust
+                  from provided anchors and that this uncertainty often causes
+                  people to believe that they have initially adjusted too far
+                  away from such anchors (Studies 1a and 1b). Then, we show
+                  that although accuracy motivation fails to increase the gap
+                  between anchors and final estimates when people are uncertain
+                  about the direction of adjustment, accuracy motivation does
+                  increase anchor-estimate gaps when people are certain about
+                  the direction of adjustment, and that this is true regardless
+                  of whether the anchors are provided or self-generated
+                  (Studies 2, 3a, 3b, and 5). These results suggest that people
+                  do effortfully adjust away from provided anchors but that
+                  uncertainty about the direction of adjustment makes that
+                  adjustment harder to detect than previously assumed. This
+                  conclusion has important theoretical implications, suggesting
+                  that currently emphasized distinctions between anchor types
+                  (self-generated vs. provided) are not fundamental and that
+                  ostensibly competing theories of anchoring (selective
+                  accessibility and anchoring-and-adjustment) are
+                  complementary.},
+  language     = {en}
+}
+
 @Article{Simon1955,
   author =       Simon_HA,
   title =        {A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice},
@@ -18788,6 +18874,7 @@ @Article{ranger2017:jss
   pages =        {1--17},
   doi =          {10.18637/jss.v077.i01}
 }
+
 @Article{scikit-learn2011,
   title =        {Scikit-learn: Machine learning in {\proglang{Python}}},
   author =       {Pedregosa, F. and Varoquaux, G. and Gramfort, A. and Michel,