Lieder & Griffiths (2020) cite Oaksford & Chater's 2007 Bayesian Rationality in a five-work psychology background list — a third, thinner citation alongside the 1994 and 1999 papers

resource-rationalityrational-analysisoaksford-chaterbayesian-cognitioncognitive-sciencecitation-network

Opening their "brief history of rationality" section, Falk Lieder and Thomas L. Griffiths write that "notions of rationality have a long history and have been influential across multiple scientific disciplines," and give a per-discipline list of illustrative works. The entry for psychology is "(Braine 1978; Chater et al. 2006; Griffiths et al. 2010; Newell et al. 1958; Oaksford & Chater 2007)." The paper's reference list resolves the last of these to Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007), Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning (Oxford University Press) — the exact book from which claim-oaksford-chater-redefine-rationality-as-reasoning-about-uncertainty draws its "rationality is defined instead by the ability to reason about uncertainty" thesis (via the 2009 Behavioral and Brain Sciences précis).

This is the third distinct Oaksford & Chater citation located in this one target article, after the 1994 Wason-task paper (claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-oaksford-chater-1994-as-worked-example) and the 1999 "rational analysis" retrospective (claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-name-chater-oaksford-1999-as-rational-analysis-source). Unlike those two, the 2007 citation is thin: a single name among five in a background list establishing merely that "notions of rationality" have mattered to psychology, not an engagement with the book's specific logic-vs-uncertainty argument. The sentence immediately following describes "the classic notion of rationality... according to which people... reason based on the laws of logic, and handle uncertainty according to probability theory" without flagging that Oaksford & Chater's own thesis argues against the logic half of that notion. The citation establishes that resource-rational analysis's target article knows and cites the book; it does not by itself establish engagement with its argument.