ArticlePloS one2014
Opinion dynamics with confirmation bias.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rating our certainty: how confidence judgments amplify belief polarization.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) in Medical Education Teaching Resources: The GRADES10.Journal of CME · 2025Article
- Leveraging uncertainty in collective opinion dynamics with heterogeneity.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cadaver Dissection Experience for First-Time Dissectors: a Hypothetical Three-Pronged Approach for Student Preparation.Medical science educator · 2024Review
- Earlier social information has a stronger influence on judgments.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Update of Diagnosis and Targeted Therapy for ALKCurrent treatment options in oncology · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Choose your shortcuts wisely: COVID-19 rapid reviews of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine.Integrative medicine research · 2020Review
- Choosing what we like vs liking what we choose: How choice-induced preference change might actually be instrumental to decision-making.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Emergence of metapopulations and echo chambers in mobile agents.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Emergence of Leadership in Communication.PloS one · 2016Article
- Collective Dynamics of Belief Evolution under Cognitive Coherence and Social Conformity.PloS one · 2016Article
- Bounded Confidence under Preferential Flip: A Coupled Dynamics of Structural Balance and Opinions.PloS one · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConfirmation bias is the tendency to acquire or evaluate new information in a way that is consistent with one's preexisting beliefs. It is omnipresent in psychology, economics, and even scientific practices. Prior theoretical research of this phenomenon has mainly focused on its economic implications possibly missing its potential connections with broader notions of cognitive science. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe formulate a (non-Bayesian) model for revising subjective probabilistic opinion of a confirmationally-biased agent in the light of a persuasive opinion. The revision rule ensures that the agent does not react to persuasion that is either far from his current opinion or coincides with it. We demonstrate that the model accounts for the basic phenomenology of the social judgment theory, and allows to study various phenomena such as cognitive dissonance and boomerang effect. The model also displays the order of presentation effect-when consecutively exposed to two opinions, the preference is given to the last opinion (recency) or the first opinion (primacy) -and relates recency to confirmation bias. Finally, we study the model in the case of repeated persuasion and analyze its convergence properties.
conclusionsThe standard Bayesian approach to probabilistic opinion revision is inadequate for describing the observed phenomenology of persuasion process. The simple non-Bayesian model proposed here does agree with this phenomenology and is capable of reproducing a spectrum of effects observed in psychology: primacy-recency phenomenon, boomerang effect and cognitive dissonance. We point out several limitations of the model that should motivate its future development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.