ArticleScientific reports2024
A common factor underlying individual differences in confirmation bias.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling metacognition and executive functions in the metacognitive wisconsin card sorting test using the neuropsychological digital-twin method.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Neural correlates of conditional reasoning dysfunction in major depression: An event-related potential study with the Wason selection task.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Toward Data-Informed Care in Long-Term Care: Qualitative Analysis.JMIR aging · 2025Article
- Generative artificial intelligence-mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When they are asked to test a given hypothesis, individuals tend to be biased towards confirming evidence. This phenomenon has been documented on different cognitive components: information search, weighing of evidence, and memory recall. However, the interpretation of these observations has been debated, and it remains unclear whether they truly reflect a confirmation bias (as opposed to e.g., a bias towards positive information). In the present study we aimed at evaluating whether these biases might be subtended by a common factor. We adapted three classic experimental paradigms on hypothesis testing (Wason selection task, 2-4-6 task, and interviewee task) and examined the relation between these biases using an individual differences approach. Participants (N = 200) completed a total of nine behavioral tasks, in which each component of confirmation bias was measured in each of the three experimental paradigms. Correlations and factor analyses within a multitrait-multimethod framework indicated greater convergence of bias scores within each component across paradigms, than within experimental paradigms. This suggests that a common factor underlies the different measurements of confirmation bias across experimental paradigms, at least to some extent. In these paradigms, thus, biases towards confirming evidence may truly reflect a confirmation bias.
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.