ArticlePersonality & social psychology bulletin2025
Conflictive Uncertainty: A Framework for Understanding the Aversion to Conflicting Information in Social Contexts.
Article in Personality & social psychology bulletin, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conflicting information can significantly undermine emotions, cognition, and behavior. This paper aims to understand the negative impact of conflicting information through the lens of conflictive uncertainty. Conflictive uncertainty encompasses two dimensions: the epistemological dimension, which involves uncertainty and ambiguity about outcomes and probabilities, and the interpersonal dimension, which arises from doubts about the credibility of sources. Three experiments were conducted to test this framework. Experiment 1 found that, under conflictive uncertainty, participants rated lower source credibility and exhibited weaker preferences compared to ambiguity. Experiment 2 revealed that the negative impact of conflicting information on the strength of preference was mediated by reduced source credibility and increased perceived uncertainty. Experiment 3 demonstrated that neutralizing the loss of credibility mitigated the adverse effects of conflicting information on the strength of preference. These findings highlight the roles of source credibility and perceived uncertainty in understanding the negative effects of conflicting information on decision-making.
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.