A common factor underlying individual differences in confirmation bias

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2024-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78053-7
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Social and Intergroup Psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.66

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A common factor underlying individual differences in confirmation bias

Vincent Berthet, Predrag Teovanović, Vincent de Gardelle
5 citations
Scientific Reports
Social and Intergroup Psychology
5.66
article

A common factor underlying individual differences in confirmation bias

Vincent Berthet, Predrag Teovanović, Vincent de Gardelle
article en
5 citations

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.

Scientific ReportsVol. 14(1)
University of Belgrade (RS), Centre d'Économie de la Sorbonne (FR), Individual Differences (US), Laboratoire lorrain de psychologie et neurosciences de la dynamique des comportements, Paris School of Economics (FR), Université de Lorraine (FR)
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Social and Intergroup Psychology
5.66
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.