Biased Evaluation of Abstracts Depending on Topic and Conclusion: Further Evidence of a Confirmation Bias Within Scientific Psychology
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Confirmation bias is stronger when researchers view hypotheses as being more plausible.
“This bias is stronger when researchers view hypotheses as being more plausible”
From Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? (2020) · cites this paper as Hergovich, Schott, & Burger, 2010
Cites
Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880 · Cited by 1,052 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings?
Rubin, M. (2020) · The Quantitative Methods for Psychology · doi:10.20982/tqmp.16.4.p376 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
“(e.g., Butzer, 2019; Hergovich et al., 2010).”
When cognition turns vicious: Heuristics and biases in light of virtue epistemology
Samuelson, P. L., & Church, I. M. (2015) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2014.904197 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Psychologists update their beliefs about effect sizes after replication studies
McDiarmid, A. D., Tullett, A. M., Whitt, C. M., Vazire, S., Smaldino, P. E., & Stephens, J. E. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01220-7 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hergovich, A., Schott, R., & Burger, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Hergovich, Andreas
- ORCID
- Burger, Christoph
- Venue
- Current Psychology
- Published
- 2010-08-29
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 188-209
- ISSN
- 1046-1310 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-4733
- OpenAlex
- W2077621850
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 4.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Current Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- confirmation bias, abstract evaluation, peer review, prior beliefs, hypothesis confirmation, Big Five personality traits, astrology, methodological quality, psychology as a science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
