Confirmation and Disconfirmation: Their Social Advantages
Abstract
In this chapter, we review theory and research on strategies of hypothesis testing. We propose that confirmation is the default option in information processing; however, and contrary to common belief, it is not necessarily a lazy strategy and can even have social advantages. Disconfirmation, on the other hand, may be spontaneous and effortless. We also propose that both strategies, confirmation and disconfirmation, can fulfill inclusionary or exclusionary goals. Finally, a last series of experiments illustrates how perceivers can create ingroup biases without resorting either to confirmation or to disconfirmation. In general, we offer a perspective on perceivers as very flexible gatherers and interpreters of information, who use diverse strategies to their functional advantage.
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?
Powerful individuals are more likely to prompt subordinates to behaviorally confirm their social conceptions than relatively powerless subjects.
“For instance, powerful individuals have been found to be more likely to prompt subordinates to behaviorally confirm their social conceptions than relatively powerless subjects (Copeland 1994;Leyens et al. 1999).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Leyens et al. 1999
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 97 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Leyens, J.-P., Dardenne, B., Yzerbyt, V., Scaillet, N., & Snyder, M.
- Affiliations
- UCLouvain (BE)
- Fund for Scientific Research (BE)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Venue
- European Review of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 199-230
- ISSN
- 1046-3283 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-277X
- OpenAlex
- W1977693759
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 97
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 34.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Review of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Université Catholique de Louvain
- Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
- Fondation Francqui - Stichting
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
- Keywords
- confirmation, disconfirmation, hypothesis testing, information processing strategies, social advantage, in-group favoritism, social perception, information gathering
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
