Confirmation Theory Study

The study used a 3 (Communication Condition. Confirming vs. Confirming-Plus-Challenging vs. Disconfirming) by 2 (Time. Pre-Interaction vs. Post-Interaction) mixed factorial design to examine whether trained confederates could enact three communicatively distinct interaction styles with their close friends and whether brief exposure to each style produced measurable change in two self-evaluative outcomes (self-efficacy, resilience) and two relational outcomes (closeness, satisfaction). One member of each dyad served as a confederate following standardized training. The other member, the non-confederate, was the recipient of the manipulation and is the focus of outcome analyses. Each interaction was recorded and rated by two coders blinded to condition assignment using a forced-choice classification. The headline findings are summarized in the manuscript. Briefly, the manipulation succeeded for 100% of disconfirming dyads, 86% of confirming dyads, and 32% of confirming-plus-challenging dyads, indicating asymmetric perceivability across communication styles. Despite this asymmetry, brief exposure did not produce measurable pre-to-post change on the four primary outcomes in either the intent-to-treat or per-protocol analyses.