Foreign Researchers’ Studies on Cognitive Biases in Users’Online Information Search: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Abstract:

This review aims to elucidate the current status of foreign research on cognitive biasesin users’ online information search, in order to provide researchers with a more comprehensiveunderstanding of this domain. Adhering to the principles of systematic review, a total of 104 scholarlyarticles sourced from eight academic databases were scrutinized, encompassing analyses acrossfour dimensions: publication trends, theoretical frameworks, research themes, and methodologies. Agradual increase has been observed in studies addressing cognitive biases in users’ online informationsearch in recent years, reflecting a growing scholarly interest in this field. The foundational theoriesunderpinning these investigations primarily originate from psychology and communication studies.Relevant research predominantly focuses on four sub-themes pertaining to cognitive biases: typology,causation, the influence of cognitive biases on information search, and corrective strategies. Additionally,our observations of research trends highlight the prevalence of experimental methodologies as the mostfrequently employed method in current research endeavors.

Han Zhengbiao, Zhang Wei, Qi Jinglin (School of Information Management, Nanjing Agricultural University). Foreign Researchers’ Studies on Cognitive Biases in Users’Online Information Search: A Systematic Review[J]. Libraly Journal, 2024, 43(397): 94-107.

References

[ 1 ] Zimmerman S. Exploring strategies to preventharm from web search[J]. SIGIR Forum， 2021，55（1）：1—2.

[ 2 ] Kiesel J， Spina D， Wachsmuth H， et al.The meant， the said， and the understood：Conversational argument search and cognitivebiases[C]//Proceedings of the 3rd Conference onConversational User Interfaces. 2021： 1—5.

[ 3 ] Keane M T， O’brien M， Smyth B. Are peoplebiased in their use of search engines?[J].Communications of the ACM， 2008， 51（2）： 49—52.

[ 4 ] Chaiken S. Heuristic and systematic informationprocessing within and beyond the persuasioncontext[M]//Uleman J S， Bargh J A. Unintendedthought. New York： The Guilford Press， 1989：212—252.

[ 5 ] Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning[J].Psychological Bulletin， 1990， 108（3）： 480.

[ 6 ] Eickhoff C. Cognitive biases in crowdsourcing[C]//Proceedings of the eleventh ACM internationalconference on web search and data mining. 2018：162—170.

[ 7 ] Tversky A， Kahneman D. Judgment underUncertainty： Heuristics and Biases[J]. Science，1974， 185（4157）：1124—1131.

[ 8 ] Oulasvirta A， Hukkinen J P， Schwartz B. Whenmore is less： the paradox of choice in search engineuse[C]//Proceedings of the 32nd international ACMSIGIR conference on research and development ininformation retrieval. Boston， USA，2009： 516—523.

[ 9 ] Greving H， Sassenberg K. Counter-regulationonline： Threat biases retrieval of informationduring Internet search[J]. Computers in HumanBehavior， 2015， 50： 291—298.

[10] Gadarian S K， Albertson B. Anxiety， immigration，and the search for information[J]. PoliticalPsychology， 2014， 35（2）： 133—164.

[11] Kadous K， Magro A M， Spilker B C. Do effectsof client preference on accounting professionals’information search and subsequent judgmentspersist with high practice risk?[J]. The AccountingReview， 2008， 83（1）： 133—156.

[12] Ihoriya H， Suzuki M， Yamamoto Y. MitigatingPosition Bias in Review Search Results with AspectIndicator for Loss Aversion[C]//InternationalConference on Human-Computer Interaction.Cham： Springer International Publishing， 2022：17—32.

[13] Kammerer Y， Gerjets P. The role of search resultposition and source trustworthiness in the selectionof web search results when using a list or a grid interface[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction， 2014， 30（3）： 177—191.

[14] Azzopardi L. Cognitive biases in search： a reviewand reflection of cognitive biases in InformationRetrieval[C]//Proceedings of the 2021 conferenceon human information interaction and retrieval.2021： 27—37.

[15] Chen T. A systematic integrative review ofcognitive biases in consumer health informationseeking： emerging perspective of behavioralinformation research[J]. Journal of Documentation，2020， 77（3）： 798—823.

[16] Page M J， Mckenzie J E， Bossuyt P M， et al. ThePRISMA 2020 statement： an updated guidelinefor reporting systematic reviews[J]. InternationalJournal of Surgery， 2021， 88： 105906.

[17] Baeza-Yates R. Data and algorithmic bias in theweb[C]//Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conferenceon Web Science. 2016： 1.

[18] Riquelme H， Kegeng W. The unintended effectsof hidden assumptions： biases on the internet[J].Online Information Review， 2004， 28（6）： 444—453.

[19] Bonart M， Samokhina A， Heisenberg G， et al. Aninvestigation of biases in web search engine querysuggestions[J]. Online Information Review， 2020，44（2）： 365—381.

[20] Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance[M].California： Stanford University Press，1957.

[21] Pirolli P， Card S. Information foraging ininformation access environments[C]//Proceedingsof the SIGCHI conference on Human factors incomputing systems. 1995： 51—58.

[22] Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence a theoryof public opinion[J]. Journal of Communication，1974， 24（2）： 43—51.

[23] Moscovici S. Toward a theory of conversionbehavior[M]. New York： Academic Press， 1980：209—239.

[24] Zillmann D. Exemplification theory： Judging thewhole by some of its parts[J]. Media Psychology，1999， 1（1）： 69—94.

[25] Chen Yu Chen， Shang An Rong， Kao Chen Yu.The effects of information overload on consumers’subjective state towards buying decision in theinternet shopping environment[J]. ElectronicCommerce Research and Applications， 2009，8（1）： 48—58.

[26] Atkin C. New models for mass communicationresearch[M]. Oxford， England： Sage， 1973：307.

[27] Westerwick A， Kleinman S B， Knobloch-Westerwick S. Turn a blind eye if you care：Impacts of attitude consistency， importance， andcredibility on seeking of political informationand implications for attitudes[J]. Journal ofCommunication， 2013， 63（3）： 432—453.

[28] Schwind C， Buder J， Hesse F W. I will do it，but I don’t like it： user reactions to preferenceinconsistentrecommendations[C]//Proceedingsof the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems. 2011： 349—352.

[29] Vedejová D， ?avojová V. Confirmation bias ininformation search， interpretation， and memoryrecall： Evidence from reasoning about fourcontroversial topics[J]. Thinking & Reasoning，2022， 28（1）： 1—28.

[30] Lallement J， Dejean S， Euzéby F， et al. Theinteraction between reputation and informationsearch： Evidence of information avoidance andconfirmation bias[J]. Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services， 2020， 53： 101787.

[31] Murphy J， Hofacker C， Mizerski R. Primacy andrecency effects on clicking behavior[J]. Journalof Computer-mediated Communication， 2006，11（2）： 522—535.

[32] Hastall M R， Knobloch-Westerwick S. Severity，efficacy， and evidence type as determinantso f h e a l t h m e s s a g e e x p o s u r e [ J ] . H e a l t hCommunication， 2013， 28（4）： 378—388.

[33] Knobloch-Wes terwick S， Johnson B K，Silver N A， et al. Science exemplars in theeye of the beholder： How exposure to onlinescience information affects attitudes[J]. ScienceCommunication， 2015， 37（5）： 575—601.

[34] Slechten L， Courtois C， Coenen L， et al.Adapting the selective exposure perspective toalgorithmically governed platforms： The caseof Google Search[J]. Communication Research，2022， 49（8）： 1039—1065.

[35] Metzger M J， Hartsell E H， Flanagin A J.Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparisonof two theoretical explanations for selectiveexposure to partisan news[J]. CommunicationResearch， 2020， 47（1）： 3—28.

[36] Lau A， Kwok T M Y， Coiera E. The influence ofcrowds on consumer health decisions： an onlineprospective study[C]//13th World Congress onMedical and Health Informatics， Medinfo 2010.IOS Press， 2010： 33—37.

[37] Sude D J， Knobloch-Westerwick S， RobinsonM J， et al. “Pick and choose” opinion climate：How browsing of political messages shapespublic opinion perceptions and attitudes[J].Communication Monographs， 2019， 86（4）：457—478.

[38] 严贝妮，曹娟. 中外认知偏差研究述评[J]. 郑州师范教育， 2015， 4（3）：30—36.

[39] Cragun J. Rigid religious faith promotesselective exposure to attitude-congruent politicalinformation[J]. Political Behavior， 2022， 44（3）：1175—1201.

[40] Suzuki M， Yamamoto Y. Characterizing theInfluence of Confirmation Bias on Web SearchBehavior[J]. Frontiers in Psychology， 2021， 12：771948.

[41] Lee C C， Chiou W B. More eagerness， moresuffering from search bias： Accuracy incentivesand need for cognition exacerbate the detrimentaleffects of excessive searching in finding romanticpartners online[J]. Journal of Behavioral DecisionMaking， 2016， 29（1）： 3—11.

[42] Te Poel F， Baumgartner S E， Hartmann T， et al.The curious case of cyberchondria： A longitudinalstudy on the reciprocal relationship between healthanxiety and online health information seeking[J].Journal of Anxiety Disorders， 2016， 43： 32—40.

[43] Mu s e K， M c m a n u s F ， Leung C， e t a l .Cyberchondriasis： fact or fiction? A preliminaryexamination of the relationship between healthanxiety and searching for health information on theInternet[J]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders， 2012，26（1）： 189—196.

[44] Wedderhoff O， Chasiotis A， Rosman T. Whenfreedom of choice leads to bias： How threatfosters selective exposure to health information[J].Frontiers in Psychology， 2022， 13： 937699.

[45] Schwind C， Buder J. Reducing confirmationbias and evaluation bias： When are preferenceinconsistentrecommendations effective-and whennot?[J]. Computers in Human Behavior， 2012，28（6）： 2280—2290.

[46] Schweiger S， Cress U. Attitude confidenceand source credibility in information foragingwith social tags[J]. PloS One， 2019， 14（1）：e0210423.

[47] White R W， Horvitz E. Cyberchondria： studiesof the escalation of medical concerns in websearch[J]. ACM Transactions on InformationSystems（ TOIS）， 2009， 27（4）： 1—37.

[48] Sude D J， Pearson G D H， Knobloch-WesterwickS. Self-expression just a click away： Sourceinteractivity impacts on confirmation bias andpolitical attitudes[J]. Computers in HumanBehavior， 2021， 114： 106571.

[49] Nam Y， Park H G， Kim Y H. Do you favor positiveinformation or dislike negative information? Culturalvariations in the derivation of the framing effect[J].Current Psychology， 2021，41（11）： 1—7.

[50] Lau A Y S， Kwok T M Y， Coiera E. How onlinecrowds influence the way individual consumersanswer health questions[J]. Applied ClinicalInformatics， 2011， 2（2）： 177—189.

[51] Kuhlthau C C. Inside the search process：Information seeking from the user’s perspective[J].Journal of the American Society for InformationScience， 1991， 42（5）： 361—371.

[52] Sassenberg K， Greving H. Internet searching aboutdisease elicits a positive perception of own healthwhen severity of illness is high： a longitudinalquestionnaire study[J]. Journal of Medical InternetResearch， 2016， 18（3）： e5140.

[53] Rodon C， Meyer T. Searching information on theWeb and Planning Fallacy： A pilot investigationof pessimistic forecasts[J]. European Review ofApplied Psychology， 2012， 62（2）： 103—109.

[54] Yeo S K， Xenos M A， Brossard D， et al. Selectingour own science： How communication contextsand individual traits shape information seeking[J].Annals of the American Academy of Political andSocial Science， 2015， 658（1）： 172—191.

[55] Kayhan V O. Seeking health information on theweb： positive hypothesis testing[J]. InternationalJournal of Medical Informatics， 2013， 82（4）：268—275.

[56] Pothirattanachaikul S， Yamamoto T， YamamotoY， et al. Analyzing the effects of document’sopinion and credibility on search behaviors andbelief dynamics[C]//Proceedings of the 28th ACMInternational Conference on Information andKnowledge Management. 2019： 1653—1662.

[57] Greving H， Sassenberg K， Fetterman A.Counter-regulating on the internet： Threat elicitspreferential processing of positive information[J].Journal of Experimental Psychology： Applied，2015， 21（3）： 287.

[58] Dickinson D L， Kakoschke N. Seekingconfirmation? Biased information search anddeliberation in the food domain[J]. Food Qualityand Preference， 2021， 91： 104189.

[59] Keselman A， Browne A C， Kaufman D R.Consumer health information seeking as hypothesistesting[J]. Journal of the American MedicalInformatics Association， 2008， 15（4）： 484—495.

[60] Jones N M， Mukamel D B， Malik S， et al. Thecosts outweigh the benefits： seeing side-effectsonline may decrease adherence to statins[J]. BMCMedical Informatics and Decision Making， 2020，20（1）： 1—11.

[61] Mischkowski D， Gl?ckner A， Lewisch P.Information search， coherence effects， and theirinterplay in legal decision making[J]. Journal ofEconomic Psychology， 2021， 87： 102445.

[62] Wu P F. In search of negativity bias： An empiricalstudy of perceived helpfulness of online reviews[J].Psychology & Marketing， 2013， 30（11）： 971—984.

[63] Allam A， Schulz P J， Nakamoto K. The impactof search engine selection and sorting criteria onvaccination beliefs and attitudes： two experimentsmanipulating Google output[J]. Journal of MedicalInternet Research， 2014， 16（4）： e2642.

[64] Ieong S， Mishra N， Sadikov E， et al. Domain biasin web search[C]//Proceedings of the fifth ACMinternational conference on Web search and datamining. Seattle， Washington， USA， 2012： 413—422.

[65] Giraldo-Romero Y I， Pérez-De-Los-Cobos-AgüeroC， Mu?oz-Leiva F， et al. Influence of regulatoryfit theory on persuasion from google ads： An eyetracking study[J]. Journal of Theoretical and AppliedElectronic Commerce Research， 2021， 16（5）：1165—1185.

[66] Jansen B J， Resnick M. An examination of searcher’sperceptions of nonsponsored and sponsored linksduring ecommerce Web searching[J]. Journal ofthe American Society for information Science andTechnology， 2006， 57（14）： 1949—1961.

[67] Epstein R， Robertson R E. The search enginemanipulation effect（ SEME） and its possible impacton the outcomes of elections[J]. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences， 2015， 112（33）：E4512—E4521.

[68] Pieschl S. Will using the Internet to answerknowledge questions increase users’ overestimationof their own ability or performance?[J]. MediaPsychology， 2021， 24（1）： 109—135.

[69] Natter H M， Berry D C. Effects of activeinformation processing on the understanding of riskinformation[J]. Applied Cognitive Psychology，2005， 19（1）： 123—135.

[70] Lau A Y S， Coiera E W. Can cognitive biases duringconsumer health information searches be reducedto improve decision making?[J]. Journal of theAmerican Medical Informatics Association， 2009，16（1）： 54—65.

[71] Vydiswaran V G V， Zhai C X， Roth D， et al.Overcoming bias to learn about controversialtopics[J]. Journal of the Association for InformationScience and Technology， 2015， 66（8）： 1655—1672.

[72] Vydiswaran V G V， Zhai C X， Roth D， et al.Unbiased learning of controversial topics[J].Proceedings of the American Society for InformationScience and Technology， 2012， 49（1）： 1—4.

[73] Harris P R， Napper L. Self-affirmation and thebiased processing of threatening health-riskinformation[J]. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin， 2005， 31（9）： 1250—1263.

[74] Schweiger S， Cress U. How Confidence inPrior Attitudes， Social Tag Popularity， andSource Credibility Shape Confirmation BiasToward Antidepressants and Psychotherapy ina Representative German Sample： RandomizedControlled Web-Based Study[J]. Journal of medicalInternet research， 2019， 21（4）： e11081.

[75] White R W， Horvitz E. Captions and biases indiagnostic search[J]. ACM Transactions on theWeb（ TWEB）， 2013， 7（4）： 1—28.

[76] Schweiger S， Oeberst A， Cress U. Confirmationbias in web-based search： a randomized onlinestudy on the effects of expert information and socialtags on information search and evaluation[J]. Journalof Medical Internet Research， 2014， 16（3）： e94.

[77] Rieger A， Draws T， Theune M， et al. This itemmight reinforce your opinion： Obfuscation andlabeling of search results to mitigate confirmationbias[C]//Proceedings of the 32nd ACM conferenceon hypertext and social media. 2021： 189—199.

[78] Chung S. Solving strategy for unintended criticismin online space： Consumer response to firm crisisin online discussion forum[J]. Internet Research，2015， 25（1）： 52—66.

[79] Kobayashi T， Ikeda K. Selective exposure in politicalweb browsing： Empirical verification of“ cyberbalkanization”in Japan and the USA[J]. Information，Communication & Society， 2009， 12（6）： 929—953.

[80] Hoy M G， Levenshus A B. A mixed-methodsapproach to assessing actual risk readershipon branded drug websites[J]. Journal of RiskResearch， 2018， 21（5）： 521—538.

[81] Rieger M O， Wang M， Hausmann D. Pre-decisionalinformation acquisition： Why do we pay toomuch for information? Brief report[J]. Journal ofEconomic Psychology， 2021， 86： 102411.

[82] Van Strien J L H， Kammerer Y， Brand-GruwelS， et al. How attitude strength biases informationprocessing and evaluation on the web[J]. Computersin Human Behavior， 2016， 60： 245—252.

[83] White R W， Horvitz E. Belief dynamics andbiases in web search[J]. ACM Transactions onInformation Systems， 2015， 33（4）： 1—46.

[84] 胡蓉，唐振贵，赵宇翔，等. 移动经验取样法：促进真实情境下的用户信息行为研究[J]. 情报学报，2018， 37（10）：1046—1059.

[85] Lau R R， Andersen D J， Ditonto T M， et al. Effectof media environment diversity and advertising toneon information search， selective exposure， andaffective polarization[J]. Political Behavior， 2017，39： 231—255.

[86] Westerwick A， Johnson B K， Knobloch-WesterwickS. Confirmation biases in selective exposure topolitical online information： Source bias vs. contentbias[J]. Communication Monographs， 2017，84（3）： 343—364.

[87] Pearson G D H， Knobloch-Westerwick S. Isthe confirmation bias bubble larger online? Preelectionconfirmation bias in selective exposure toonline versus print political information[J]. MassCommunication and Society， 2019， 22（4）： 466—486.

[88] Jang S M. Seeking congruency or incongruencyonline? Examining selective exposure tofour controversial science issues[J]. ScienceCommunication， 2014， 36（2）： 143—167.

[89] Lau A Y S， Coierae W. Do people experiencecognitive biases while searching for information?[J].Journal of the American Medical InformaticsAssociation， 2007， 14（5）： 599—608.