Cognitive Biases in Asynchronous Online Discussions

Are citizens capable to form attitudes as a result of unprejudiced examination of reasons? By pooling data from four field experiments, the study assesses the effects of cognitive biases on attitude extremity in asynchronous discussions. The focus lies on two cognitive biases, namely a confirmation bias (preference to read attitudinal congruent arguments) and a disconfirmation bias (tendency to seek flaws only in incongruent arguments). The study finds (1) high prevalence of cognitive biases, (2) but without effect on attitude extremity, instead (3) with a strong correlation with forum activity. The findings give succor for the argumentative theory of reasoning proposed by Hugo Mercier and Helene Landemore in stating that discussion participants are biased in how they react to arguments, but not so biased that discussion reinforces their attitudes. Moreover, the individual’s pursuit to defend initially hold attitudes seems to be an essential impetus for discussion engagement.