Modern consumers experience fundamental changes in their buying decisions because digital technology presents them with immediate access to broad information coming from different platforms such as social media and e-commerce websites search engines and news platforms (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). The benefits of digitalization include user-friendly accessibility but consumers face overwhelming amounts of information while experiencing algorithmic control and design-based persuasion which affect their decision processes (Ariely, 2008). Digital interactions force consumers to make rapid decisions during information overload situations because traditional decision-making time is unavailable (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). The decision-making biases help people simplify choices but they commonly lead to poor financial decisions misinformation susceptibility and suboptimal product choices (Pennycook & Rand, 2018).

The application of cognitive biases creates significant concern in digital choices because they augment with artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms together with targeted ads and personalized content recommendations (Pariser, 2011). As digital interactions become more pervasive, understanding how biases affect consumer behavior is crucial for businesses, policymakers, and technology developers aiming to design fair, transparent, and consumer-friendly digital environments (Sunstein, 2017). The study explores the extent to which cognitive biases shape digital decision-making, assesses how algorithmic design reinforces or mitigates these biases, and examines the implications of biased decision-making on consumer welfare.

Cognitive biases are systematic deviations from rational decision-making that occur when individuals rely on heuristics or mental shortcuts, rather than engaging in analytical reasoning (Kahneman, 2011). While heuristics facilitate quicker decisions, they often lead to errors in judgment that impact consumer behavior, financial decisions, and trust in digital information (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In digital environments, three prominent cognitive biases significantly influence consumer decision-making. Anchoring bias causes individuals to rely excessively on the first piece of information they encounter when making judgments. The bias is frequently leveraged in digital pricing strategies, where companies initially display high reference prices before offering discounts, leading consumers to perceive greater value than what exists (Adaval & Monroe, 2002). Similarly, confirmation bias leads consumers to seek and favor information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, often dismissing contradictory evidence. Personalized content algorithms exacerbate The bias by curating information based on past interactions, reinforcing belief systems, and creating "filter bubbles" and "echo chambers" that limit exposure to diverse viewpoints (Pariser, 2011). Consumer decision-making processes are mainly guided by the availability heuristic which causes individuals to use accessible information over objective evaluations. The spread of viral content influencer marketing and misinformation in digital spaces depends on how many times narratives are encountered because they will gain credibility even if they lack factual accuracy (Pennycook & Rand, 2018). Rational decision-making improvement depends on understanding consumer bias effects in digital contexts so that fairer digital environments along with consumer awareness tools can be developed.

In digital platforms, customers encounter excessive conflicting information through which they experience cognitive overload (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). Research indicates limited decision-making quality and satisfaction emerge when people face many choices because they cannot adequately separate meaningful information from superfluous data (Schwartz, 2004). Given these complexities, understanding how digital consumers navigate cognitive biases is crucial to designing interventions that promote more rational, informed decision-making in digital contexts.

Despite extensive research on cognitive biases in behavioral economics and psychology, there remains a significant gap in understanding their impact on digital decision-making. Existing studies primarily focus on offline decision environments (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; Kahneman, 2011), without fully accounting for the role of digital interfaces, artificial intelligence (AI), and information curation algorithms in shaping consumer choices (Ariely, 2008). The study identifies three key gaps in the literature that need exploration. First, research on digital-specific bias mechanisms remains limited, as most studies examine cognitive biases in general consumer behavior but fail to address how digital platforms amplify or suppress these biases through personalized recommendations, interface design, and automated content filtering (Sunstein, 2017). Second, while prior studies analyze individual cognitive biases in isolation, little is known about the interplay between multiple biases in digital ecosystems. For example, anchoring bias in online pricing strategies may interact with the availability heuristic in social media promotions, leading to compounded decision distortions. Third, the algorithmic influence on biases remains underexplored. AI and recommendation systems play an increasing role in shaping consumer behavior, yet it is unclear whether these technologies mitigate biases by promoting diverse perspectives or reinforce them by prioritizing engagement over accuracy (Pariser, 2011). Addressing these gaps is critical for improving consumer decision quality, designing transparent digital environments, and promoting digital literacy, helping users navigate bias-prone online interactions more effectively.

4. Research Objectives

The study aims to bridge these gaps by investigating the role of cognitive biases in digital decision-making. The key research objectives are:

1. To examine how cognitive biases (anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and availability heuristic) influence digital consumer decision-making.
2. To explore the impact of information overload on heuristic processing and consumer choice.
3. To analyze the role of algorithmic recommendations in reinforcing or mitigating cognitive biases.

The study holds significant implications for consumer behavior, business practices, and public policy. From a theoretical perspective, the research expands cognitive bias theories into digital contexts, offering insights into how digital environments interact with traditional heuristic processing models (Kahneman, 2011). , it contributes to behavioral economics by integrating AI-driven decision-making factors into existing models, highlighting the role of algorithmic influence on consumer biases (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). In terms of practical applications for businesses and technology developers, companies can implement bias-aware platform designs by developing debiasing interventions, such as algorithmic diversity mechanisms, to reduce confirmation bias effects in content recommendations (Liao & Sundar, 2020). E-commerce platforms can enhance pricing transparency to counteract anchoring effects, ensuring that consumers make more informed purchasing decisions rather than being influenced by artificially inflated original prices (Adaval & Monroe, 2002). , digital literacy initiatives can help consumers develop critical thinking skills to recognize cognitive biases and the impact of algorithmic influence on their choices, leading to more rational decision-making in digital environments (Pennycook & Rand, 2018).

From a policy and societal perspective, the study emphasizes the need for regulatory measures to ensure algorithmic transparency, particularly in AI-driven content personalization. Policymakers should implement ethical guidelines and oversight mechanisms to prevent digital platforms from reinforcing bias-prone consumer behavior (Helberger, Karppinen, & D’Acunto, 2018). Public institutions together with governments should launch fact-checking systems to provide public education about cognitive biases affecting misinformation reception (Pennycook & Rand, 2018). These efforts should achieve both fact-checking goals and consumer education regarding their susceptibility to biased information. Businesses working with public officials and education institutions can establish a transparent informed consumer-focused digital space through their combined efforts which reduces the negative impacts of cognitive biases on consumer decisions.

Theoretical Framework

Research about cognitive biases originated from the disciplines of behavioral economics and cognitive psychology. According to the Dual-Process Theory described by Stanovich and West (2000), people have two mental operations that work at different speeds: System 1 functions through instinct while System 2 takes time to analyze. System 1 takes control of digital decision-making because of information overload which causes consumers to use cognitive biases (Kahneman, 2011). Digital environments, characterized by rapid content consumption and algorithmic personalization,  facilitate System 1 processing, making biases more pronounced.

Cognitive Biases in Consumer Decision-Making

Anchoring Bias

Anchoring occurs when individuals rely heavily on the first piece of information encountered when making decisions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In digital shopping, consumers often use the first price or review they see as a reference point, influencing subsequent choices (Adaval & Monroe, 2002). Research indicates that online retailers exploit The bias through dynamic pricing strategies and product placement, thereby shaping consumer behavior (Ariely, 2008).

Availability Heuristic

Consumers estimate the likelihood of an event based on how easily examples come to mind (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Digital platforms enhance The bias by frequently presenting trending or sensational content, shaping consumers' perceptions and choices (Pennycook & Rand, 2018). Social media algorithms prioritize emotionally charged information, reinforcing the availability heuristic and increasing susceptibility to misinformation (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018).

Confirmation Bias

The bias leads individuals to seek and interpret information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). Algorithmic filtering on digital platforms reinforces confirmation bias, as personalized content recommendations limit exposure to diverse viewpoints (Pariser, 2011). Studies suggest that consumers interacting with personalized content experience a narrowing of their knowledge base, which influences decision-making in areas such as health, politics, and finance (Sunstein, 2017).

Choice Overload Effect

Iyengar & Lepper (2000) demonstrated that excessive choices can overwhelm consumers, reducing satisfaction and decision quality. Digital environments exacerbate Them by presenting infinite options, leading to decision fatigue and procrastination (Eppler & Mengis, 2004). Research suggests that e-commerce platforms often optimize for engagement rather than decision efficiency, exacerbating choice overload (Schwartz, 2004).

Framing Effect

Consumers' decisions are influenced by how information is presented (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). In digital marketing, product descriptions, pricing structures, and advertisements use framing techniques to nudge consumer behavior (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Experimental studies have shown that positively framed product reviews significantly impact consumer preferences, even when the underlying information remains constant (Chang & Lee, 2009).

Information Overload and Heuristic Processing

The Information Overload Hypothesis (Eppler & Mengis, 2004) suggests that excessive information impairs decision-making efficiency. Digital environments exacerbate The challenge, as algorithmic curation floods users with targeted content, making it difficult to discern relevant from irrelevant data (Simon, 1955). Empirical studies demonstrate that when confronted with excessive digital information, consumers resort to heuristics such as reliance on brand reputation or star ratings (Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006).

Research also indicates that information overload reduces consumers' motivation to engage in critical evaluation, increasing the likelihood of heuristic-driven decisions (Jacoby, 1984). The speed of digital interactions, coupled with the overwhelming nature of the content,  discourages reflective thinking (Saad, 2013).

The Role of Algorithmic Recommendations

Algorithms shape digital consumer behavior by personalizing content and product recommendations. While personalization enhances user experience, it can also reinforce cognitive biases. The Filter Bubble Effect (Pariser, 2011) limits exposure to diverse viewpoints, while algorithmic pricing manipulations leverage biases to drive purchasing decisions (Sunstein, 2017). Research has shown that algorithm-driven echo chambers reinforce users’ existing opinions, leading to less rational and more emotionally driven consumer decisions (Bakshy, Messing, & Adamic, 2015).

Studies on digital personalization highlight its dual effects: while it can reduce information overload by curating relevant content, it also narrows the scope of consumers’ decision-making frameworks (Hosanagar, Fleder, Lee, & Buja, 2014). Recommendation system transparency remains unclear to consumers because they cannot see how much algorithms direct their purchasing decisions (Diakopoulos, 2016).

Strategies for Mitigating Cognitive Biases

Digital Literacy and Awareness

The quality of consumer decision-making improves when consumers receive instruction about cognitive biases along with digital manipulation strategies (Pennycook & Rand, 2018). The promotion of digital literacy alongside critical thinking skills enables people to detect how confirmation bias and framing effects influence them (Wineburg, McGrew, Breakstone, & Ortega, 2016).

Algorithmic Transparency

The disclosure of recommendation system algorithms helps customers make informed decisions by reducing the reinforcement of biased content (Sunstein 2017). Public accountability standards established by regulators help provide users with detailed information about how their personalized suggestions are calculated (Helberger, Karppinen, & D’Acunto, 2018).

Decision Support Systems

Decision aids powered by artificial intelligence offer a solution for consumers to manage excessive information alongside addressing automatic decisions based on judgment heuristics (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). When consumers engage with interactive tools such as decision trees and bias-awareness prompts their judgment improves and they become less prone to digital biases according to Liao and Sundar (2020).

Research Design

A quantitative research design serves this study to analyze the effects that cognitive biases have on consumer choices made through digital platforms. The quantitative research design suits this study because it allows researchers to collect measurable data that enables statistical analysis for pattern and correlation identification (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A cross-sectional survey serves the research by gathering data at one given point to map digital information accumulation effects on heuristic processing along with consumer behavioral biases. This approach delivers measurable findings about cognitive biases which makes it appropriate for studying the research questions.

Participants/Subjects

The study targets adult digital consumers who actively engage in online decision-making processes, such as e-commerce shopping, social media browsing, and digital content consumption. The inclusion criteria require participants to:

1. Be 18 years or older to ensure informed consent.
2. Have prior experience in online purchasing or digital content engagement to provide relevant responses.
3. Be fluent in English to comprehend the survey items accurately.

The study uses Cochran’s formula to determine 400 respondents at a 95% confidence level for achieving adequate generalization potential. The research implements stratified random sampling to split participants by their age group gender and digital literacy skills for achieving statistical diversity and proper representation. An online survey reaches participants through social media platforms email lists and consumer research platforms. The research design incorporates three ethical elements that guarantee that participants join voluntarily while being fully informed about the study and maintaining their privacy. Study participants receive information about research goals together with their freedom to leave the study at any point. The research follows ethical standards from the American Psychological Association (APA) while an Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed and approved the study.

Materials/Tools

The study uses a structured online questionnaire as the primary data collection instrument. The survey comprises three sections:

1. Demographic Information – Age, gender, digital usage habits, and education level.
2. Cognitive Bias Assessment – A validated Cognitive Bias Questionnaire (CBQ) adapted from Tversky and Kahneman’s (1974) heuristics framework, measuring biases such as anchoring, confirmation bias, and availability heuristic.
3. Digital Decision-Making Scale – A Likert-scale instrument assessing perceived difficulty, confidence, and satisfaction in digital decision-making.

A pre-test of the questionnaire takes place with 30 participants to check reliability and clarity. The reliability measure Cronbach’s alpha exceeds 0.7 while expert reviews validate the questionnaire's face validity. The research instrument operates through Qualtrics which provides users with simple access and protects their data.

Data Collection Procedures

The data collection follows a systematic, four-week process:

1. Week 1: Pilot Testing – The survey is pre-tested, and necessary revisions are made.
2. Week 2-3: Survey Distribution – The questionnaire is disseminated via targeted email invitations and social media platforms.
3. Week 4: Data Cleaning and Verification – Incomplete or inconsistent responses are removed before analysis.

The study manages response bias through survey item randomization together with attention-checking protocols that promote data validity. Participants will find an honest feedback space because their responses maintain complete confidentiality to counteract social desirability bias.

Data Analysis

The collected data is analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The following statistical methods are applied:

1. Descriptive Statistics – Mean, standard deviation, and frequency distributions to summarize demographic data.
2. Reliability Analysis – Cronbach’s alpha is used to assess the internal consistency of scales.
3. Inferential Statistics –
   • Multiple Regression Analysis to examine the relationship between cognitive biases and digital decision-making outcomes.
   • ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) to test differences in bias susceptibility across demographic groups.
   • Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to explore causal relationships between biases and decision satisfaction.

These analytical techniques ensure robustness and validity, providing empirical insights into cognitive biases in digital decision-making.

Ethical Considerations

The study follows ethical research principles, including:

1. Informed Consent – Participants sign an online consent form before survey participation.
2. Confidentiality – No personally identifiable information is collected, and responses remain anonymous.
3. Data Security – Survey data is stored in an encrypted database and accessible only to the research team.
4. IRB Approval – The study receives approval from an institutional ethics board which guarantees adherence to ethical standards.

The research findings related to cognitive biases (anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and availability heuristic) in the digital decision-making process and the influence of digital literacy appear in this section. The research demonstrates that when decision-makers show increased sensitivity to cognitive biases their choices become worse, particularly when confirmation bias is present. At the same time,e digital literacy acts as a protective factor against these biases to enhance decision outcomes. The study demonstrates that younger consumers between the ages of 18 to 24 exhibit higher bias susceptibility than consumers aged 45 and above. Analyses prove that decision quality directly relies on cognitive biases but digital literacy functions as a protective measure against these biases.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the statistical data including mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum values for the main variables studied in this research. The data shows that confirmation bias receives the highest average score (M = 54.54, SD = 12.08) because participants tend to look for information that matches their current beliefs. Parts of the sample manifested the following significant variations in their anchoring bias preferences (M = 50.23, SD = 9.60) alongside their use of availability heuristic decision-making powers (M = 49.96, SD = 14.89).  The decision quality score (M = 60.44, SD = 10.10) reflects moderate variation in decision accuracy, while digital literacy (M = 70.53, SD = 7.75) has the highest mean, suggesting that participants generally possess strong digital skills. These results provide a basis for analysis of how cognitive biases affect decision-making and the role of digital literacy in mitigating their impact.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Cognitive Bias and Decision Quality Scores

Correlation Analysis

A correlation matrix was generated to examine the relationships between different cognitive biases and decision quality.

Figure 1: Correlation Matrix of Cognitive Bias Scores

Figure 1 presents the correlation matrix for the key variables in the study, illustrating the relationships between cognitive biases, decision quality, and digital literacy. The results indicate that confirmation bias has the strongest negative correlation with decision quality (r = -0.42, p < 0.001), suggesting that higher confirmation bias leads to poorer digital decision-making outcomes. Anchoring bias (r = -0.34, p < 0.01) also shows a moderate negative correlation, implying that reliance on initial reference points skews consumer judgment. , the availability heuristic (r = -0.27, p < 0.05) demonstrates a weaker but significant negative relationship with decision quality, indicating that frequent exposure to misleading or easily recalled information influences consumer decisions. Notably, digital literacy positively correlates with decision quality (r = 0.30, p < 0.01), reinforcing the idea that higher digital literacy reduces bias susceptibility and improves decision accuracy. These findings support the study’s hypothesis regarding the moderating role of digital literacy in mitigating cognitive biases.

Decision Quality Across Age Groups

Figure 2: Decision Quality Score Across Age Groups

Figure 2 presents the mean decision quality scores across different age groups, incorporating error bars to represent standard deviations, thereby providing a clearer understanding of score variability within each age group. The results demonstrate that younger participants (18–24) exhibit significantly lower decision quality scores, indicating higher susceptibility to cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and availability heuristics. In contrast, older age groups (45+) consistently show higher decision quality scores, suggesting that experience and cognitive maturity contribute to improved decision-making accuracy. The inclusion of error bars highlights the variance within each age group, illustrating that younger consumers exhibit greater fluctuations in decision quality, potentially due to inconsistent cognitive strategies in digital environments. These findings reinforce the need for digital literacy initiatives targeting younger consumers to enhance their critical thinking and resistance to bias-driven decision distortions. ​

Regression Analysis

Table 2 presents the multiple regression analysis results, examining the predictive effect of cognitive biases (anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and availability heuristic) on decision quality, along with the moderating role of digital literacy. The results indicate that confirmation bias (β = -0.42, p < 0.001) has the strongest negative impact on decision quality, suggesting that individuals who frequently seek confirmatory information rather than evaluating diverse perspectives tend to make poorer decisions. Anchoring bias (β = -0.34, p < 0.01) also negatively affects decision quality, implying that reliance on initial reference points distorts rational decision-making. Similarly, the availability heuristic (β = -0.27, p < 0.05) negatively predicts decision quality, highlighting the role of easily accessible but potentially misleading information in shaping consumer choices. Importantly, digital literacy (β = 0.30, p < 0.01) shows a positive and significant effect, confirming that higher digital literacy reduces cognitive bias susceptibility and improves decision-making outcomes. The overall model is statistically significant (F(4,395) = 62.3, p < 0.001) and explains 47% of the variance in decision quality (R² = 0.47), indicating a strong explanatory power of the predictors. These findings reinforce the study’s hypothesis that cognitive biases significantly impair digital decision-making, while digital literacy acts as a protective factor.

Table 2: Regression Model Predicting Decision Quality

Qualitative Findings

Although the study primarily employed quantitative methods, qualitative responses from open-ended survey questions provided valuable insights into consumer experiences with digital decision-making. A thematic analysis of these responses revealed three key themes. Participants reported experiencing excessive choice as a core issue because it caused them confusion and misunderstandings about making decisions effectively. The trust in AI recommendations became a key factor in consumer choices because users heavily depended on these recommendations which strengthened their confirmation bias while reducing their exposure to new options. Post-purchase regret became widespread among consumers because they fell prey to manipulative marketing techniques from influencers while being affected by biased viral content and promotional offers. Consumer awareness measures together with critical evaluation training in digital platforms remain essential due to the established psychological effects of digital decisions.

Comparison with Hypotheses

The research findings validated the proposed hypotheses through data that confirmed clear links between cognitive biases and digital literacy and their influence on decision quality. The research findings completely validated Hypothesis 1 which stated that people with higher cognitive bias susceptibility tend to make worse decisions. Hypothesis 2 (H2) was validated through data analysis because digital literacy functions as an effect modifier of cognitive biases which shows users with advanced digital literacy capabilities remain successful in their decisions while facing these biases. The research data supported Hypothesis 3 (H3) partially because it demonstrated that younger consumers between 18–24 exhibited higher susceptibility to cognitive biases yet older individuals aged 45+ displayed stronger decision-making resilience. The research maintained previous findings by demonstrating how cognitive biases disrupt digital consumer decisions through heuristic-based errors which primarily affect users who fall within the younger age groups.

The research evaluated how cognitive biases specifically anchoring bias confirmation bias and availability heuristic influence digital decision processes. The research shows that increased bias susceptibility leads to worse decision outcomes yet confirmation bias demonstrates the most significant detrimental effect. Digital literacy acts as a moderating factor that decreases the negative influence of biases on decision quality. At the same time, the research showed that younger participants aged 18–24 years displayed higher susceptibility to biases compared to older participants aged 45+ years. These research results indicate that cognitive biases influence consumer decision-making in digital spaces by producing unsatisfactory outcomes and demonstrate the value of digital education toward bias reduction.

The Dual-Process Theory (Kahneman, 2011) supports the research findings because it demonstrates how people use two separate cognitive systems to make decisions. People perform System 1 functions automatically and through simple rules which cause these systems to become easily influenced by cognitive biases yet System 2 functions demand longer processing time and analytical thinking for more rational choices. The research findings show that digital environments lead consumers to use System 1 thinking because cognitive overload forces them to depend on heuristics and biases. Digital decision-making speed and complexity force consumers to choose heuristics automatically instead of step-by-step analytical processing according to Stanovich and West (2000). Digital spaces enhance the emergence of cognitive biases because they create conditions that intensify their impact on both consumer behavior and their purchasing choices as well as their processing of information.

Research by Pariser (2011) and Sunstein (2017) supports the negative relationship between confirmation bias and decision quality which this study shows as r = -0.42 (p < 0.001). Customers whose beliefs already exist receive personalized suggestions through digital media platforms which reduces their view on product diversity while driving decisions that are inherently biased. People tend to accept information that matches their initial beliefs yet dismiss opposing data which leads to substandard decision outcomes (Nickerson, 1998). Users who interact with digital marketplaces encounter selective product reviews and AI-generated suggestions from which they might develop impaired abilities to objectively compare their choices during purchasing decisions. Evidence indicates that customized algorithms produce an effect where users become trapped inside information bubbles that strengthen their existing biases (Bakshy, Messing, & Adamic, 2015). The practice of content curation creates doubts about how it promotes confirmation bias because users might not properly verify their purchasing decisions independently.

The digital pricing strategy heavily depends on anchoring bias (β = -0.34, p < 0.01) because consumers base their perceptions and purchase decisions on the initial reference points.  Businesses commonly exploit anchoring through comparison pricing, where a higher “original price” is displayed next to a discounted offer, creating the illusion of a better deal (Ariely, 2008). , influencer endorsements and product reviews serve as powerful anchors—consumers who see highly positive initial reviews tend to interpret subsequent information more favorably (Adaval & Monroe, 2002). , time-sensitive offers, such as limited-time discounts or “only a few items left” notifications, pressure consumers into rushed decisions, making them more likely to accept the first available price rather than critically evaluating alternatives (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). This aligns with behavioral economics research, which demonstrates that consumers anchor onto the first piece of information they encounter, even when it is arbitrary or strategically manipulated (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In digital decision-making, anchoring bias can lead to misperceptions of value, financial inefficiency, and impulsive purchasing behaviors.

The results also confirm the role of the availability heuristic (β = -0.27, p < 0.05), wherein consumers judge the importance or likelihood of an event based on the ease with which examples come to mind (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). The heuristic is particularly problematic in high-information environments, such as digital shopping, where consumers rely on easily accessible product ratings, social proof, and viral trends rather than objective comparisons (Pennycook & Rand, 2018). For instance, misinformation spreads six times faster than accurate information on social media (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018), making it easier to recall but not necessarily more reliable. This demonstrates how digital consumers, faced with an abundance of information, may disproportionately rely on what is readily available rather than critically analyzing their choices.

The findings of The study reinforce existing research while introducing new insights into the moderating role of digital literacy and age-related differences in bias susceptibility. The results align with Iyengar and Lepper’s (2000) choice overload theory, which posits that excessive digital choices reduce cognitive efficiency, leading to increased reliance on heuristics. , The study expands on prior research by identifying digital literacy as a crucial moderating factor rather than a direct determinant of better decision-making. The distinction is significant, as it suggests that digital literacy alone does not eliminate cognitive biases but instead reduces their harmful effects, an aspect that has been underexplored in previous studies (Hargittai, 2005). , the study reveals that younger consumers (18–24) exhibit higher bias susceptibility than older consumers (45+), aligning with lifespan psychology research (Lindenberger & Baltes, 1994). The discrepancy may be attributed to greater cognitive maturity and decision-making experience in older individuals, making them less vulnerable to digital manipulation and bias-driven decision errors.

The study provides significant contributions to behavioral economics and cognitive psychology by demonstrating that digital environments amplify heuristic-driven decision-making. It refines cognitive bias theories by emphasizing the moderating role of digital literacy, highlighting its potential in mitigating bias susceptibility and improving decision quality. From a practical standpoint, increasing algorithmic transparency in digital platforms is essential to reduce confirmation bias in recommendation systems. Online retailers can implement debiasing interventions, such as "bias-aware" UI designs, which offer alternative price comparisons instead of anchoring consumers to a single reference point (Liao & Sundar, 2020). , consumer awareness programs should extend beyond technical digital skills to include cognitive bias recognition, fostering more rational decision-making. In terms of policy implications, governments should regulate misinformation algorithms, ensuring algorithmic transparency and fairness to prevent the reinforcement of biases (Helberger, Karppinen, & D’Acunto, 2018). , educational institutions should integrate digital literacy training, with an emphasis on critical thinking and evaluating online information, equipping individuals to navigate digital environments more effectively.

Despite its contributions, The study has several limitations. The reliance on self-reported survey data introduces the potential for response bias, as participants may not always accurately assess or report their decision-making processes. , the cross-sectional nature of the study limits its ability to capture the long-term effects of cognitive biases, as it only provides insights at a single point in time. Future research should adopt longitudinal methodologies to examine how biases evolve. Another limitation is the cultural context of the study, which focuses on English-speaking digital consumers, restricting the generalizability of the findings to global populations with different digital consumption patterns and cognitive tendencies. Future research should prioritize cross-cultural studies to investigate how cognitive bias susceptibility varies across different cultural and regional contexts. Research should explore the role of AI in mitigating cognitive biases, assessing whether AI-driven decision aids can counteract bias-driven errors instead of reinforcing them.

The study explored the role of cognitive biases—anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and availability heuristic—in shaping digital decision-making and their impact on consumer choices. The findings confirm that higher susceptibility to cognitive biases leads to poorer decision quality, with confirmation bias having the strongest influence. , digital literacy serves as a moderating factor, helping consumers mitigate the negative effects of biases. The study also highlighted age-related differences, with younger consumers (18–24) being more susceptible to biases than older consumers (45+), reinforcing the notion that experience and cognitive maturity improve decision resilience. The significance of these findings extends beyond theoretical implications to practical and societal applications. From a theoretical perspective, the study refines existing cognitive bias models by demonstrating their heightened effects in digital environments. From a practical standpoint, the research provides valuable insights for businesses, marketers, and policymakers, emphasizing the need for algorithmic transparency, consumer education, and bias-aware digital design. Societally, the findings underscore the urgent need for digital literacy programs that not only enhance technological competence but also equip consumers with critical thinking skills to recognize and counteract biases. The research successfully addressed its objectives by examining the relationship between cognitive biases and digital decision-making, assessing the moderating role of digital literacy, and identifying demographic factors influencing bias susceptibility. , certain limitations must be acknowledged. The cross-sectional nature of the study prevents establishing causal relationships, and self-reported data may introduce response bias.  The study was conducted with non-English-speaking digital consumers, limiting broader generalizability. Future research should explore cross-cultural variations in bias susceptibility, conduct longitudinal studies to assess the persistence of biases over time and investigate AI-driven interventions for reducing cognitive biases in digital decision-making. In an era of information overload and algorithmic influence, understanding and addressing cognitive biases is more critical than ever. The study provides a foundational step toward fostering more informed, rational, and empowered digital consumers, ensuring that decision-making in the digital age remains transparent, unbiased, and consumer-centric.

1. Adaval, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2002). Automatic construction and use of contextual information for product and price evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 572-588.
2. Ariely, D. (1998). Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. Ebook, Revised and.
3. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
4. Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of marketing research, 43(3), 345-354.
5. Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2008). The Concept of Information Overload Review of Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and Related Disciplines (2004) The Information Society: An International Journal, 20 (5), 2004, pp. 1–20. Kommunikationsmanagement im Wandel: Beiträge aus 10 Jahren= mcminstitute, 271-305.
6. Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science, 8(3), 223-241.
7. Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social science computer review, 23(3), 371-379.
8. Helberger, N., Karppinen, K., & D’acunto, L. (2018). Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems. Information, communication & society, 21(2), 191-207.
9. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(6), 995.
10. Jacoby, J. (1984). Perspectives on information overload. Journal of consumer research, 10(4), 432-435.
11. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
12. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99-127).
13. Hilbert, M., & Darmon, D. (2020). Large-scale communication is more complex and unpredictable with automated bots. Journal of Communication, 70(5), 670-692.
14. Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P. B. (1994). Sensory functioning and intelligence in old age: a strong connection. Psychology and aging, 9(3), 339.
15. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2014). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. In College student development and academic life (pp. 264-293). Routledge.
16. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
17. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.
18. Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Collins, E. T., & Rand, D. G. (2020). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management science, 66(11), 4944-4957.
19. Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. Ecco.
20. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 99-118.
21. Saad, G. (2013). Evolutionary consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 351-371.
22. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and brain sciences, 23(5), 701-717.
23. Sunstein, C. (2018). # Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton university press.
24. Thaler, R. H. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health. Wealth, and Happiness, 3.
25. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
26. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
27. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. science, 359(6380), 1146-1151.
28. Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning.