COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND SOURCE DISTRUST IN KNOWLEDGE SHARING PLATFORMS USED BY ENGINEERS

Abstract

As the engineering field accelerates toward greater interconnectivity, knowledge-sharing platformsranging from Stack Overflow and GitHub to internal organizational wikishave become vital nodes for collaborative problem-solving and lifelong learning. Yet, these platforms frequently fall short of their potential when users contend with cognitive dissonance, that uneasy state triggered by conflicting technical claims, and with source distrust, the skepticism directed toward the credibility and motivations of peers. This investigation charts how cognitive dissonance and pseudonymous identity interact during exchanges of engineering expertise, tracking the downstream impacts on how engineering groups internalize knowledge, how contributors interact, and how the overall quality of choices evolves. Drawing on a mixed-method design that integrates questionnaire data from 230 practicing engineers and a qualitative analysis of conversation threads on the exchange platform, the study clarifies a sequence of cognitive and behavioral moderators. This investigation describes a feedback structure linking cognitive dissonance to diminishing trust in informants, and demonstrates how their mutual acceleration leaves a fog over the integrity of shared facts and slows constructive technical advance. Interventions designed to interrupt the spiral target three interdependent fronts. First, the design of displays can intentionally cultivate trust, embedding sensory, cognitive, and procedural markers that advertise dependability. Second, situational prompts may be deployed to encourage contributors to assess the origin and context of assertions before integrating them into their reasoning. Third, resolution architectures can be framed around inclusive, community-focused panels, where conflicting evidence is interrogated, reconciled, and adjusted within a shared, transparent forum. These psychological supports are not ancillary to the engineering profession; they are central, empowering practitioners to surface, interrogate, and recalibrate discordant facts with restored conviction. The result is a reinforced, self-replenishing ecology of knowledge, rendered more resilient against the corrosive tide of false information.