Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40716036›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2025

Generative artificial intelligence-mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking.

Ezequiel Lopez-Lopez, Christoph M Abels, Dawn Holford, Stefan M Herzog, Stephan Lewandowsky

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ezequiel Lopez-LopezCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2012-5372
Christoph M AbelsCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Dawn HolfordSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Stefan M HerzogCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Stephan LewandowskyDepartment of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 458366841European Research Council 101020961Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 101094752Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 964728
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) applications, such as ChatGPT, are transforming how individuals access health information, offering conversational and highly personalized interactions. While these technologies can enhance health literacy and decision-making, their capacity to generate deeply tailored-hypercustomized-responses risks amplifying confirmation bias by reinforcing pre-existing beliefs, obscuring medical consensus, and perpetuating misinformation, posing significant challenges to public health. This paper examines GenAI-mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking, driven by the interplay between GenAI's hypercustomization capabilities and users' confirmatory tendencies. Drawing on parallels with traditional online information-seeking behaviors, we identify three key "pressure points" where biases might emerge: query phrasing, preference for belief-consistent content, and resistance to belief-inconsistent information. Using illustrative examples, we highlight the limitations of existing safeguards and argue that even minor variations in applications' configuration (e.g., Custom GPT) can exacerbate these biases along those pressure points. Given the widespread adoption and fragmentation (e.g., OpenAI's GPT Store) of GenAI applications, their influence on health-seeking behaviors demands urgent attention. Since technical safeguards alone may be insufficient, we propose a set of interventions, including enhancing digital literacy, empowering users with critical engagement strategies, and implementing robust regulatory oversight. These recommendations aim to ensure the safe integration of GenAI into daily life, supporting informed decision-making and preserving the integrity of public understanding of health information.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceInformation Seeking BehaviorBiasDecision MakingGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHealth LiteracyHumansconfirmation biasgenerative artificial intelligencehypercustomizationinformation seekingpublic health

Identifiers

PMID40716036
PMCPMC12412720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.