ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Are you willing to forgive generative AI doctors? Trust repair after failures in online health consultation services.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trusting and staying with AI doctors: cognitive and emotional pathways driving continuance intention toward AI healthcare chatbots.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While generative AI doctors are increasingly used in online health consultation services, research on trust repair following service failures remains limited. We examined how attribution style, social support, and anthropomorphism influence individuals' trust repair and behavioral intention. A total of 512 participants were recruited to take part in a between-subjects experiment with a 2 (internal vs. external attribution) × 2 (informational vs. emotional support) × 2 (anthropomorphism vs. non-anthropomorphism) design. The results revealed that participants exposed to internal attribution, emotional support, or anthropomorphism conditions reported higher levels of trust repair. Anthropomorphism influences the effectiveness of attribution style and social support in repairing trust in GAI doctors. Moreover, an interesting interaction was observed between attribution style and social support: when the GAI doctor used internal attribution, informational support was more effective; under external attribution, emotional support proved more effective. In addition, the effect of social support on behavioral intention was fully mediated by trust repair. These findings offer practical implications for optimizing the design of GAI doctors, enhancing communication and collaboration between GAI doctors and users, and ultimately strengthening the resilience of AI-based health consultation services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.