Cited by 40Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityMisinformation and Its Impacts

Generative artificial intelligence–mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking

Open access
Lopez‐Lopez, Ezequiel, Abels, Christoph M., Holford, Dawn, Herzog, Stefan M., Lewandowsky, Stephan·2025·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/nyas.15413

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lopez‐Lopez, E., Abels, C. M., Holford, D., Herzog, S. M., & Lewandowsky, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Potsdam (DE)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Lopez‐Lopez, Ezequiel
Venue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-07-27
Volume
1550
Issue
1
Pages
23-36
ISSN
  • 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-6632
OpenAlex
W4412676335
Cited by
38
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 3
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (458366841)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (101094752, 964728)
  • European Research Council (101020961)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
generative AI, confirmation bias, health information seeking, ChatGPT, personalized health information, health misinformation, belief consistency, digital literacy, AI regulation, health literacy, medical consensus
MeSH terms
Generative Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Decision Making, Humans, Bias, Health Literacy, Information Seeking Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review