Artificial intelligence (AI) hallucinations—erroneous outputs that generate misleading or nonsensical content—pose significant risks in contexts where consumers seek health information, as inaccuracies in this domain could lead to harmful outcomes. This study aims to explore determinants of AI hallucination exposure (HEX), examine the potential HEX's direct and mediating effects on adoption intentions, and integrate HEX into the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to advance generative AI adoption models. An eight-factor measurement model, grounded in the TPB and incorporating constructs such as perceived usefulness, attitude toward AI, perceived risk, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, user trust, AI hallucination exposure, and behavioral intention, was developed and tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). The study concludes that perceived behavioral control is a significant determinant of AI hallucination exposure (HEX), while subjective norms exert a direct influence on behavioral intention (BI) to adopt generative AI chatbots. AI hallucination exposure does not statistically significantly mediate the relationship between key antecedents and the use of generative AI chatbots. These findings advance the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) by integrating AI-specific risks like HEX while underscoring the need to refine theoretical models to account for contexts where technological reliability—rather than user perceptions alone—drives adoption decisions.
AbbasiNNizamullahFZebS, et al. (2024) Generative AI in healthcare: Revolutionizing disease diagnosis, expanding treatment options, and enhancing patient care. Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology ISSN: 2959-6386 (Online)3(3): 127–138.
2.
AbrahamCSheeranP (2005) The health belief model. Predicting Health Behaviour2(1): 28–80.
3.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
4.
AlawidaMMejriSMehmoodA, et al. (2023) A comprehensive study of ChatGPT: Advancements, limitations, and ethical considerations in natural language processing and cybersecurity. Information14(8): 462.
5.
AlbahriASDuhaimAMFadhelMA, et al. (2023) A systematic review of trustworthy and explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare: Assessment of quality, bias risk, and data fusion. Information Fusion96: 156–191.
6.
AlbayatiHAlistarbadiNRhoJJ (2023) Assessing engagement decisions in NFT metaverse based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Telematics and Informatics Reports10: 100045.
7.
AljamaanFTemsahM-HAltamimiI, et al. (2024) Reference hallucination score for medical artificial intelligence chatbots: Development and usability study. JMIR Medical Informatics12(1): e54345.
8.
AndrewsKRSilkKSEneliIU (2010) Parents as health promoters: A theory of planned behavior perspective on the prevention of childhood obesity. Journal of Health Communication15(1): 95–107.
9.
AshktorabZPanQGeyerW, et al. (2024) Emerging reliance behaviors in human-AI text generation: hallucinations, data quality assessment, and cognitive forcing functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08937.
10.
AthaluriSAManthenaSVKesapragadaVKM, et al. (2023) Exploring the boundaries of reality: Investigating the phenomenon of artificial intelligence hallucination in scientific writing through ChatGPT references. Cureus15(4): e37432.
11.
AzamMAhmadK (2024) Adoption of big data analytics for sustainability of library services in academic libraries of Pakistan. Library Hi Tech42(5): 1457–1476.
12.
AzamMBin NaeemSKamel BoulosMN, et al. (2023) Modelling the predictors of Mobile health (mHealth) adoption among healthcare professionals in low-resource environments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health20(23): 7112.
13.
BanoNSiddiquiS (2024) Consumers’ intention towards the use of smart technologies in tourism and hospitality (T&H) industry: A deeper insight into the integration of TAM, TPB and trust. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights7(3): 1412–1434.
14.
BentlerPMBonettDG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin88(3): 588.
15.
BilandzicHGall MyrickJ (2024) Information seeking and avoidance in the COVID-19 pandemic as a function of political ideology and national context: A survey comparing the us and Germany. Health Communication39(11): 2276–2289.
16.
BoschM (2024) Generation Z's Perceived Authenticity and Engagement with AI-Generated vs. Human-Made Artistic Media Content: The Roles of Content Labeling and Attitude toward Regulation. Enschede: University of Twente.
17.
BradfordLGlaserG (2021) Addressing physician burnout and ensuring high-quality care of the physician workforce. Obstetrics & Gynecology137(1): 3–11.
18.
BrowneMWCudeckR (1992) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research21(2): 230–258.
19.
CardonPFleischmannCAritzJ, et al. (2023) The challenges and opportunities of AI-assisted writing: Developing AI literacy for the AI age. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly86(3): 257–295.
20.
ChenYEsmaeilzadehP (2024) Generative AI in medical practice: In-depth exploration of privacy and security challenges. Journal of Medical Internet Research26: e53008.
21.
CloarecJ (2022) Privacy controls as an information source to reduce data poisoning in artificial intelligence-powered personalization. Journal of Business Research152: 144–153.
22.
CohenJ (2013) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge.
23.
CreelyE (2024) Exploring the role of generative AI in enhancing language learning: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Changes in Education1(3): 151–167.
24.
DarME-U-I (2003) Muzaffarabad, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences2(9): 680–682.
25.
DavisFD (1989) Technology acceptance model: TAM. Al-Suqri, MN, Al-Aufi, AS: Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption205: 219.
26.
de Marcellis-WarinNMartyFThelissonE, et al. (2022) Artificial intelligence and consumer manipulations: From consumer's counter algorithms to firm's self-regulation tools. AI and Ethics2(2): 259–268.
27.
DudleyRDodgsonGSarllG, et al. (2014) The effect of arousal on auditory threat detection and the relationship to auditory hallucinations. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry45(3): 311–318.
28.
Fui-Hoon NahFZhengRCaiJ, et al. (2023) Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research25(3): 277–304.
29.
GriffinRJDunwoodySNeuwirthK (1999) Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research80(2): S230–S245.
30.
HatemRSimmonsBThorntonJE (2023) A call to address AI “hallucinations” and how healthcare professionals can mitigate their risks. Cureus15(9): e44720.
31.
HelbergerNDiakopoulosN (2023) ChatGPT and the AI Act. Internet Policy Review12(1): 1–6.
32.
HoofnagleCJVan Der SlootBBorgesiusFZ (2019) The European union general data protection regulation: What it is and what it means. Information & Communications Technology Law28(1): 65–98.
33.
IriartJAB (2019) Precision medicine/personalized medicine: A critical analysis of movements in the transformation of biomedicine in the early 21st century. Cadernos de Saúde Publica35: e00153118.
34.
IvanovSSolimanMTuomiA, et al. (2024) Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of the theory of planned behaviour. Technology in Society77: 102521.
35.
JenkinsELIlicicJBarklambAM, et al. (2020) Assessing the credibility and authenticity of social media content for applications in health communication: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research22(7): e17296.
36.
JoHShinS-A (2024) Investigating viewer engagement in esports through motivation and attitudes toward metaverse and NFTs. Scientific Reports14(1): 19934.
37.
JohnsonJDDonohueWAAtkinCK, et al. (1995) A comprehensive model of information seeking: Tests focusing on a technical organization. Science Communication16(3): 274–303.
38.
JonesCThorntonJWyattJC (2023) Artificial intelligence and clinical decision support: Clinicians’ perspectives on trust, trustworthiness, and liability. Medical Law Review31(4): 501–520.
39.
KlineRB (2023) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford publications.
40.
KopallePKGangwarMUppalA (2024) Commentary on “AI is changing the world: For better or for worse?”. Journal of Macromarketing44(4): 886–891.
41.
KordzadehNGhasemaghaeiM (2022) Algorithmic bias: Review, synthesis, and future research directions. European Journal of Information Systems31(3): 388–409.
42.
LeHDWolinskaJMBaertschigerRM, et al. (2023) Complication is inevitable, but suffering is optional—psychological aspects of dealing with complications in surgery. European Journal of Pediatric Surgery33(03): 181–190.
43.
LiJ (2023) Information avoidance in the age of COVID-19: A meta-analysis. Information Processing & Management60(1): 103163.
44.
LinkEBaumannELeuppertR (2024) Clarifying the relationship between information seeking and avoidance: Longitudinal analyses of information behaviors and their normative influences. Health Communication39(5): 1038–1052.
45.
MalekiNPadmanabhanBDuttaK (2024) AI Hallucinations: A misnomer worth clarifying. In: 2024 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI), pp. 133–138. IEEE.
46.
MarkusAFKorsJARijnbeekPR (2021) The role of explainability in creating trustworthy artificial intelligence for health care: A comprehensive survey of the terminology, design choices, and evaluation strategies. Journal of Biomedical Informatics113: 103655.
47.
McIntoshTRLiuTSusnjakT, et al. (2023) A culturally sensitive test to evaluate nuanced gpt hallucination. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence5(6): 2739–2751.
48.
MoulaeiKYadegariABaharestaniM, et al. (2024) Generative artificial intelligence in healthcare: A scoping review on benefits, challenges and applications. International Journal of Medical Informatics188: 105474.
49.
MuleyAMuzumdarPKurianG, et al. (2023) Risk of AI in healthcare: A comprehensive literature review and study framework. Asian Journal of Medicine and Health21(10): 276–291.
50.
OkoloCAIjehSArowoogunJO, et al. (2024) Reviewing the impact of health information technology on healthcare management efficiency. International Medical Science Research Journal4(4): 420–440.
51.
PrabhodKJ (2024) The role of artificial intelligence in reducing healthcare costs and improving operational efficiency. Quarterly Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovations9(2): 47–59.
52.
QuYSafferAJAustinL (2023) What drives people away from COVID-19 information?: Uncovering the influences of personal networks on information avoidance. Health Communication38(2): 216–227.
53.
ReddyS (2024) Generative AI in healthcare: An implementation science informed translational path on application, integration and governance. Implementation Science19(1): 27.
54.
RobertsonJJLongB (2018) Suffering in silence: Medical error and its impact on health care providers. The Journal of Emergency Medicine54(4): 402–409.
55.
SaeediSFongACMohantySP, et al. (2021) Consumer artificial intelligence mishaps and mitigation strategies. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine11(3): 13–24.
56.
SinghJP (2022) Quantifying healthcare Consumers’ perspectives: An empirical study of the drivers and barriers to adopting generative AI in personalized healthcare. ResearchBerg Review of Science and Technology2(1): 171–193.
57.
SinghP (2024) Transforming healthcare through AI: Enhancing patient outcomes and bridging accessibility gaps. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research4(1): 220–232.
58.
SoSHChauAKCGaudianoBA, et al. (2024) The relationship between risk perception, anxiety and paranoia–A predictive model in a community sample. Journal of Mood & Anxiety Disorders5: 100052.
SunartiSRahmanFFNaufalM, et al. (2021) Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Opportunities and risk for future. Gaceta Sanitaria35(1): S67–S70.
61.
Swire-ThompsonBLazerD (2020) Public health and online misinformation: Challenges and recommendations. Annual Reviews Public Health41(1): 433–451.
62.
TangYLuoCSuY (2024) Understanding health misinformation sharing among the middle-aged or above in China: Roles of social media health information seeking, misperceptions and information processing predispositions. Online Information Review48(2): 314–333.
63.
TsasisPBainsJ (2008) Management of complex chronic disease: Facing the challenges in the Canadian health-care system. Health Services Management Research21(4): 228–235.
64.
UlitaNKartanegaraATSalsabilaJ, et al. (2024) Empathy map gen z towards healthy food: A foodpreneur design strategy. Aptisi Transactions on Technopreneurship (ATT)6(2): 242–253.
65.
WangCWangHLiY, et al. (2024) Factors influencing university students’ behavioral intention to use generative artificial intelligence: Integrating the theory of planned behavior and AI literacy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2383033.
66.
WeiCNawiHMNaeemSB (2024) The uses and gratifications (U&G) model for understanding fake news sharing behavior on social media. The Journal of Academic Librarianship50(5): 102938.
WilliamsonSMPrybutokV (2024) The era of artificial intelligence deception: Unraveling the complexities of false realities and emerging threats of misinformation. Information15(6): 299–305.
69.
WysockiODaviesJKVigoM, et al. (2023) Assessing the communication gap between AI models and healthcare professionals: Explainability, utility and trust in AI-driven clinical decision-making. Artificial Intelligence316: 103839.
70.
XuYWangMBaoL, et al. (2024) A cross-sectional study based on the comprehensive model of information seeking: Which factors influence health information-seeking behavior in patients with periodontitis. BMC Oral Health24(1): 1307.
71.
YimDKhuntiaJParameswaranV, et al. (2024) Preliminary evidence of the use of generative AI in health care clinical services: Systematic narrative review. JMIR Medical Informatics12(1): e52073.
72.
YuanK-HBentlerPMZhangW (2005) The effect of skewness and kurtosis on mean and covariance structure analysis: The univariate case and its multivariate implication. Sociological Methods & Research34(2): 240–258.
73.
ZhangNXuYLuQ, et al. (2024) Exploring the behavioral intentions of PICC-related thrombosis prevention in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: A qualitative study based on theory of planned behavior. Supportive Care in Cancer32(10): 1–13.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
