Chatbots are increasingly integrated into healthcare, offering personalized and accessible health advice. However, the impact of factors such as chatbot authority, health information type, and interaction style on users’ decision-making remains unclear.
Objective
This study aims to investigate how these elements influence users’ willingness to adopt health advice provided by chatbots.
Methods
A 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment was conducted with 480 university students to examine the effects of chatbot authority (authoritative vs. non-authoritative), health information type (preventive vs. treatment-related), and interaction style (formal vs. informal). Participants’ willingness to adopt the health advice was measured before and after interacting with the chatbot.
Results
The study found that a authoritative chatbot delivering treatment-related advice in a formal style significantly increased willingness to adopt the advice. Conversely, preventive information was more effective when presented informally by a non-authoritative chatbot. These results support the media evocation paradigm, which suggests that chatbots framed as authoritative figures evoke greater user engagement and trust in health contexts.
Conclusion
The findings extend the media evocation paradigm by demonstrating that chatbot authority, information type, and interaction style should be aligned with the nature of health advice to maximize effectiveness. This study provides insights for designing chatbots that improve health decision-making by tailoring their communication strategies.
TsaiWHSLunDCarcioppoloN, et al.Human versus chatbot: understanding the role of emotion in health marketing communication for vaccines. Psychol Market2021; 38: 2377–2392.
2.
ParkGChungJYLeeS. Effect of AI chatbot emotional disclosure on user satisfaction and reuse intention for mental health counseling: a serial mediation model. Curr Psychol2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03932-z
3.
NadarzynskiTMilesOCowieA, et al.Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-led chatbot services in healthcare: A mixed-methods study. Dig Health2019; 5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207619871808
4.
JinEEastinM. Towards more trusted virtual physicians: the combinative effects of healthcare chatbot design cues and threat perception on health information trust. Behav Inf Technol2025; 44: 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2024.2347951.
5.
LuoXFChenFXZhuD, et al.Potential roles of large language models in the production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res2024; 26. https://doi.org/10.2196/56780
6.
CevascoKEBrownREMWoldeselassieR, et al.Patient engagement with conversational agents in health applications 2016-2022: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Syst2024; 48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02059-x
7.
JinERyooYKimW, et al.Bridging the health literacy gap through AI chatbot design: the impact of gender and doctor cues on chatbot trust and acceptance. Internet Res2024. https://doi.org/10.1108/Intr-08-2023-0702
8.
JinEEastinM. Towards more trusted virtual physicians: the combinative effects of healthcare chatbot design cues and threat perception on health information trust. Behav Inf Technol2025; 44: 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2347951
9.
ChengYWangYLeeJ. Using a chatbot to combat misinformation: exploring gratifications, chatbot satisfaction and engagement, and relationship quality. Int J Hum Comput Interact2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2344149
10.
D’AdamoLGrammerACRackoffGN, et al.Response to a comment on: Rates and correlates of study enrolment and use of a chatbot aimed to promote mental health services use for eating disorders following online screening. Eur Eat Disord Rev2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.3119
11.
ZhouSSilvasstarJClarkC, et al.An artificially intelligent, natural language processing chatbot designed to promote COVID-19 vaccination: A proof-of-concept pilot study. Dig Health2023; 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231155679
12.
Escobar-VieraCGPortaGCoulterRWS, et al.A chatbot-delivered intervention for optimizing social media use and reducing perceived isolation among rural-living LGBTQ plus youth: Development, acceptability, usability, satisfaction, and utility. Internet Interv Appl Inf Technol Mental Behav Health2023; 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2023.100668
13.
ZhuYHJanssenMWangR, et al.It is me, chatbot: working to address the COVID-19 outbreak-related mental health issues in China. User experience, satisfaction, and influencing factors. Int J Hum Comput Interact2022; 38: 1182–1194.
14.
WoodcockCMittelstadtBBusbridgeD, et al.The impact of explanations on layperson trust in artificial intelligence-driven symptom checker apps: experimental study. J Med Internet Res2021; 23. https://doi.org/10.2196/29386
15.
ManeHYDoigACGutierrezFXM, et al.Practical guidance for the development of, a health education question-and-answer chatbot for new mothers. J Public Health Manag Pract2023; 29: 663–670.
16.
HuangMHKiEJ. Examining the effect of anthropomorphic design cues on healthcare chatbots acceptance and organization-public relationships: trust in a warm human vs. a competent machine. Int J Hum Comput Interact2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2290378
17.
LiuBJSundarSS. Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2018; 21: 625–636.
18.
NassCMoonY. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues2000; 56: 81–103.
19.
XuKChenXBHuangLL. Deep mind in social responses to technologies: A new approach to explaining the Computers are Social Actors phenomena. Comput Human Behav2022; 134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107321
20.
KimYSundarSS. Anthropomorphism of computers: is it mindful or mindless?Comput Human Behav2012; 28: 241–250.
21.
ArsenyanJMirowskaA. Almost human? A comparative case study on the social media presence of virtual influencers. Int J Hum Comput Stud2021; 155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102694
22.
HoornJFWinterSD. Here comes the bad news: doctor robot taking over. Int J Soc Robot2018; 10: 519–535.
van der GootMEtzrodK. Disentangling two fundamental paradigms in human-machine communication research: media equation and media evocation. Hum-Mach Commun2023; 6: 17–30.
25.
HamJLiSTLooiJ, et al.Virtual humans as social actors: Investigating user perceptions of virtual humans’ emotional expression on social media. Comput Human Behav2024; 155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108161
26.
ZhuYQChuJX. Should we express gratitude in human-AI interaction: The online public’s moral stance toward artificial intelligence assistants in China. Public Underst Sci2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251314337
27.
XieZHLiSSLiW. Do discussions in human-computer communities trigger group polarization? Insights from the media evocation paradigm. Comput Human Behav2025; 165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108561
28.
XieZH. Who is spreading AI-generated health rumors? A study on the association between AIGC interaction types and the willingness to share health rumors. Soc Media + Soc2025; 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251323391
29.
BergSHO’HaraJKShorttMT, et al.Health authorities’ health risk communication with the public during pandemics: a rapid scoping review. BMC Public Health2021; 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11468-3
30.
HirvonenNTirroniemiAKortelainenT. The cognitive authority of user-generated health information in an online forum for girls and young women. J Doc2019; 75: 78–98.
31.
JinEEastinM. Gender bias in virtual doctor interactions: gender matching effects of chatbots and users on communication satisfactions and future intentions to use the chatbot. Int J Hum Comput Interact2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2279402
32.
KimAJYangJJangY, et al.Acceptance of an informational antituberculosis chatbot among korean adults: mixed methods research. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth2021; 9. https://doi.org/10.2196/26424
33.
ChenCLiaoMQWaltherJB, et al.When an AI doctor gets personal: the effects of social and medical individuation in encounters with human and AI doctors. Communic Res2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241263482
34.
RiedlRHogeterpSAReuterM. Do patients prefer a human doctor, artificial intelligence, or a blend, and is this preference dependent on medical discipline? Empirical evidence and implications for medical practice. Front Psychol2024; 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1422177
LiuPL. COVID-19 information seeking on digital media and preventive behaviors: the mediation role of worry. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2020; 23: 677–682.
37.
ZhangZWYangHHeJ, et al.The impact of treatment-related internet health information seeking on patient compliance. Telemed E-Health2021; 27: 513–524.
38.
JeongJSKimSY. Risk perception and preventive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic : testing the effects of government trust and information behaviors. Health Commun2024; 39: 376–387.
39.
LuXYZhangRTWuW, et al.Is the internet different from traditional mass Media in promoting patient compliance with mature treatments?Telemed E-Health2020; 26: 71–79.
40.
FoxKRRauschJRGrantVR, et al.Associations of impulsivity and risky decision-making with E-cigarette-related outcomes among adolescents with congenital heart disease: variable- and person-oriented approaches. Behav Med2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2024.2347226
41.
LeeCSFreedlandKEJaarsmaT, et al.Patterns of self-care decision-making and associated factors: A cross-sectional observational study. Int J Nurs Stud2024; 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104665
42.
LiuPL. COVID-19 information on social media and preventive behaviors: managing the pandemic through personal responsibility. Soc Sci Med2021; 277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113928
LiuSYZhangRTLuXY. The impact of Individuals’ attitudes toward health websites on their perceived quality of health information: an empirical study. Telemed E-Health2019; 25: 1099–1107.
45.
WuCHJGuttenaRKAtmajaFT. Influence of social media interactions on vaccination intention in India: an application of the stimulus-organism-behavior-consequence framework. Int J Hum Comput Interact2023; 39: 3084–3095.
46.
ChocarroRCortiñasMMarcos-MatásG. Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: a technology acceptance model approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics. Educ Stud2023; 49: 295–313.
47.
ChenJVLeHTTranSTT. Understanding automated conversational agent as a decision aid: matching agent’s conversation with customer’s shopping task. Internet Res2021; 31: 1376–1404.
48.
LiMCWangR. Chatbots in e-commerce: The effect of chatbot language style on customers’ continuance usage intention and attitude toward brand. J Retail Consum Serv2023; 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103209
49.
TanMStraughanPTCheongG. Information trust and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy amongst middle-aged and older adults in Singapore: A latent class analysis Approach. Soc Sci Med2022; 296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114767
50.
PakYSLeeJM. Organizational learning platforms for knowledge creation in international joint ventures: the mediating role of formal and informal communication. Asian Bus Manag2023; 22: 2135–2163.
51.
XieZHWangZY. Longitudinal examination of the relationship between virtual companionship and social anxiety: emotional expression as a mediator and mindfulness as a moderator. Psychol Res Behav Manag2024; 17: 765–782.
52.
OzavciGBucknallTWoodward-KronR, et al.Creating opportunities for patient participation in managing medications across transitions of care through formal and informal modes of communication. Health Expect2022; 25: 1807–1820.
53.
LiewTWTanSM. Social cues and implications for designing expert and competent artificial agents: A systematic review. Telemat Inform2021; 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101721
54.
CroesEAJAntheunisML. Can we be friends with Mitsuku? A longitudinal study on the process of relationship formation between humans and a social chatbot. J Soc Pers Relat2021; 38: 279–300.
55.
RheuMDaiYMengJB, et al.When a chatbot disappoints you: expectancy violation in human-chatbot interaction in a social support context. Communic Res2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231221669
56.
KeselmanASmithCAMurckoAC, et al.Evaluating the quality of health information in a changing digital ecosystem. J Med Internet Res2019; 21. https://doi.org/10.2196/11129
57.
PianWJKhooCSGChiJX. Automatic classification of users’ health information need context: logistic regression analysis of mouse-click and eye-tracker data. J Med Internet Res2017; 19. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8354
58.
ChungKChoHYParkJY. A chatbot for perinatal women’s and partners’ obstetric and mental health care: development and usability evaluation study. JMIR Med Inform2021; 9. https://doi.org/10.2196/18607
59.
FanHMLedermanR. Online health communities: how do community members build the trust required to adopt information and form close relationships?Eur J Inf Syst2018; 27: 62–89.
60.
JinEJEastinMS. When a chatbot smiles at you: the psychological mechanism underlying the effects of friendly language use by product recommendation chatbots. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2022; 25: 597–604.
61.
WattsJHovickSR. The influence of family communication patterns and identity frames on perceived collective psychological ownership and intentions to share health information. Health Commun2023; 38: 1246–1254.
62.
AlsulaimanSARentnerTL. Information seeking behaviors and media credibility among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Atl J Commun2022; 30: 549–569.
63.
JahediFHenmanPWFRyanJC. Personalization in digital psychological interventions for young adults. Int J Hum Comput Interact2024; 40: 2254–2264.
64.
SzinayDJonesAChadbornT, et al.Influences on the uptake of and engagement with health and well-being smartphone apps: systematic review. J Med Internet Res2020; 22. https://doi.org/10.2196/17572
65.
MahmoodAKimHChangCF, et al.Mhealth apps use and their associations with healthcare decision-making and health communication among informal caregivers: evidence from the national cancer institute’s health information national trends survey. Am J Health Promot2024; 38: 40–52.
