Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
“What Might Happen With Generative AI?” Examining the Role of Prefactual Thinking in the Cognitive Mediation Model in the Context of Emerging Technologies
Prefactual thinking, a form of prospective mental simulation, significantly impacts individuals’ decision-making. To understand the influence of media consumption on public opinion regarding emerging technologies, this study, in the context of generative artificial intelligence (AI), examined prefactual thinking as a cognitive process of media consumption, extending the cognitive mediation model. Using quota sampling, we conducted an online survey of 1,129 Hong Kong adult residents. The findings revealed that elaborative processing was positively associated with prefactual thinking, which, in turn, influenced emotional responses. Prefactual thinking and emotional responses shaped benefit-risk perceptions, which influenced individuals’ generative AI opinion. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.
AdhikariP.HamalP.Baidoo JnrF. (2024). Impact and regulations of AI on labor markets and employment in USA. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 13, 470–476. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.13.1.1670
2.
AndersonA. A.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.CorleyE. A. (2012). The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr032
3.
BabatundeS. O.OdejideO. A.EdunjobiT. E.OgundipeD. O. (2024). The role of AI in marketing personalization: A theoretical exploration of consumer engagement strategies. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v6i3.964
4.
BaconA. M.WalshC. R. A.BriazuR. (2020). Looking behind and looking ahead: Personality differences in counterfactual and prefactual thinking. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 40(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236620905810
5.
BaumgartnerH.PietersR.BagozziR. P. (2008). Future-oriented emotions: Conceptualization and behavioral effects. European Journal Social Psychology, 38, 685–696. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.467
6.
BesleyJ. C.McComasK. A. (2015). Something old and something new: Comparing views about nanotechnology and nuclear energy. Journal of Risk Research, 18(2), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.896397
7.
BinderA. R.CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.ShawB. R.CorleyE. A. (2012). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 830–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510390159
8.
BoonW.MoorsE. (2008). Exploring emerging technologies using metaphors: A study of orphan drugs and pharmacogenomics. Social Science & Medicine, 66(9), 1915–1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.012
9.
BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.KimE.LewensteinB. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507087304
10.
ByrneR. M. J.EganS. M. (2004). Counterfactual and prefactual conditionals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085791
11.
CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. A. (2011). From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509347815
12.
ChangM. (2024). Does the media’s partisanship influence news coverage on artificial intelligence issues? media coverage analysis on artificial intelligence issues. Social Science Computer Review, 43, 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393241268526
13.
ChenA.ZhangX.JinJ. (2025). Public opinion outweighs knowledge: A dual-process framework for understanding acceptance of genetic modification among scientists and laypeople. Risk Analysis, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17704
14.
ChenL.WeijieZ.FuL. (2023). Examining factors influencing public knowledge, risk perception, and policy support for waste classification: A multigroup comparison of the cognitive mediation model based on gender differences. Environmental Communication, 17(7), 759–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2253499
15.
ChoJ.ShahD. V.McLeodJ. M.McLeodD. M.SchollR. M.GotliebM. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x
16.
ChuanC.TsaiW.ChoS. (2019). Framing artificial intelligence in American newspapers. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314285
17.
CuiD.WuF. (2021). The influence of media use on public perceptions of artificial intelligence in China: Evidence from an online survey. Information Development, 37(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666919893411
18.
De AngelisL.BaglivoF.ArzilliG.PriviteraG. P.FerraginaP.TozziA. E.RizzoC. (2023). ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: The new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health. Frontiers in Public Health, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1166120
19.
DixonG.HartP. S.ClarkeC.O’DonnellN. H.HmielowskiJ. (2020). What drives support for self-driving car technology in the United States?Journal of Risk Research, 23(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1517384
20.
EllsworthP. C. (1991). Some implications of cognitive appraisal theories of emotion. In StrongmanK. T. (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion (Vol. 1, pp. 143–161). Wiley.
21.
EpstudeK.RoeseN. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(2), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308316091
22.
EpstudeK.SchollA.RoeseN. J. (2016). Prefactual thoughts: Mental simulations about what might happen. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000064
23.
EvelandW. P. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28(5), 571–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028005001
24.
EvelandW. P.ShahD. V.KwakN. (2003). Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model: A panel study of motivations, information processing, and learning during campaign 2000. Communication Research, 30(4), 359–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253369
25.
FastE.HorvitzE. (2017). Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10635
26.
FernandezD. K.GanH. H. M.ChanA. Y. C. (2021). Comparing the functional benefits of counterfactual and prefactual thinking: The content-specific and content-neutral pathways. Thinking & Reasoning, 28(2), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1989034
27.
FungT. K. F. (2019). The role of counterfactual thinking in narrative persuasion: Its impact on patients’ adherence to treatment regimen. Health Communication, 34(12), 1482–1493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1500432
28.
FungT. K. F.BrossardD.NgI. (2011). There is water everywhere: How news framing amplifies the effect of ecological worldviews on preference for flooding protection policy. Mass Communication & Society, 14(5), 553–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.521291
29.
GlynnC. J.HerbstS.LindemanM.O’KeefeG. J. (2015). Perception and opinion formation. In GlynnC. (Ed.), Public opinion (pp. 176–211). Taylor & Francis Group.
30.
HajjarS. T. (2018). Statistical analysis: Internal-consistency reliability and construct validity. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 6(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijqqrm.13
31.
HammellC.ChanA. Y. C. (2016). Improving physical task performance with counterfactual and prefactual thinking. PLOS ONE, 11(12), e0168181. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168181
32.
HelgasonB. A.EffronD. A. (2022). It might become true: How prefactual thinking licenses dishonesty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(5), 909–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000308
33.
HmielowskiJ. D.KirkpatrickA. W.BoydA. D. (2021). Understanding public support for smart meters: Media attention, misperceptions, and knowledge. Journal of Risk Research, 24(11), 1388–1404. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1863844
34.
HoS. S.ChuahA. S. F. (2022). Thinking, not talking, predicts knowledge level: Effects of media attention and reflective integration on public knowledge of nuclear energy. Public Understanding of Science, 31(5), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211070786
35.
HoS. S.PehX.SohV. W. L. (2013). The cognitive mediation model: Factors influencing public knowledge of the H1N1 pandemic and intention to take precautionary behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 18(7), 773–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.743624
36.
HoS. S.ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. A. (2011). Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication, 33(2), 167–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010380386
37.
HoS. S.YangX.ThanwaraniA.ChanJ. M. (2017). Examining public acquisition of science knowledge from social media in Singapore: An extension of the cognitive mediation model. Asian Journal of Communication, 27(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2016.1240819
38.
IttefaqM.ZainA.ArifR.Ala-UddinM.AhmadT.IqbalA. (2025). Global news media coverage of artificial intelligence (AI): A comparative analysis of frames, sentiments, and trends across 12 countries. Telematics Informatics, 96, 102223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2024.102223
39.
KasneciE.SesslerK.KüchemannS.BannertM.DementievaD.FischerF.GasserU.GrohG.GünnemannS.HüllermeierE.KruscheS.KutyniokG.MichaeliT.NerdelC.PfefferJ.PoquetO.SailerM.SchmidtA.SeidelT.. . .KasneciG. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
40.
KimK. E. (2014). Framing as a strategic persuasive message tactic. In HoltzhausenD.ZerfassA. (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 285–302). Routledge.
41.
KloppE. (2020). A tutorial on testing the equality of standardized regression coefficients in structural equation models using Wald tests with lavaan. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(4), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.16.4
42.
LaoY.YouY. (2024). Unraveling generative AI in BBC News: Application, impact, literacy and governance. Transforming Government People Process and Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/tg-01-2024-0022
43.
LarueO.PoirierP.NkambouR. (2013). Hypothetical-thinking based on cognitive decoupling and thinking dispositions in a dual cognitive agent. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 6, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2013.06.004
44.
LeeE. W. J.ShinM.KawajaA.HoS. S. (2016). The augmented cognitive mediation model: Examining antecedents of factual and structural breast cancer knowledge among Singaporean women. Journal of Health Communication, 21(5), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1114053
45.
LeeS.ChungM.KimN.Jones-JangS. M. (2024). Public perceptions of ChatGPT: Exploring how nonexperts evaluate its risks and benefits. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000140
46.
LiL.BautistaJ. R. (2021). Elaboration, cancer worry, and risk perception mediate the association between news attention on the Internet and intention to uptake HPV vaccination: Extending the cognitive mediation model cancer worry, elaboration, HPV vaccination, news attention, risk perception. International Journal of Communication, 15(22). https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/16314/3598
MaJ.WangP.LiB.WangT.PangX. S.WangD. (2024). Exploring User Adoption of ChatGPT: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(2), 1431–1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2314358
49.
MacnaghtenP.DaviesS. R.KearnesM. (2015). Understanding public responses to emerging technologies: A narrative approach. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(5), 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053110
50.
MahmutovićM. (2024). AI generative Chatbot in the media: Journalistic coverage of ChatGPT in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Media Studies and Applied Ethics, 5(1), 7–25. https://msae.rs/index.php/home/article/view/106
51.
MallikarjunaB.ChittemsettyP. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence: Fundamentals and evolution. In RazaK.AhmadN.SinghD. (Eds.), Generative AI: Current trends and applications (pp. 3–17). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-8460-8_1
52.
McConnellA. R.NiedermeierK. E.LeiboldJ. M.El-AlayliA. G.ChinP. P.KuiperN. M. (2000). What if I find it cheaper someplace else? Role of prefactual thinking and anticipated regret in consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 17(4), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200004)17:4<281::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-5
53.
MiyazakiK.MurayamaT.UchibaT.AnJ.KwakH. (2024). Public perception of generative AI on Twitter: An empirical study based on occupation and usage. EPJ Data Science, 13(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00445-y
54.
NabiR. (2009). Emotion and media effects. In NabiR.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media processes and effects (pp. 205–221). Sage.
55.
NahF. F.ZhengR.CaiJ.SiauK.ChenL. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814
56.
NamkoongK.FungT. K. F.ScheufeleD. A. (2012). The politics of emotion: News media attention, emotional responses, and participation during the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Mass Communication and Society, 15(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.563894
57.
NanayB. (2024). Perception: The basics. Routledge.
58.
NoyS.ZhangW. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586
59.
NyabokeY. (2024). Intellectual property rights in the era of artificial intelligence. Journal of Modern Law and Policy, 4(2), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.47941/jmlp.2162
RitcheyM.DolcosF.EddingtonK. M.StraumanT. J.CabezaR. (2010). Neural correlates of emotional processing in depression: Changes with cognitive behavioral therapy and predictors of treatment response. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45(5), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.09.007
RyeM. S.CahoonM. B.AliR. S.DaftaryT. (2008). Development and validation of the counterfactual thinking for negative events scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(3), 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701884996
64.
SannaL. J. (1996). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and stimulating alternatives: Some ups and downs of prefactual and counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 1020–1036. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.1020
65.
SchwarzN. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 289–308). Sage.
66.
ShahD. V.ChoJ.NahS.GotliebM. R.HwangH.LeeN.-J.SchollR. M.McLeodD. M. (2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00363.x
67.
SukJ.ZhangY.LiuJ.YangY. (2025). Communicative AI in the scientific public sphere: An analysis of Twitter discourse on generative AI tools. Telematics and Informatics, 98, 102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2025.102261
68.
SunM.HuW.WuY. (2024). Public perceptions and attitudes towards the application of artificial intelligence in journalism: From a China-based Survey. Journalism Practice, 18(3), 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2022.2055621
69.
SunS.ZhaiY.ShenB.ChenY. (2020). Newspaper coverage of artificial intelligence: A perspective of emerging technologies. Telematics and Informatics, 53, 101433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101433
70.
TaberK. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296.
71.
WachK.DuongC. D.EjdysJ.KazlauskaitėR.KorzynskiP.MazurekG.PaliszkiewiczJ.ZiembaE. (2023). The dark side of generative artificial intelligence: A critical analysis of controversies and risks of ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(2), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110201
XianL.LiL.XuY.ZhangZ.HemphillL. (2024). Landscape of large language models in global English news: Topics, sentiments, and spatiotemporal analysis. Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media, 18, 1661–1673. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31416
74.
Yadlin-SegalA.OppenheimY. (2020). Whose dystopia is it anyway? Deepfakes and social media regulation. Convergence the International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies, 27(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520923963
75.
YanW.HuB.Liu Y-l LiC.SongC. (2024). Does usage scenario matter? Investigating user perceptions, attitude and support for policies towards ChatGPT. Information Processing & Management, 61(6), 103867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103867
76.
YangX.ChenL.WeiR. (2023). Extending the cognitive mediation model to examine public support for funding science and technology development in China: Media attention, information processing, scientific literacy, and nationalism. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edac037
77.
YangX.ChuahA. S. F.LeeE. W. J.HoS. S. (2017). Extending the cognitive mediation model: Examining factors associated with perceived familiarity and factual knowledge of nanotechnology. Mass Communication and Society, 20(3), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1271436
78.
ZhangT. H.ThamJ. S.LeeE. W. J.WaheedM. (2024). Linking pathways from perceived absolute and comparative risk to colorectal cancer screening intention: Towards an extended cognitive mediation model. Communication Studies, 75(6), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2024.2331812
79.
ZhaoX.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC. (2011). Attention to science/environment news positively predicts and attention to political news negatively predicts global warming risk perceptions and policy support. Journal of Communication, 61, 713–731.
