Leveraging Artificial Intelligence Chatbots to Employ Bypassing and Correction Strategies for Addressing Misinformation About Contraceptive Use

Abstract

We examined whether bypassing and combined (correction with bypassing) strategies delivered through artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots can address contraceptive misinformation. In Study 1, we found through observational reddit data that bypassing, correction, and combined strategies were present in online discussions and were more engaging than other responses. In Study 2, an experiment employing AI chatbots found that the combined strategy improved recommendation intentions compared with the control conditions, while also reducing beliefs in misinformation. The combined strategy AI chatbot was viewed as warmer and more competent than the correction, invoking less reactance and increasing recommendation intentions. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Keywords

bypassing correction AI chatbots birth control misinformation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abonizio

H. Q.

da Costa Barbon

A. P. A.

Rodrigues

Santos

Martínez-Vizcaíno

Mesas

A. E.

Junior

S. B.

(2023). How people interact with a chatbot against disinformation and fake news in COVID-19 in Brazil: The CoronaAI case. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 177, 105134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105134

Aggarwal

Tam

C. C.

Qiao

(2023). Artificial intelligence–based chatbots for promoting health behavioral changes: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e40789. https://doi.org/10.2196/40789

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2024, May). Facts are important: Hormonal birth control. https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/hormonal-birth-control

Andersson

Batar

Rybo

(1992). Return to fertility after removal of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and Nova-T. Contraception, 46(6), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-7824(92)90122-A

Anthes

(2017). Artificial intelligence poised to ride a new wave. Communications of the ACM, 60(7), 19–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3088342

Bailey

M. J.

Hershbein

Miller

A. R.

(2012). The opt-in revolution? Contraception and the gender gap in wages. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(3), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.4.3.225

Blank

J. M.

Shaw

(2015). Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554756

Cai

Gao

Yan

(2024). How the communication style of chatbots influences consumers’ satisfaction, trust, and engagement in the context of service failure. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03212-0

Calabrese

Albarracín

(2023). Bypassing misinformation without confrontation improves policy support as much as correcting it. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 6005. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33299-5

10.

Carnahan

Bergan

D. E.

(2022). Correcting the misinformed: The effectiveness of fact-checking messages in changing false beliefs. Political Communication, 39(2), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1963358

11.

Chan

M. P. S.

Albarracín

(2023). A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(9), 1514–1525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01623-8

12.

Chan

M. S.

Jones

C. R.

Hall Jamieson

Albarracín

(2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714579

13.

Coleman

(2021, January 25). Introducing Birdwatch, a community-based approach to misinformation. https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation

14.

Cosma

Radi

Cattano

Zanobini

Bonaccorsi

Lorini

Del Riccio

(2025). Exploring Chatbot contributions to enhancing vaccine literacy and uptake: A scoping review of the literature. Vaccine, 44, 126559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126559

15.

Costello

T. H.

Pennycook

Rand

D. G.

(2024). Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI. Science, 385(6714), eadq1814. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq1814

16.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0

17.

DeVerna

M. R.

Yan

H. Y.

Yang

K. C.

Menczer

(2024). Fact-checking information from large language models can decrease headline discernment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(50), e2322823121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322823121

18.

Dillard

J. P.

Shen

(2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815

19.

Ecker

U. K.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Schmid

Fazio

L. K.

Brashier

Amazeen

M. A.

(2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

20.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson.

21.

Fishbein

(1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676301600302

22.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.

23.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

24.

Gallo

M. F.

Lopez

L. M.

Grimes

D. A.

Carayon

Schulz

K. F.

Helmerhorst

F. M.

(2014). Combination contraceptives: Effects on weight. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, CD003987. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003987.pub5

25.

Girum

Wasie

(2018). Return of fertility after discontinuation of contraception: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Contraception and Reproductive Medicine, 3(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-018-0064-y

26.

Gong

L. Y. F.

(2024). Exploring the influence of interactive and empathetic chatbots on health misinformation correction and vaccination intentions. Science Communication, 47(2), 276–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241280986

27.

Granados Samayoa

J. A.

Albarracín

(2025). Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 154(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001687

28.

Grindlay

Grossman

(2016). Prescription birth control access among US women at risk of unintended pregnancy. Journal of Women’s Health, 25(3), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2015.5312

29.

Hoes

Aitken

Zhang

Gackowski

Wojcieszak

(2024). Prominent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but increase scepticism. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(8), 1545–1553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01884-x

30.

Hov

G. G.

Skjeldestad

F. E.

Hilstad

(2007). Use of IUD and subsequent fertility—follow-up after participation in a randomized clinical trial. Contraception, 75(2), 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.09.010

31.

Huang

Liu

(2022). Promoting COVID-19 vaccination: The interplay of message framing, psychological uncertainty, and public agency as a message source. Science Communication, 44(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211048192

32.

Iles

I. A.

Gillman

A. S.

Platter

H. N.

Ferrer

R. A.

Klein

W. M.

(2021). Investigating the potential of inoculation messages and self-affirmation in reducing the effects of health misinformation. Science Communication, 43(6), 768–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211048480

33.

Qin

Calabrese

(2025). Fact-checking misinformation on Chinese Social Media: Impact of corrections, awareness prompts, and legal warnings on endorsement. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251334764

34.

John

J. N.

Gorman

Scales

Gorman

(2024). Online misleading information about women’s reproductive health: A narrative review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 40, 1123–1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09118-6

35.

Johnson

H. M.

Seifert

C. M.

(1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420–1436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420

36.

Kan

(2020, September 25). Twitter: Our “read before you retweet” function actually works. https://www.pcmag.com/news/twitter-our-read-before-you-retweet-function-actually-works

37.

Kim

W. B.

Hur

H. J.

(2023). What makes people feel empathy for AI chatbots? Assessing the role of competence and warmth. International Journal of Human–computer Interaction, 40(17), 4674–4687. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2219961

38.

Laranjo

Dunn

A. G.

Tong

H. L.

Kocaballi

A. B.

Chen

Bashir

Coiera

(2018). Conversational agents in healthcare: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(9), 1248–1258. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocy072

39.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Ecker

Albarracin

Amazeen

M. A.

Kendou

Zaragoza

(2020). The debunking handbook 2020. https://skepticalscience.com/debunking-handbook-2020-downloads-translations.html

40.

Shi

(2025). Message effects on psychological reactance: Meta-analyses. Human Communication Research, 52, 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaf016

41.

Lindh

Ellström

A. A.

Milsom

(2011). The long-term influence of combined oral contraceptives on body weight. Human Reproduction, 26(7), 1917–1924. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der094

42.

Lopez

L. M.

Ramesh

Chen

Edelman

Otterness

Trussell

Helmerhorst

F. M.

(2016). Progestin-only contraceptives: Effects on weight. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8, CD008815. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008815.pub4

43.

Kalny

C. S.

Walter

(2025). Words that trigger: A meta-analysis of threatening language, reactance, and persuasion in health. Journal of Communication, 75, 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaf004

44.

Martel

Mosleh

Rand

(2021). You’re definitely wrong, maybe: Correction style has minimal effect on corrections of misinformation online. Media and Communication, 9(1), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3519

45.

McKee

K. R.

Bai

Fiske

S. T.

(2023). Humans perceive warmth and competence in artificial intelligence. iScience, 26(8), 107256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.107256

46.

Mills

Mangone

E. R.

Lesh

Jayal

Mohan

Baraitser

(2024). Chatbots that deliver contraceptive support: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, Article e46758. https://doi.org/10.2196/46758

47.

Nabi

R. L.

Moyer-Gusé

Byrne

(2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196896

48.

Y. J.

Zhang

Fang

M. L.

Fukuoka

(2021). A systematic review of artificial intelligence chatbots for promoting physical activity, healthy diet, and weight loss. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18(1), 160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01224-6

49.

S. S.

Wijaya

S. A.

(2025). Harnessing AI to address misinformation on cultivated meat: The impact of chatbot expertise and correction sidedness. Science Communication, 47, 859–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470251315097

50.

Pennycook

Epstein

Mosleh

Arechar

A. A.

Eckles

Rand

D. G.

(2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592(7855), 590–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2

51.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

52.

Ponce de León

Chenrose

(2025, June 24). Grok struggles with fact-checking amid Israel-Iran war. https://dfrlab.org/2025/06/24/grok-struggles-with-fact-checking-amid-israel-iran-war/

53.

Pornpitakpan

(2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x

54.

Qin

Nan

Meng

(2025). Effectiveness of communication competence in AI conversational agents for health: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, Article e76296.

55.

Rainie

(2025). Close encounters of the AI kind: The increasingly human-like way people are engaging with language models. Imagining the Digital Future Center.

56.

Roozenbeek

van der Linden

(Eds.). (2024). Interventions to combat misinformation. In Roozenbeek

van der Linden

(Eds.), The psychology of misinformation (pp. 98–115). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009214414.011

57.

Rzepka

Berger

(2018). User interaction with AI-enabled systems: A systematic review of IS research. https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=icis2018

58.

Saucier

C. J.

Calabrese

Walter

(2025). Leveraging motivations to curb misinformation: Self-affirmation reduces the appeal of political conspiracy theories. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 37(5), 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000481

59.

Smith

C. N.

Seitz

H. H.

(2019). Correcting misinformation about neuroscience via social media. Science Communication, 41(6), 790–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019890073

60.

Sonfield

Hasstedt

Kavanaugh

M. L.

Anderson

(2013). The social and economic benefits of women’s ability to determine whether and when to have children. Guttmacher Institute.

61.

Song

McComas

K. A.

Schuler

K. L.

(2018). Source effects on psychological reactance to regulatory policies: The role of trust and similarity. Science Communication, 40(5), 591–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018791293

62.

Susmann

M. W.

Wegener

D. T.

(2022). The role of discomfort in the continued influence effect of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 50(2), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01232-8

63.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776

64.

Walter

Brooks

J. J.

Saucier

C. J.

Suresh

(2020). Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 36(13), 1776–1784. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794553

65.

Walter

Murphy

S. T.

(2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85(3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564

66.

Walter

Tukachinsky

(2020). A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: How powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it? Communication Research, 47(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219854600

67.

Wang

Tanes-Ehle

(2023). Examining the effects of conversational chatbots on changing conspiracy beliefs about science: The paradox of interactivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 67(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2022.2153842

68.

World Health Organization. (2025). Maternal and reproductive health. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/maternal-and-reproductive-health

69.

Xue

Zhang

(2025). Facts or feelings? Leveraging emotionality as a fact-checking strategy on social media in the United States. Social Media + Society, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251318172

70.

Zahry

N. R.

Besley

J. C.

(2021). Can scientists communicate interpersonal warmth? Testing warmth messages in the context of science communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 49(4), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2021.1880017

71.

Zhang

Featherstone

J. D.

Calabrese

Wojcieszak

(2021). Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. Preventive Medicine, 145, 106408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106408

72.

Zhang

Y. J.

Lange

Fukuoka

(2020). Artificial intelligence chatbot behavior change model for designing artificial intelligence chatbots to promote physical activity and a healthy diet. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), Article e22845. https://doi.org/10.2196/22845

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.

0.00 MB

3.65 MB