Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 101 references

Mining Evidence about Your Symptoms: Mitigating Availability Bias in Online Self-Diagnosis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that chatbot symptom checkers that ask users to justify their symptoms with concrete evidence, or to think about times the symptom is absent, can counteract the symptom overestimation that follows exposure to relatable…

desk verdict A genuinely interesting counterintuitive finding about neutral content and availability bias, wrapped in a study whose central intervention claim relies on unverified chatbot behavior. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15028 v1 pith:WH76NHF7 submitted 2025-01-25 cs.HC

Junti Zhang , Zicheng Zhu , Jingshu Li , Yi-Chieh Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords availabilitybiasonlineself-diagnosischatbotsymptomcheckercognitiveinterventionevidencereflectioncounterfactualthinkingsocialmediahealthinformationadultADHD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that availability bias from social media can be mitigated in online self-diagnosis by chatbot-based symptom checkers that prompt users to reflect on evidence instead of relying on how easily examples come to mind. The authors ran two experiments using adult ADHD as the test case. In the first, people who read factual, relatable posts about ADHD symptoms rated their own symptoms higher than controls, while exaggerated posts did not have this effect because readers distrusted them. In the second, a static questionnaire and a plain chatbot both left the social-media-induced symptom inflation in place, whereas chatbots that asked users to give concrete evidence for symptoms, or to consider when symptoms do not occur, removed the effect and lowered self-reported social media influence. If right, this gives a concrete design recipe: conversational agents that force evidence-based reflection can guard against a cognitive bias that otherwise distorts self-diagnosis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a conversational symptom checker built on GPT-4 that asks follow-up questions instead of presenting a fixed form. Evidence Reflection prompts the user, when they report a symptom, to describe the specific circumstances and concrete details supporting that report, until sufficient context is provided. Counterfactual Thinking prompts the user who says a symptom occurs to also consider how often and under what circumstances it does not occur, forcing them to compare against absence. Both strategies shift the user from System 1 heuristics, where whatever comes to mind dominates, to System 2 analytical reasoning, which is the theorized route through which availability bias is interrupted. The plain chatbot without these strategies served as a control to isolate the effect of conversation itself.

What would settle it

Record and code the actual chatbot turns: if an audit shows that the Evidence Reflection bot rarely asked for concrete evidence, or that the Counterfactual Thinking bot rarely posed absence-of-symptom questions, then the observed reductions in social-media influence and the absence of inattention-score inflation cannot be attributed to those cognitive interventions; they could be due to conversational engagement or longer time on task.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that availability bias in online self-diagnosis is triggered primarily by content resonance rather than exaggeration, and that the bias can be reversed at the point of self-assessment by cognitive-intervention question strategies. In Study 1, participants who read neutral, relatable social media posts about adult ADHD reported stronger social media influence on their symptom assessment and produced significantly higher inattention and hyperactivity scores than controls; participants who read exaggerated posts did not differ from controls. Qualitative responses showed the mechanism: resonant posts made people recognize their own experiences and recall similar symptoms, causing them to disregard their own evidence. In Study 2, a chatbot with an Evidence Reflection strategy and a chatbot with a Counterfactual Thinking strategy both significantly reduced the self-reported influence of social media relative to a static questionnaire, and eliminated the significant baseline-to-post increase in inattention scores that appeared in the static-questionnaire and plain-chatbot conditions. The authors conclude that CSCs with cognitive intervention strategies mitigate availability bias by guiding users into evidence-based reflective thinking.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim breaks if the GPT-4 chatbots did not actually follow their evidence-reflection and counterfactual-thinking scripts, since the study provides no transcript-level check of what the bots said.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Static questionnaire symptom checkers are a vulnerable format: in this study they left social-media-induced inattention-score inflation intact, so designers should not assume a well-validated scale alone protects users.
  • A plain conversational wrapper is not enough; only the two chatbots with active cognitive-intervention questions reduced social media influence and removed the inattention-score jump, pointing to the question design as the active ingredient.
  • Evidence Reflection and Counterfactual Thinking can be added to existing chatbot symptom checkers without changing the underlying medical questions, making them a cheap bias-mitigation layer for online self-diagnosis.
  • The bias reduction came with higher self-reported mental effort, so these designs will face a usability trade-off: slower, more demanding reflection versus faster but more biased self-assessment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension the authors leave implicit: recommendation algorithms that surface accurate, relatable health stories should be treated as a distinct bias risk, because Study 1 suggests resonance, not exaggeration, is what inflates self-assessed symptoms.
  • I would predict the same two chatbot strategies will suppress availability bias for other ambiguous, common conditions such as chronic Lyme, migraine, or irritable bowel syndrome, since the mechanism is the ease-of-recall heuristic rather than anything ADHD-specific.
  • A stricter test of the claimed mechanism would track whether the chatbot's follow-up questions change downstream behavior, such as actual symptom diaries or healthcare visits, rather than relying only on self-report scales, which can be affected by wanting to appear thoughtful to the bot.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses availability bias in online self-diagnosis. Study 1 (N=104) compares a control condition with exposure to neutral and exaggerated social media posts about adult ADHD, finding that neutral content increases self-reported social media influence and symptom overestimation, while exaggerated content does not. Study 2 (N=100) compares a static questionnaire, a plain chatbot-based symptom checker (CSC), a CSC with an Evidence Reflection strategy, and a CSC with a Counterfactual Thinking strategy, reporting that the two cognitive-intervention CSCs reduce self-reported social media influence and prevent significant increases in inattention scores. The authors interpret these results as evidence that CSCs with cognitive interventions mitigate availability bias, and they discuss design implications for online diagnostic tools and social media platforms.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a practical contribution to the design of chatbot-based symptom checkers and provides useful evidence about how resonant social media content triggers availability bias. The work has clear strengths: explicit hypotheses, power calculations, established instruments (SNAP-IV, ASRS, NVS, SRIS, NASA-TLX), manipulation checks, inter-coder reliability for qualitative coding, and two complementary studies. The finding that neutral, relatable content can be more influential than exaggerated content is interesting and well supported by the qualitative data. However, the central quantitative claims are currently weakened by several internal statistical inconsistencies, and the attribution of Study 2's effects to the specific cognitive interventions rests on an unverified assumption about chatbot fidelity.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 and Table 1] The text and Table 1 report conflicting p-values for the pairwise comparisons that support H1.a and H2.a. In §4.2, the Control-vs-Neutral comparison for social media influence is reported as p = 0.22* with Cohen's D = -0.65, while Table 1 gives p = 0.022 for the same comparison; these values lead to opposite conclusions at the 0.05 level. In §4.3.1, the Control-vs-Neutral inattention comparison is reported as p < 0.001 in the text but p = 0.012 in Table 1, and the hyperactivity comparison is reported as p = 0.05* in the text but p = 0.47 in Table 1. Because the support for H1.a and H2.a depends directly on these comparisons, the authors must reconcile the reported statistics and restate which hypotheses are actually supported. The same issue appears in the §4.1 manipulation checks (p = 0.008 vs p = 0.004 for accuracy; p = 0.016 vs p = 0.009 for trustworthiness).
  2. [§6, first paragraph; §5.1.3 and §5.1.4] The claim that the Evidence Reflection and Counterfactual Thinking strategies, rather than the general conversational properties of the chatbot, drove the observed reductions in social media influence rests on the single assertion that "the AI agent adhered to our instructions." No transcripts, fidelity coding, deviation counts, or inter-rater assessment of dialogue behavior are provided. Because the ER and CT conditions also changed the length, structure, and required response format of the interaction compared with the plain CSC, the intended cognitive mechanisms are confounded with conversational style and effort. The authors should provide a fidelity audit of a sample of conversations (for example, adherence rates per strategy component and representative transcripts in an appendix), or explicitly weaken the causal attribution to the specific strategies.
  3. [§6.2] The conclusion that ER and CT "were effective in addressing the overestimation of inattention scores" is based on the absence of a statistically significant within-group increase in those conditions, not on a significant difference from the control or plain CSC conditions. A null result in paired tests of this size is weak evidence of effectiveness, especially when the comparable between-condition comparisons are not reported. The authors should either report equivalence bounds or Bayes factors for the pre-post changes, or soften the claim to state that no significant overestimation was detected rather than that the interventions were effective.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.6] The sentence "To compare the outcomes of the four types of health information" appears to refer to the three experimental conditions in Study 1; please correct the count.
  2. [§4.3.1] The heading "Exaggerated content did not led to overestimation of symptoms" contains a grammatical error; "led" should be "lead."
  3. [§5.1.1] The phrase "an diagnostic result" should be "a diagnostic result."
  4. [§6.2] The sentence "This indicates that both treatments with cognitive strategy was effective" has subject-verb agreement problems; it should read "both treatments with cognitive strategies were effective."
  5. [Throughout] Effect sizes are reported inconsistently as "Cohen's D" in some places and "Cohen's d" in others; please standardize the notation and use the same form in text, tables, and figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports two independent empirical studies; no parameters are fitted, no derivation is reduced to its inputs, and the disconfirmed hypotheses H1.b/H2.b indicate the analysis is not constructed after the fact.

full rationale

This is an empirical HCI paper, not a derivation or prediction-from-model paper. Study 1 tests how neutral versus exaggerated social media content affects self-assessment; Study 2 tests three chatbot designs against a static questionnaire. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no equation whose output is identical to its input, and no load-bearing self-citation chain: the authors cite their own prior work (Lee et al. 2020) only as background motivation for chatbot self-disclosure, not as the evidence for the current findings. The Study 2 interventions are informed by Study 1's qualitative themes, but the evaluation uses new participants, new outcome measures, and pre-specified comparisons, so the design-informed-by-prior-study relationship is not circular. The fact that H1.b and H2.b were not supported further shows the results were not constructed to match expectations. The only flagged concern, that Section 6 asserts 'the AI agent adhered to our instructions' without transcript-level fidelity auditing, is a validity and reproducibility limitation about whether the chatbot implemented the intended cognitive strategies; it does not make the empirical claim equivalent to its inputs by definition or by self-citation, so it does not constitute circularity under the specified criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on assumptions about the validity of self-report scales, the representativeness of simulated social media exposure, the researcher-defined content categories, and the fidelity of the GPT-4 chatbot implementation. These are not free parameters fitted to data, but they are domain assumptions and ad hoc choices that the central claim depends on.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ASRS and adapted SRIS self-report instruments validly measure ADHD symptoms and social media influence, respectively.
    The central outcome measures rely on self-report scales, which are assumed to capture availability bias and symptom levels. This is a standard assumption in HCI studies but is not independently validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Exposure to five simulated social media posts in a lab setting produces an availability bias comparable to real-world repeated exposure.
    The authors acknowledge that the study is short-term and simulated; the generalizability to real social media dynamics is an untested assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The researcher-defined criteria for neutral and exaggerated posts are valid and produce stimuli that differ only in the intended way.
    The posts were collected and categorized by the research team using their own criteria. The manipulation check only verified that exaggerated posts were perceived as less accurate, not that neutral posts were perceived as neutral or resonant.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4-based chatbots implemented the Evidence Reflection and Counterfactual Thinking interventions faithfully according to the prompts.
    The paper asserts this in a single sentence but provides no transcript audit or systematic fidelity check. The effectiveness of the interventions depends on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mining Evidence about Your Symptoms: Mitigating Availability Bias in Online Self-Diagnosis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WH76NHF7

@misc{pith2026250115028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mining Evidence about Your Symptoms: Mitigating Availability Bias in Online Self-Diagnosis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WH76NHF7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15028}
}
read the original abstract

People frequently exposed to health information on social media tend to overestimate their symptoms during online self-diagnosis due to availability bias. This may lead to incorrect self-medication and place additional burdens on healthcare providers to correct patients' misconceptions. In this work, we conducted two mixed-method studies to identify design goals for mitigating availability bias in online self-diagnosis. We investigated factors that distort self-assessment of symptoms after exposure to social media. We found that availability bias is pronounced when social media content resonated with individuals, making them disregard their own evidences. To address this, we developed and evaluated three chatbot-based symptom checkers designed to foster evidence-based self-reflection for bias mitigation given their potential to encourage thoughtful responses. Results showed that chatbot-based symptom checkers with cognitive intervention strategies mitigated the impact of availability bias in online self-diagnosis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15028 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulated social media platform with three types of health-related posts: (a) controlled information, (b) neutral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of Study 1 procedure detailing the sequence of tasks and surveys. This diagram illustrates the comprehensive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Participants’ ADHD self-assessment scores from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of symptom checking questions asked by the designed CSCs. The blue sections represent controlled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the experimental procedure. changed some of the rhetoric in the second measurement to fit the conversational nature and avoid repetition. Social media influence: The evaluation of social media influence followed the design in Study 1. 7 questions from SRIS …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of Social Media influence scores across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Baseline and post-intervention inattention (a) and hyperactivity (b) scores across groups. Significant increases in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean evaluation scores on mental effort across the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Elie Abdelnour, Madeline O Jansen, and Jessica A Gold. 2022. ADHD diagnostic trends: increased recognition or overdiagnosis? Missouri medicine 119, 5 (2022), 467

    2022

  2. [2]

    Ramez M Alkoudmani, Guat See Ooi, and Mei Lan Tan. 2023. Implementing a chatbot on Facebook to reach and collect data from thousands of health care providers: PharmindBot as a case.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 63, 5 (2023), 1634–1642

    2023

  3. [3]

    Darren Scott Appling, Erica J Briscoe, and Clayton J Hutto. 2015. Discriminative models for predicting deception strategies. InProceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web . 947–952

    2015

  4. [4]

    Nancy D Berkman, Terry C Davis, and Lauren McCormack. 2010. Health literacy: what is it? Journal of health communication 15, S2 (2010), 9–19

    2010

  5. [5]

    Joseph Biederman, Stephen V Faraone, Thomas J Spencer, Eric Mick, Michael C Monuteaux, Megan Aleardi, et al. 2006. Functional impairments in adults with self- reports of diagnosed ADHD: A controlled study of 1001 adults in the community. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 67, 4 (2006), 524–540

    2006

  6. [6]

    Nattapat Boonprakong, Xiuge Chen, Catherine Davey, Benjamin Tag, and Tilman Dingler. 2023. Bias-Aware Systems: Exploring Indicators for the Occurrences of Cognitive Biases When Facing Different Opinions. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2023

  7. [7]

    Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2021. To trust or to think: cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–21

    2021

  8. [8]

    Maria Caiata-Zufferey and Peter J Schulz. 2012. Physicians’ communicative strategies in interacting with Internet-informed patients: results from a qualitative study. Health communication 27, 8 (2012), 738–749

    2012

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    JN Cappella, M Fishbein, R Hornik, RK Ahern, and S Sayeed. 2001. Using theory to select messages in antidrug media campaigns: Reasoned action and media priming. Public communication campaigns 3 (2001), 213–30

    2001

  2. [10]

    E Moulton Carol-anne, Glenn Regehr, Maria Mylopoulos, and Helen M MacRae

  3. [11]

    Chunlei Chang, Benjamin Bach, Tim Dwyer, and Kim Marriott. 2017. Evaluating perceptually complementary views for network exploration tasks. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1397–1407

    2017

  4. [12]

    Jiawei Chen, Hande Dong, Xiang Wang, Fuli Feng, Meng Wang, and Xiangnan He. 2023. Bias and debias in recommender system: A survey and future directions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 3 (2023), 1–39

    2023

  5. [13]

    Kevin Corti and Alex Gillespie. 2016. Co-constructing intersubjectivity with artificial conversational agents: People are more likely to initiate repairs of misunderstandings with agents represented as human. Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016), 431–442

    2016

  6. [14]

    Pat Croskerry. 2003. Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decision making. Annals of emergency medicine 41, 1 (2003), 110–120

    2003

  7. [15]

    Pat Croskerry. 2003. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strate- gies to minimize them. Academic medicine 78, 8 (2003), 775–780

    2003

  8. [16]

    C Daigre, JA Ramos-Quiroga, S Valero, R Bosch, C Roncero, B Gonzalvo, M Nogueira, and M Casas. 2009. Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-v1. 1) symptom checklist in patients with substance use disorders. Actas españolas de psiquiatría 37, 6 (2009), 299–305

    2009

  9. [17]

    Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Yaoli Mao, and Pattie Maes. 2023. Don’t just tell me, ask me: Ai systems that intelligently frame explanations as questions improve human logical discernment accuracy over causal ai explanations. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on ...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Shai Davidai and Thomas Gilovich. 2016. The headwinds/tailwinds asymmetry: An availability bias in assessments of barriers and blessings.Journal of personality and social psychology 111, 6 (2016), 835

    2016

  11. [19]

    Tilman Dingler, Ashris Choudhury, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2018. Biased Bots: Conversational Agents to Overcome Polarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Compute...

    2018

  12. [20]

    John W Ely, Mark L Graber, and Pat Croskerry. 2011. Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Academic Medicine 86, 3 (2011), 307–313

    2011

  13. [21]

    Adam M Enders, Joseph E Uscinski, Casey Klofstad, and Justin Stoler. 2020. The different forms of COVID-19 misinformation and their consequences. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Annabel Farnood, Bridget Johnston, and Frances S Mair. 2020. A mixed methods systematic review of the effects of patient online self-diagnosing in the ‘smart- phone society’on the healthcare professional-patient relationship and medical authority. BMC Medical Informatics and D...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Andrew J Flanagin and Miriam J Metzger. 2000. Perceptions of Internet infor- mation credibility. Journalism & mass communication quarterly 77, 3 (2000), 515–540

    2000

  16. [24]

    Susan Shur-Fen Gau, Chien-Ho Lin, Fu-Chang Hu, Chi-Yung Shang, James M Swanson, Yu-Chih Liu, and Shih-Kai Liu. 2009. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham, version IV scale-Teacher Form. Journal of pediatric psychology 34, 8 (2009), 850–861

    2009

  17. [25]

    X Gocko, P Tattevin, and C Lemogne. 2021. Genesis and dissemination of a controversial disease: Chronic Lyme. Infectious Diseases Now 51, 1 (2021), 86–89

    2021

  18. [26]

    Lisa Neal Gualtieri. 2009. The doctor as the second opinion and the internet as the first. In CHI ’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI EA ’09) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2489–2498. https://doi.org/10...

    2009

  19. [27]

    Sandra G Hart. 2006. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting , Vol. 50. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 904–908

    2006

  20. [28]

    Andrew F Hayes and Jacob J Coutts. 2020. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But. . . .Communication Methods and Measures 14, 1 (2020), 1–24

    2020

  21. [29]

    Beth L Hoffman, Elizabeth M Felter, Kar-Hai Chu, Ariel Shensa, Chad Hermann, Todd Wolynn, Daria Williams, and Brian A Primack. 2019. It’s not all about autism: The emerging landscape of anti-vaccination sentiment on Facebook. Vaccine 37, 16 (2019), 2216–2223

    2019

  22. [30]

    Robert C Hornik. 2002. Exposure: Theory and evidence about all the ways it matters. Social Marketing Quarterly 8, 3 (2002), 31–37

    2002

  23. [31]

    Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Dolores Albarracin. 2020. The relation between media consumption and misinformation at the outset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the US. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    James Johnson. 2022. Counterfactual thinking & nuclear risk in the digital age: The role of uncertainty, complexity, chance, and human psychology. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 5, 2 (2022), 394–421

    2022

  25. [33]

    Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow . macmillan

    2011

  26. [34]

    Daniel Kahneman. 2014. Varieties of counterfactual thinking. In What might have been. Psychology Press, 387–408

    2014

  27. [35]

    Naveena Karusala and Richard Anderson. 2022. Towards Conviviality in Navigat- ingHealth Information on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    2022

  28. [36]

    Soomin Kim, Joonhwan Lee, and Gahgene Gweon. 2019. Comparing data from chatbot and web surveys: Effects of platform and conversational style on survey response quality. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12

    2019

  29. [37]

    Holly Korda and Zena Itani. 2013. Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health promotion practice 14, 1 (2013), 15–23

    2013

  30. [38]

    Liliana Laranjo, Amaël Arguel, Ana L Neves, Aideen M Gallagher, Ruth Kaplan, Nathan Mortimer, Guilherme A Mendes, and Annie YS Lau. 2015. The influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical ...

    2015

  31. [39]

    LMDS Lavorgna, Manuela De Stefano, Maddalena Sparaco, Marcello Moccia, Gianmarco Abbadessa, Patrizia Montella, Daniela Buonanno, Sabrina Esposito, Marinella Clerico, Cristina Cenci, et al. 2018. Fake news, influencers and health- related professional participation on the Web: ...

    2018

  32. [40]

    I hear you, I feel you

    Yi-Chieh Lee, Naomi Yamashita, Yun Huang, and Wai Fu. 2020. " I hear you, I feel you": encouraging deep self-disclosure through a chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–12

    2020

  33. [41]

    Brenna Li. 2024. Designing Conversational Agents to Facilitate Patient-Physician Communication and Clinical Consultation. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–5

    2024

  34. [42]

    Brenna Li, Ofek Gross, Noah Crampton, Mamta Kapoor, Saba Tauseef, Mohit Jain, Khai N Truong, and Alex Mariakakis. 2024. Beyond the Waiting Room: Patient’s Perspectives on the Conversational Nuances of Pre-Consultation Chatbots. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Fac...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Ping Li, Zi yan Cheng, and Gui lin Liu. 2020. Availability bias causes misdiagnoses by physicians: direct evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Internal Medicine 59, 24 (2020), 3141–3146

    2020

  36. [44]

    Yuelin Li, Zhenjia Fan, Xiaojun Yuan, and Xiu Zhang. 2022. Recognizing fake information through a developed feature scheme: a user study of health misin- formation on social media in China. Information Processing & Management 59, 1 (2022), 102769

    2022

  37. [45]

    Sahil Loomba, Alexandre De Figueiredo, Simon J Piatek, Kristen De Graaf, and Heidi J Larson. 2021. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature human behaviour 5, 3 (2021), 337–348

    2021

  38. [46]

    Romain Lutaud, Pierre Verger, Patrick Peretti-Watel, and Carole Eldin. 2022. When the patient is making the (wrong?) diagnosis: a biographical approach to patients consulting for presumed Lyme disease. Family Practice (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Xiya Ma, Dominique Vervoort, and Jessica GY Luc. 2020. When misinformation goes viral: access to evidence-based information in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Global Health Science 2, 1 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Sílvia Mamede, Marco Antonio de Carvalho-Filho, Rosa Malena Delbone de Faria, Daniel Franci, Maria do Patrocinio Tenorio Nunes, Ligia Maria Cayres Ribeiro, Julia Biegelmeyer, Laura Zwaan, and Henk G Schmidt. 2020. ‘Immunis- ing’physicians against availability bias in diagnosti...

    2020

  41. [49]

    SÝlvia Mamede, Tamara van Gog, Kees van den Berge, Remy MJP Rikers, Jan LCM van Saase, Coen van Guldener, and Henk G Schmidt. 2010. Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. Jama 304, 11 (2010), 1198–1203

    2010

  42. [50]

    Sílvia Mamede, Tamara Van Gog, Kees Van Den Berge, Jan LCM Van Saase, and Henk G Schmidt. 2014. Why do doctors make mistakes? A study of the role of salient distracting clinical features. Academic Medicine 89, 1 (2014), 114–120

    2014

  43. [51]

    Julian N Marewski and Gerd Gigerenzer. 2012. Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience 14, 1 (2012), 77–89

    2012

  44. [52]

    I was right about vaccination

    Corine S Meppelink, Edith G Smit, Marieke L Fransen, and Nicola Diviani. 2019. “I was right about vaccination”: Confirmation bias and health literacy in online health information seeking. Journal of health communication 24, 2 (2019), 129– 140

    2019

  45. [53]

    Ashley ND Meyer, Traber D Giardina, Christiane Spitzmueller, Umber Shahid, Taylor MT Scott, and Hardeep Singh. 2020. Patient perspectives on the usefulness of an artificial intelligence–assisted symptom checker: cross-sectional survey study. Journal of medical Internet researc...

    2020

  46. [54]

    Michael L Millenson, Jessica L Baldwin, Lorri Zipperer, and Hardeep Singh. 2018. Beyond Dr. Google: the evidence on consumer-facing digital tools for diagnosis. Diagnosis 5, 3 (2018), 95–105

    2018

  47. [55]

    Shravika Mittal and Munmun De Choudhury. 2023. Moral framing of mental health discourse and its relationship to stigma: a comparison of social media and news. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2023

  48. [56]

    Joao Luis Zeni Montenegro, Cristiano André da Costa, and Rodrigo da Rosa Righi

  49. [57]

    Sydney Morris. 2021. The Museum of Misinformation: An Interactive Exhibit Illuminating the Effects of Social Media Algorithms on Cognitive Bias and the Spread of Misinformation. (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Anwesha Mukherjee, Vagner Figueredo De Santana, and Alexis Baria. 2023. ImpactBot: Chatbot Leveraging Language Models to Automate Feedback and Promote Critical Thinking Around Impact Statements. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys...

    2023

  51. [59]

    Robin L Nabi and Abby Prestin. 2016. Unrealistic hope and unnecessary fear: Exploring how sensationalistic news stories influence health behavior motivation. Health communication 31, 9 (2016), 1115–1126

    2016

  52. [60]

    Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) (CHI ’94) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 72–78. https:/...

    1994

  53. [61]

    Vikas N O’Reilly-Shah. 2017. Factors influencing healthcare provider respondent fatigue answering a globally administered in-app survey. PeerJ 5 (2017), e3785

    2017

  54. [62]

    Erik Parens and Josephine Johnston. 2009. Facts, values, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): an update on the controversies. Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health 3 (2009), 1–17

    2009

  55. [63]

    Katrina L Pariera. 2012. Information literacy on the web: How college students use visual and textual cues to assess credibility on health websites. Communications in Information Literacy 6, 1 (2012), 4

    2012

  56. [64]

    Royal Pathak, Francesca Spezzano, and Maria Soledad Pera. 2023. Understanding the contribution of recommendation algorithms on misinformation recommen- dation and misinformation dissemination on social networks. ACM Transactions on the Web 17, 4 (2023), 1–26

    2023

  57. [65]

    Richard Paul. 1991. Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a changing world. Nassp Bulletin 75, 533 (1991), 120–122

    1991

  58. [66]

    Md Abdur Rahman. 2023. A Survey on Security and Privacy of Multimodal LLMs-Connected Healthcare Perspective. In 2023 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps). IEEE, 1807–1812

    2023

  59. [67]

    James B Reilly, Alexis R Ogdie, Joan M Von Feldt, and Jennifer S Myers. 2013. Teaching about how doctors think: a longitudinal curriculum in cognitive bias and diagnostic error for residents. BMJ quality & safety 22, 12 (2013), 1044–1050

    2013

  60. [68]

    Paul Resnick, Neophytos Iacovou, Mitesh Suchak, Peter Bergstrom, and John Riedl. 1994. Grouplens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 175–186

    1994

  61. [69]

    Emily Saltz, Claire R Leibowicz, and Claire Wardle. 2021. Encounters with visual misinformation and labels across platforms: An interview and diary study to inform ecosystem approaches to misinformation interventions. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human F...

    2021

  62. [70]

    Laura D Scherer, Jon McPhetres, Gordon Pennycook, Allison Kempe, Larry A Allen, Christopher E Knoepke, Channing E Tate, and Daniel D Matlock. 2021. Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses. Health Psychology 40, 4 (2021), 274

    2021

  63. [71]

    Norbert Schwarz, Herbert Bless, Fritz Strack, Gisela Klumpp, Helga Rittenauer- Schatka, and Annette Simons. 1991. Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social psychology 61, 2 (1991), 195

    1991

  64. [72]

    Hannah L Semigran, Jeffrey A Linder, Courtney Gidengil, and Ateev Mehrotra

  65. [73]

    Hyunjin Seo, Matthew Blomberg, Darcey Altschwager, and Hong Tien Vu. 2021. Vulnerable populations and misinformation: A mixed-methods approach to un- derserved older adults’ online information assessment. New Media & Society 23, 7 (2021), 2012–2033

    2021

  66. [74]

    Paul J Silvia. 2022. The self-reflection and insight scale: Applying item response theory to craft an efficient short form. Current Psychology 41, 12 (2022), 8635– 8645

    2022

  67. [75]

    Yuan Sun and S Shyam Sundar. 2022. Exploring the effects of interactive dialogue in improving user control for explainable online symptom checkers. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts . 1–7

    2022

  68. [76]

    Nalina Suresh, Nkandu Mukabe, Valerianus Hashiyana, Anton Limbo, and Aina Hauwanga. 2021. Career Counseling Chatbot on Facebook Messenger using AI. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Science, Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence. 65–73

    2021

  69. [77]

    Thitaree Tanprasert, Sidney S Fels, Luanne Sinnamon, and Dongwook Yoon. 2024. Debate Chatbots to Facilitate Critical Thinking on YouTube: Social Identity and Conversational Style Make A Difference. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–24

    2024

  70. [78]

    Philip E Tetlock and Jae I Kim. 1987. Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of personality and social psychology 52, 4 (1987), 700

    1987

  71. [79]

    Robert L Trowbridge. 2008. Twelve tips for teaching avoidance of diagnostic errors. Medical teacher 30, 5 (2008), 496–500

    2008

  72. [80]

    Chun-Hua Tsai, Yue You, Xinning Gui, Yubo Kou, and John M Carroll. 2021. Exploring and promoting diagnostic transparency and explainability in online symptom checkers. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2021

  73. [81]

    Ronny E Turner, Charles Edgley, and Glen Olmstead. 1975. Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology (1975), 69–89

    1975

  74. [82]

    Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive psychology 5, 2 (1973), 207–232

    1973

  75. [83]

    Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuris- tics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science 185, 4157 (1974), 1124–1131

    1974

  76. [84]

    Svitlana Volkova and Jin Yea Jang. 2018. Misleading or falsification: Inferring deceptive strategies and types in online news and social media. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018 . 575–583

    2018

  77. [85]

    Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. science 359, 6380 (2018), 1146–1151

    2018

  78. [86]

    Peter C Wason and J St BT Evans. 1974. Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition 3, 2 (1974), 141–154

    1974

  79. [87]

    Brian E Weeks, Daniel S Lane, Dam Hee Kim, Slgi S Lee, and Nojin Kwak. 2017. Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: In- tegrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of computer-mediated communication 22, 6 (201...

    2017

  80. [88]

    Barry D Weiss, Mary Z Mays, William Martz, Kelley Merriam Castro, Darren A DeWalt, Michael P Pignone, Joy Mockbee, and Frank A Hale. 2005. Quick as- sessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. The Annals of Family Medicine 3, 6 (2005), 514–522

    2005

  81. [89]

    Caroline Wellbery. 2011. Flaws in clinical reasoning: a common cause of diag- nostic error. American family physician 84, 9 (2011), 1042–1048

    2011

  82. [90]

    Ziang Xiao, Michelle X Zhou, Q Vera Liao, Gloria Mark, Changyan Chi, Wenxi Chen, and Huahai Yang. 2020. Tell me about yourself: Using an AI-powered chatbot to conduct conversational surveys with open-ended questions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 27, 3...

    2020

  83. [91]

    Yue You and Xinning Gui. 2021. Self-diagnosis through AI-enabled chatbot-based symptom checkers: user experiences and design considerations. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 2020. 1354

    2021

  84. [92]

    Yue You, Chun-Hua Tsai, Yao Li, Fenglong Ma, Christopher Heron, and Xinning Gui. 2023. Beyond self-diagnosis: how a chatbot-based symptom checker should respond. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 4 (2023), 1–44

    2023

  85. [93]

    Brahim Zarouali, Evert Van den Broeck, Michel Walrave, and Karolien Poels

  86. [94]

    Lexia Zhan, Dingrong Guo, Gang Chen, and Jiongjiong Yang. 2018. Effects of repetition learning on associative recognition over time: Role of the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. Frontiers in human neuroscience 12 (2018), 277

    2018

  87. [95]

    Shuai Zhang, Feicheng Ma, Yunmei Liu, and Wenjing Pian. 2022. Identifying features of health misinformation on social media sites: an exploratory analysis. Library Hi Tech 40, 5 (2022), 1384–1401

    2022

  88. [96]

    Yuehua Zhao and Jin Zhang. 2017. Consumer health information seeking in social media: a literature review. Health Information & Libraries Journal 34, 4 (2017), 268–283

    2017

  89. [97]

    Rojin Ziaei and Samuel Schmidgall. 2023. Language models are suscepti- ble to incorrect patient self-diagnosis in medical applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09362 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  90. [2007]

    Slowing down when you should: a new model of expert judgment.Academic Short Title CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Medicine 82, 10 (2007), S109–S116

    2007

  91. [2015]

    bmj 351 (2015)

    Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study. bmj 351 (2015)

    2015

  92. [2018]

    Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 21, 8 (2018), 491–497

    Predicting consumer responses to a chatbot on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 21, 8 (2018), 491–497

    2018

  93. [2019]

    Expert Systems with Applications 129 (2019), 56–67

    Survey of conversational agents in health. Expert Systems with Applications 129 (2019), 56–67. CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Junti Zhang, Zicheng Zhu, Jingshu Li, and Yi-Chieh Lee

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.