Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Trusting the Search: Unraveling Human Trust in Health Information from Google and ChatGPT

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.09987 v1 pith:CNYSXZ7K submitted 2024-03-15 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords searchtrustinformationhealthagentsgooglechatgptparticipants
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

People increasingly rely on online sources for health information seeking due to their convenience and timeliness, traditionally using search engines like Google as the primary search agent. Recently, the emergence of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has made Large Language Model (LLM) powered conversational agents such as ChatGPT a viable alternative for health information search. However, while trust is crucial for adopting the online health advice, the factors influencing people's trust judgments in health information provided by LLM-powered conversational agents remain unclear. To address this, we conducted a mixed-methods, within-subjects lab study (N=21) to explore how interactions with different agents (ChatGPT vs. Google) across three health search tasks influence participants' trust judgments of the search results as well as the search agents themselves. Our key findings showed that: (a) participants' trust levels in ChatGPT were significantly higher than Google in the context of health information seeking; (b) there is a significant correlation between trust in health-related information and trust in the search agent, however only for Google; (c) the type of search tasks did not affect participants' perceived trust; and (d) participants' prior knowledge, the style of information presentation, and the interactive manner of using search agents were key determinants of trust in the health-related information. Our study taps into differences in trust perceptions when using traditional search engines compared to LLM-powered conversational agents. We highlight the potential role LLMs play in health-related information-seeking contexts, where they excel as stepping stones for further search. We contribute key factors and considerations for ensuring effective and reliable personal health information seeking in the age of generative AI.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Do people rely on ChatGPT more than their peers to detect deepfake news?

    econ.GN 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a lab deepfake-detection task, students shifted more toward ChatGPT's advice than toward peers' advice (weight-of-advice 0.59 vs 0.33), though in 2025 sessions they trusted linguistic experts slightly more than ChatGPT.

  2. Evaluating Reliability Asymmetries in Chinese Factual Search and AI Answers

    cs.IR 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Chinese search engines, LLMs, and AI Overviews are comparably accurate when they commit to an answer but differ sharply in answer rate, and all are systematically better on yes-labeled than no-labeled health-dominated...

  3. Fake Friends and Sponsored Ads: The Risks of Advertising in Conversational Search

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Advertising integrated into conversational AI responses could exploit user trust in sensitive contexts like mental health, a risk this paper names the 'fake friend dilemma.'

Pith tools