Systematic review explores laypersons’ misconceptions of AI-chatbots, indicating significant knowledge gaps.
Recent generative AI advances have turned chatbots with pre-programmed responses into systems that perform text generation, summarization or translation and mimic human conversation. Understanding how non-experts perceive these chatbots is essential, given their widespread use, complexity, and susceptibility to errors. This paper systematically reviews empirical studies on laypersons’ perceptions and (mis-)conceptions of AI-chatbots. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted advanced searches in Scopus, Web of Science, PubPsych, and PsycInfo. Out of 670 initial results, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for a detailed analysis. A qualitative thematic analysis of the investigated constructs identified six major themes in the literature, of which the theme Knowledge and Awareness was significantly underexplored, especially in studies involving non-academic populations. The results suggest that many laypersons lacked understanding of the capabilities and limitations of these tools, holding misconceptions such as the attribution of human-like language comprehension, the assumption that output quality depends solely on training data, or the—at the time incorrect—assumption that the systems can retrieve information in real time. Overall, we find a consistent pattern of overestimation of chatbot capabilities due to limited understanding. We lack studies testing whether myths about other AI systems also exist about AI-chatbots, as well as exploration of knowledge about AI-chatbots outside of academic samples and contexts. Building on a series of identified research gaps, we propose a research agenda that highlights the empirical work needed to better understand how the general public can be adequately informed about the use of AI chatbots.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schneller et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: