The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 50 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot
Open accessAbstract
Disclosing personal information to another person has beneficial emotional, relational, and psychological outcomes. When disclosers believe they are interacting with a computer instead of another person, such as a chatbot that can simulate human-to-human conversation, outcomes may be undermined, enhanced, or equivalent. Our experiment examined downstream effects after emotional versus factual disclosures in conversations with a supposed chatbot or person. The effects of emotional disclosure were equivalent whether participants thought they were disclosing to a chatbot or to a person. This study advances current understanding of disclosure and whether its impact is altered by technology, providing support for media equivalency as a primary mechanism for the consequences of disclosing to a chatbot.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
35 Own result · 21 No full text of the sources · 16 Own interpretation · 9 Own method · 7 Sources not found · 7 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These data confirm prior research that intimate disclosure leads to beneficial downstream outcomes through these mechanisms, as the Perceived Understanding and Disclosure Processing Hypotheses suggest (Pennebaker, 1993; Reis et al., 2017).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pennebaker, 1993 source
- Partly supportedcites Reis et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 6.1 says disclosure can foster a partner’s understanding and responsiveness, and Section 7 describes benefits associated with feeling understood. But Section 7 calls mediation by perceived understanding an “as yet untested” prediction. The paper therefore supports parts of the proposed pathway, not the stronger claim that prior research established beneficial outcomes through those mechanisms; it does not identify the named hypotheses. (LLM, conf=0.86)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The associations between processes and outcomes reflect causal effects of processes on outcomes.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was the case even though the confederates themselves did not use fewer conjugations or non-fluencies in the chatbot conditions compared to the person conditions (F[1, 94] = 0.20, p = .66, partial η2 = .002; F[1, 94] = 2.15, p = .15, partial η2 = .02).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Manipulation checks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and non-fluencies (F[1, 94] = 9.41, p < .003, partial η2 = .09)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Manipulation checks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects of emotional disclosure were equivalent whether participants thought they were disclosing to a chatbot or to a person.”
- Also stated in: § Overview · plain
“Participants who disclosed to chatbots experienced as many emotional, relational, and psychological benefits as participants who disclosed to a human partner.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Overview · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consistent with previous research, effects were stronger for emotional disclosure versus factual disclosure.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Overview
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When talking to a perceived chatbot as opposed to a person, participants used fewer conjugations (F[1, 94] = 8.30, p < .005, partial η2 = .08)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Manipulation checks
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Talking with a chatbot instead of a human also did not change whether participants were defensive towards threatening information.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across the entire sample, the processes (perceived understanding, disclosure intimacy, and cognitive reappraisal) were significantly associated with the outcome index.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as was understanding (r = .22, p < .03).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that they enjoyed the interaction more (F[1, 94] = 5.49, p < .02, partial η2 = .05) compared to a factual conversation.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
- It may state two separate claims as one. 30
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“According to the theoretical model of perceived understanding (Reis, Lemay, & Finkenauer, 2017), feeling truly understood, or that the partner “‘gets’ [disclosers] in some fundamental way,” brings emotional, relational, and psychological benefits.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Perceived understanding framework
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Reis, Lemay, & Finkenauer, 2017 source
The Introduction (section 1; page not provided) defines feeling understood as believing another person “gets them” in a fundamental way. The Benefits section (section 7) describes relationship, mood, and personal well-being benefits, and the Conclusion (section 8) says people and their relationships generally benefit when they feel understood. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there were no significant interactions or other main effects for perceived partner on any other measure in the study.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Manipulation checks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the emotional conditions, participants felt that they revealed their emotions more and shared information that was more personal, as compared to participants in the factual conditions (F[1, 94] = 133.84, p < .001).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Manipulation checks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants disclosed more intimately (F[1, 94] = 286.25, p < .001, partial η2 = .90)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with no significant effects of perceived partner and no significant interactions.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the processes of perceived understanding, disclosure intimacy, and cognitive reappraisal all correlated as expected with outcomes and, importantly, showed the same pattern across the chatbot and person partners, supporting the Equivalence Hypothesis.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Overview
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, our participants were not asked to disclose anything particularly embarrassing or stigmatizing, and often chose to discuss matters that they had also disclosed to others.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion > Disclosure dynamics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“used more words reflecting cognitive reappraisal (positive emotion words: F[1, 94] = 56.92, p < .00001, partial η2 = .38; causal words: F[1, 94] = 29.79, p < .00001, partial η2 = .24; insight words: F[1, 94] = 147.89, p < .00001) after emotional disclosure compared to factual disclosure, with no effect of perceived partner and no interaction.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants reported a higher negative mood (F[1, 94] = 9.61, p < .001, partial η2 = .09)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether talking to a person or to a chatbot, participants in the emotional conditions were less defensive towards changing their behavior after reading threatening health information (F[1,94] = 8.63, p < .004, partial η2 = .08)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants felt more understood after emotional disclosure compared to factual disclosure (F[1, 94] = 8.94, p < .004, partial η2 = .09), but there was no significant effect of partner, nor a significant interaction.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correlation between understanding and outcomes was .21 for chatbot partners and .27 for human partners, which were not significantly different from each other (zr1−r2 = .299, p = .76).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, the correlation between disclosure intimacy and outcomes was .45 for chatbot partners and .47 for human partners, which did not significantly differ (zr1−r2 = .12, p = .90).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the correlation between cognitive reappraisal and outcomes was .37 for chatbot partners and .38 for human partners, which also were not significantly different (zr1−r2 = .08, p = .93).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also found that the processes involved in producing these outcomes (perceived understanding, disclosure intimacy, and cognitive reappraisal) were equivalent in strength and affected outcomes similarly, regardless of the perceived partner.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with previous research, effects were stronger after emotional disclosure compared to factual disclosure, and we found that this occurred regardless of the partner’s perceived identity (see Table 2).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For both human and chatbot partners, perceptions of relationship quality after emotional disclosure were higher compared to factual disclosures, with no effects of perceived partner or any interactions (see Figure 1).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern of significant effect of type of disclosure, but no effect of partner, occurred across all three types of outcome measures (emotional, relational, psychological) as well as our three process measures (perceived understanding, disclosure intimacy, cognitive reappraisal).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Overview
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“First, disclosure can impact the immediate emotional experience of a discloser by reducing stress arising from negative experiences (Martins et al., 2013)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Martins et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to Pennebaker’s (1993) cognitive processing model, a key component of the link between cognitive changes and beneficial outcomes is the process by which disclosing what was formerly undisclosed eliminates negative affect and processing and induces reappraisal.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Disclosure processing framework
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pennebaker, 1993 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants then engaged in an online chat conversation for 25 minutes with a trained confederate, who was blind to whether participants thought they were talking to a chatbot or to a person, but not to whether participants were asked to engage in emotional or factual disclosure.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Methods > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Disclosing personal information to another person has beneficial emotional, relational, and psychological outcomes.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Self-disclosure, or revealing personal information to someone else (Archer, 1980), generates a wide variety of beneficial outcomes.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Archer, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This level of suspicion was lower or on par with other studies employing WoZ methods (e.g., Aharoni & Fridlund, 2007; Hinds, Roberts, & Jones, 2004)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Methods > Participants
What the sources say
plainn = 13- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants then engaged in an online chat conversation for 25 minutes with a trained confederate, who was blind to whether participants thought they were talking to a chatbot or to a person, but not to whether participants were asked to engage in emotional or factual disclosure.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Methods > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Forming a narrative of the situation facilitates new insights and eliminates rumination over what was previously confusing or bothersome (Lepore, Ragan, & Jones, 2000; Pennebaker & Chung, 2007).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Disclosure processing framework
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lepore, Ragan, & Jones, 2000 source
- Not matchedcites Pennebaker & Chung, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to this model, the positive effects of feeling understood are mediated by the extent to which disclosers perceive that they are understood.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Perceived understanding framework
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Reis et al., 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“According to this framework, people instinctively perceive, react to, and interact with computers as they do with other people, without consciously intending to do so (Reeves & Nass, 1996).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > CASA framework
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Reeves & Nass, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“diminishing anxiety (Tam et al., 2006)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tam et al., 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Participants were also randomly assigned to engage in an emotional conversation, in which they were asked to discuss a current problem they were facing and their deepest feelings about it, or a factual conversation, in which they were asked to describe their schedule for the day and the upcoming week in an objective way, without mentioning their feelings or emotions (Birnbaum et al., 2016; Gortner”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Methods > Procedure
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Computerized agents reduce impression management and increase disclosure intimacy compared to human partners in situations in which fears of negative evaluation may be prominent (e.g., when asked potentially embarrassing questions; Kang & Gratch, 2010; Lucas et al., 2014).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Disclosure processing framework
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The WoZ procedure was used rather than employing a real chatbot because of current chatbots’ conversational limitations, and because perceptions of the partner’s identity can impact subsequent effects, while actual identity does not (Lucas et al., 2014).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > The present study
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lucas et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“which ultimately results in long-term psychological improvement (Kelley, Lumley, & Leisen, 1997)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kelley, Lumley, & Leisen, 1997 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“On the other hand, people assume that chatbots are worse at emotional tasks than humans (Madhavan, Wiegmann, & Lacson, 2006)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Madhavan, Wiegmann, & Lacson, 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were randomly assigned to be told they would have a conversation with either another person or a chatbot.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Methods > Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The beneficial nature of self-disclosure is amplified when the listener responds with support and validation, rather than ignoring or blaming the discloser (Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“increasing negative affect in the short term (Greenberg & Stone, 1992)”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Greenberg & Stone, 1992 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, participants’ perceptions of chatbot competence were not measured before the conversation.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study takes this work a step further by finding that not only are perceptions similar, but disclosure to bots and humans exert similar beneficial outcomes.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion > Theoretical implications
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Emotional disclosure was more beneficial than factual disclosure because of enhanced perceived understanding, disclosure intimacy, and cognitive reappraisal, with no difference depending on whether the partner was perceived to be a chatbot or a person.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The associations between processes and outcomes reflect causal effects of processes on outcomes.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, our study did not include reciprocal disclosure, which may explain why we did not find significant effects in terms of liking of the partner.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Perceived Understanding Hypothesis and the Disclosure Processing Hypothesis received partial support, in that our data replicated previous research on these mechanisms, but no support for their predictions on how these mechanisms would be either undermined or enhanced by disclosure to a chatbot partner.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion > Theoretical implications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These findings expand on the work of communication scholars who have either focused on resulting perceptions but not beneficial outcomes of disclosure (Birnbaum et al., 2016; Gong & Nass, 2007) or on beneficial outcomes when the listener is always human, but not when the listener is a computer (Jones & Wirtz, 2006).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion > Theoretical implications
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and thus felt greater self-affirmation, than participants in the factual conditions, with no effect of perceived partner or interaction (see Figure 1).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the processes were associated with the outcomes to the same strength for human partners as they were for chatbot partners, providing additional support for the Equivalence Hypothesis.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The absence of significant effects of partner indicates equivalence between chatbot and human partners.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may be why intimacy of disclosure to bots compared to humans was equivalent, suggesting that people only disclose more intimately to a computer compared to a person when fears of being judged are heightened.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion > Disclosure dynamics
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In other recent research, however, participants disclosed more intimately to a perceived computer than to a perceived person (Gratch, Lucas, King, & Morency, 2014; Kang & Gratch, 2010; Lucas et al., 2014).”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion > Disclosure dynamics
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Outcomes of disclosure were similar whether the partner was perceived to be a chatbot or a person, supporting the Equivalence Hypothesis.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Results > Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The absence of significant effects of partner indicates equivalence between chatbot and human partners.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While we had sufficient power to detect main effects of the disclosure manipulation”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This provides support for the CASA framework and its Equivalence Hypothesis, that people psychologically engage with chatbots as they do with people, resulting in similar disclosure processes and outcomes.”
§ Psychological, Relational, and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure After Conversations With a Chatbot > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The absence of significant effects of partner indicates equivalence between chatbot and human partners.
The paper relies on this without support.
A chatbot cannot understand a discloser on a deeper level.
“In the case of a chatbot, disclosers know that a chatbot is a computer program that cannot understand them on this deeper level.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Another person has the capability of truly understanding a discloser in a way a chatbot cannot.
“On the other hand, individuals know that another person has the capability of truly understanding them in a way a chatbot cannot, especially who they are and how they experience the world.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Current chatbots have conversational limitations.
“The WoZ procedure was used rather than employing a real chatbot because of current chatbots’ conversational limitations”
The paper relies on this without support.
This is the first study to compare the downstream effects of disclosing to a chatbot partner with disclosing to a human partner.
“This is the first study to compare the downstream effects of disclosing to a chatbot partner with disclosing to a human partner.”
The paper relies on this without support.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to find that more wide-ranging downstream effects, such as those relating to immediate emotional experience or self-affirmation, are similar whether the partner is a computer or a person.
“To our knowledge, this is the first study to find that more wide-ranging downstream effects, such as those relating to immediate emotional experience or self-affirmation, are similar whether the partner is a computer or a person.”
The paper relies on this without support.
This is the first study to examine the psychological impact of disclosing to a partner with a computer identity, such as a chatbot, compared to another person.
“This is the first study to examine the psychological impact of disclosing to a partner with a computer identity, such as a chatbot, compared to another person.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The absence of significant effects of partner indicates equivalence between chatbot and human partners.
“This provides support for the CASA framework and its Equivalence Hypothesis, that people psychologically engage with chatbots as they do with people, resulting in similar disclosure processes and outcomes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The associations between processes and outcomes reflect causal effects of processes on outcomes.
“Emotional disclosure was more beneficial than factual disclosure because of enhanced perceived understanding, disclosure intimacy, and cognitive reappraisal, with no difference depending on whether the partner was perceived to be a chatbot or a person.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Simply disclosing concerns and receiving emotionally supportive responses can have positive value in some contexts25.”
From Chatbots in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“In a study in which students believed they were speaking with a conversational AI, the students reported feeling better after talking about their problems following the encounter (43).”
From Key Considerations for Incorporating Conversational AI in Psychotherapy (2019) · cites this paper as [43]
In the citing paper
“However, contrary findings have also been identified as some studies show evidence that people respond well and disclose more personal information if the chatbot is presented as a bot and can also display emotions [60,61].”
Citations
Cites
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010) · Journal of Language and Social Psychology · doi:10.1177/0261927x09351676 · Cited by 5,774 · cited 2×
“Usage of these words has been found to re fl ect cognitive reappraisal and reconstrual processes (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010): as disclosers come to think about the situation di ff erently and broaden their perspective, they develop new explanations for why the situation may have happened (causal…”
Background(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3702 · Cited by 4,872
Development and validation of the working alliance inventory
Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-0167.36.2.223 · Cited by 3,520 · cited 1×
“Despite low reliability ( α = .49), these two items lie on the same subscale or factor (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989), so they were combined into an index.”
Background(1973) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,836
Confronting a traumatic event: Toward an understanding of inhibition and disease.
Pennebaker, J. W., & Beall, S. K. (1986) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.95.3.274 · Cited by 2,074
Effects of an expanding-spaced vs massed exposure schedule on fear reduction and return of fear
Rowe, M. K., & Craske, M. G. (1998) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(97)10016-x · Cited by 1,782
Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating variables
Smyth, J. M. (1998) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.66.1.174 · Cited by 1,294
Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating variables.
Smyth, J. M. (1998) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.66.1.174 · Cited by 1,290 · cited 2×
“This e ff ect size is r = .35 (Smyth, 1998).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Pickett, 2005, Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology series. The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying, 213
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 630
Kim, Y., Kang, Y., Kim, B. R., Kim, J., & Kim, G. H. (2024) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2362406 · Cited by 23
“This design was based on research suggesting that a clear personality, human-like characteristics, and emotional engagement can signi fi cantly improve user interactions with chatbots (Gru-din and Jacques 2019; Ho, Hancock, and Miner 2018; Nass and Moon 2000).”
Stock, A., Schlögl, S., & Groth, A. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35894-4_13 · Cited by 21
“Ho and colleagues summarize these positive effects found in previous studies into three categories: the improvement of short-term emotional experience (stress, anxiety, reduction), which can ultimately lead to long-term mental health improvement, the improvement of relationship quality through the promotion of closene…”
BackgroundLarge Language Models Can Infer Personality from Free-Form User InteractionsPreprint
Peters, H., Cerf, M., & Matz, S. (2024) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/apc5g · Cited by 45
Li, Y., Chen, L., & Fu, L. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2441422 · Cited by 20
“…scripts, the initial AI inherently lacks the sufficient emotional capacity to genuinely understand the individuals’ needs, which creates a remote psychological distance from the observers participating and ineffective knowledge transmission from AI to human (Ho et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2023).”
Liu, Y., Zhang, Z., & Wu, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2443242 · Cited by 19
“For instance, the capacity of social chatbots to mimic human-like interactions has been observed to parallel emotional, relational, and even therapeutic engagements, traditionally the domain of human interlocutors (Ho et al., 2018; Xygkou et al., 2024).”
Developing a Social Support Framework: Understanding the Reciprocity in Human-Chatbot Relationship
Pan, S., & de Graaf, M. M. A. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713503 · Cited by 22
“Many studies have investigated the extent to which a chatbot’s social support can effectively reduce stress in users, presenting evidence of these conversational agents’ positive impact on the emotional state of support seekers [18, 26, 39, 64].”
Pujiarti, R. N., Lee, B., & Yi, M. Y. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2116414 · Cited by 19
“Third, users tend to have similar positive psychological outcomes when they disclose about themselves to the chatbot and to a human (Ho et al., 2018).”
BackgroundPinochet, L. H. C., de Gois, F. S., Pardim, V. I., & Onusic, L. M. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123414 · Cited by 22
Can Conversing with a Computer Increase Turnout? Mobilization Using Chatbot Communication
Mann, C. B. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2020.5 · Cited by 19
“Experimental evidence also indicates human-to-chatbot conversations can produce emotional benefits similar to human-to-human conversations (Ho, Hancock, and Miner 2018).”
BackgroundKleinert, T., Waldschütz, M., Blau, J., Heinrichs, M., & Schiller, B. (2026) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-025-00391-7 · Cited by 28
“In other words, are there differences in AI ’ s ability to engage in super fi cial small-talkversusdeep-talkcommunicationonmorepersonally meaningful and emotionally charged topics that require a higher level of self-disclosure 31 ?”
New Automation for Social Bots: From Trivial Behavior to AI-Powered Communication
Grimme, C., Pohl, J., Cresci, S., Lüling, R., & Preuss, M. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-18253-2_6 · Cited by 19
Stapels, J. G., Penner, A., Diekmann, N., & Eyssel, F. (2023) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01043-8 · Cited by 18
Human-Machine Communication: Complete Volume. Volume 1
(2020) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.1 · Cited by 17
Kim, H., & Wang, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2025.2558479 · Cited by 23
“This tendency can be enhanced when computer systems exhibit more human-like aspects and qualities in their interactions (Ho, Hancock, and Miner 2018; Nass and Moon 2000).”
Individual differences in anthropomorphism help explain social connection to AI companions
Folk, D. P., Heine, S. J., & Dunn, E. W. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-19212-2 · Cited by 34
“Our findings extend prior work showing that chatbots provide emotional benefits (e.g., social connection, positive affect) comparable to interacting with humans and to a greater extent than other activities like watching YouTube 2,3,21,24 .”
Beattie, A. J., & High, A. C. (2022) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.4.8 · Cited by 17
“Considering these findings, Ho et al. (2018) presented a “perceived understanding” framework, which argued that because humans are perceived to have more empathy than machines, emotional, relational, and psychological effects of support will be greater when disclosing to a person than to a bot.”
BackgroundInfluentialHumanizing Chatbots for Interactive Marketing
Tsai, W. S., & Chuan, C. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14961-0_12 · Cited by 17
Qian, X., & Yuan, S. (2024) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2024.108142 · Cited by 20
“Trust Me Over My Privacy Policy”: Privacy Discrepancies in Romantic AI Chatbot Apps
Ragab, A., Mannan, M., & Youssef, A. M. (2024) · 2024 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) · doi:10.1109/eurospw61312.2024.00060 · Cited by 21
“Ho et al. [10] showed by experiment that emotional, relational, and therapeutic roles can be done by social chatbots.”
BackgroundPark, E. G. (2025) · International Journal of Strategic Communication · doi:10.1080/1553118x.2025.2462087 · Cited by 18
“In general, research has also shown that emotional self-disclosure to AI partners can yield similar emotional and relational benefits as those experienced with human partners (Ho et al., 2018), eliciting higher trust and intention to use online chats (Seitz, 2024).”
Cybersex with human- and machine-cued partners: Gratifications, shortcomings, and tensions.
Banks, J., & Ouytsel, J. V. (2020) · Technology Mind and Behavior · doi:10.1037/tmb0000008 · Cited by 17
“…or adopt a different methodological approach, by, for instance, using a “Wizard of Oz” technique as has been used in other research on chatbots (Ho et al., 2018), and may consider the wider range of possible sexual scripts that excluded in this investigation as a matter of illegality (i.e.,…”
BackgroundMethodLin, J.-S. (2024) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2024.2410559 · Cited by 19
“…1996) and interpersonal relationship theories (e.g. social exchange theory and social penetration theory) has shown that consumers interact and develop relationships with chatbots similarly to how they would interact within interpersonal dyads (e.g. Ho, Hancock, and Miner 2018; Skjuve et al. 2021).”
InfluentialWeinstein, N., Itzchakov, G., & Maniaci, M. R. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100149 · Cited by 19
Adopting Chatbots for Emotional Support: Empirical Evidence from Hong Kong
Liu, Y., Ma, X., Song, C., Huang, D., & Huang, L. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2508911 · Cited by 19
“Users can have immediate emotional experiences after interacting with a conversational partner, including chatbots (Ho et al., 2018).”
Impact of perceived social support on pain perception in virtual reality
Neumann, I., Käthner, I., Gromer, D., & Pauli, P. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107490 · Cited by 17
Wang, J., & Tanes, Z. (2022) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2022.2153842 · Cited by 16
“Moreover, chatting with a support bot or a person provided equal emotional and relational benefits to users (Ho et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMethodKim, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2316373 · Cited by 17
“Previous research has found that the mere perception of the agent’s identity as human or machine has profound effects, even if the actual identity does not (Ho et al., 2018; Lucas et al., 2014).”
InfluentialExamining Agency, Expertise, and Roles of AI Systems in AI-Mediated Communication
Mieczkowski, H., & Hancock, J. (2022) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/asnv4 · Cited by 16
Self-citationMonteverde, G., Cammarota, A., Serafini, L., & Quadri, M. (2025) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2025.2475231 · Cited by 15
“Consumers are accustomed to forging relationships with non-human entities, such as brands (Alabed et al., 2024; MacInnis & Folkes, 2017), products (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007), and even robots (Ho et al., 2018).”
Exploring the Design of LLM-based Agent in Enhancing Self-disclosure Among the Older Adults
Guo, Y., Wang, R., Huang, Z., Jin, T., Yao, X., Feng, Y.-L., Zhang, W., Yao, Y., & Mi, H. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713639 · Cited by 18
“Consequently, older adults are more willing to discuss their difficulties [14], engage in freer conversational exercises [46], and even share more sensitive personal information [18].”
Zou, W., Liu, Z., & Lin, C. (2025) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2025.2508394 · Cited by 15
“This expectation is supported by findings from Ho et al. (2018), which indicate that self-disclosure in supportive environments significantly contributes to individuals’ emotional well-being and self-perception.”
Skidmore, S. J., Lefevor, G. T., & Perez-Figueroa, A. M. (2022) · Review of Religious Research · doi:10.1007/s13644-022-00501-5 · Cited by 16
Ringfort-Felner, R., Laschke, M., Neuhaus, R., Theofanou-Fülbier, D., & Hassenzahl, M. (2022) · Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3546155.3546699 · Cited by 15
“A relationship with a machine can have positive emotional (e.g., reducing stress), relational (e.g., enhancing relational closeness and intimacy), and psychological outcomes (e.g., greater self-affirmation) [30].”
BackgroundIntroducing Quin: The Design and Development of a Prototype Chatbot to Support Smoking Cessation
Bendotti, H., Ireland, D., Lawler, S., Oates, D., GARTNER, C. E., & Marshall, H. (2023) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntad217 · Cited by 19
“30 Therefore, translation of practical and effective smoking cessation counseling into chatbot technology may help to improve the quality of mCessation interventions and provide a highly accessible and potentially comparable option for those who do not want to engage with professional services, but…”
BackgroundLearning from Intelligent Social Agents as Social and Intellectual Mirrors
Maples, B., Pea, R. D., & Markowitz, D. (2023) · AI in Learning: Designing the Future · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-09687-7_5 · Cited by 15
Ricci, F., Giallanella, D., Gaggiano, C., Torales, J. C., Castaldelli-Maia, J. M., Liebrenz, M., Bener, A., & Ventriglio, A. (2024) · International Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/09540261.2024.2384727 · Cited by 17
“A study conducted by Ho et colleagues (Ho et al., 2018) showed that the interactions with chatbots were more successful when based on offering emotional, relational, and psychological rewards and focused on the impact of personal user’s disclosure.”
Sun, X., Shen, T., Jiang, Q., & Jiang, B. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15020184 · Cited by 14
“Under the CASA framework, it is proposed that users adopt similar disclosure strategies when interacting with chatbots as they would with humans (Ho et al., 2018).”
Koebel, K., Lacayo, M., Murali, M., Tarnanas, I., & Çöltekin, A. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-94890-0_2 · Cited by 14
An Interactional Account of Empathy in Human-Machine Communication
Concannon, S. J., Roberts, I., & Tomalin, M. (2023) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.6.6 · Cited by 16
Rubo, M., & Munsch, S. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107915 · Cited by 16
Naher, J. (2024) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-024-06140-z · Cited by 14
Automated Communication’s Impact on Strategic Communication: Implications from a Systematic Review
Weller, T., & Lock, I. (2024) · International Journal of Strategic Communication · doi:10.1080/1553118x.2024.2379501 · Cited by 18
Rahman, M. S., Sabbir, M. M., Zhang, J., Taufique, K. M. R., & Rahman, M. M. (2024) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.13096 · Cited by 14
Peña, J. F., Craig, M., & Baumhardt, H. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221127258 · Cited by 18
“…of Milgram’s procedure, CASA predictions have been tested by comparing between factual or emotional disclosure in chatbot conversations (Ho et al., 2018), researching the persuasive effects of helpful or unhelpful robots who reciprocate to participants (Lee and Liang, 2016), and…”
Han, H. J., Mendu, S., Jaworski, B. K., Owen, J. E., & Abdullah, S. (2021) · ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) · doi:10.1145/3460418.3479332 · Cited by 17
“Perceived social presence is an essential factor in building strong trust with users [4, 17, 28, 42].”
BackgroundCharacterizing Communication Patterns between Audiences and Newsbots
Gómez-Zará, D., & Diakopoulos, N. (2020) · Digital Journalism · doi:10.1080/21670811.2020.1816485 · Cited by 15
Self-disclosure to AI: People provide personal information to AI and humans equivalently
Merwin, E. R., Hagen, A. C., Keebler, J. R., & Forbes, C. E. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100180 · Cited by 17
Is a random human peer better than a highly supportive chatbot in reducing loneliness over time?
Li, R.-N., Folk, D. P., Singh, A., Ungar, L., & Dunn, E. W. (2026) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2026.104911 · Cited by 21
Is symbolic modeling videos containing Malay values effective to improve student’s social harmony?
Halida, H., Mappiare-AT, A., Ramli, M., Akbar, S., Dewantara, J. A., & Fitriyah, F. K. (2022) · Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction · doi:10.47750/pegegog.12.03.16 · Cited by 13
Conversational Agents in Palliative Care: Potential Benefits, Risks, and Next Steps
Schenker, Y., Abdullah, S., Arnold, R. M., & Schmitz, K. H. (2024) · Journal of Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1089/jpm.2023.0534 · Cited by 13
“14 In one study with healthy adults, conversational agents incorporating emotional and relational communication behaviors led to beneficial effects on therapeutic alliance akin to the beneficial effects seen when clinicians incorporate these communication skills.”
Need to belong, privacy concerns and self-disclosure in AI chatbot interaction
Widener, A. M., & Lim, S. (2020) · Journal of Digital Contents Society · doi:10.9728/dcs.2020.21.12.2203 · Cited by 13
Lahoz-Beltrá, R., & López, C. C. (2021) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers10120170 · Cited by 15
Xu, Q. A., Yan, J. H., & Cao, C. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-05643-7_33 · Cited by 13
So, C., Khvan, A., & Choi, W. (2023) · Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds · doi:10.1002/cav.2149 · Cited by 16
“15,16 Research investigating natural conversations with chatbots covered perceptions of social traits which were related to support, 13 appropriateness, 34 intimacy and empathy, 35 perceived warmth Ho et al., 36 and engagement.”
BackgroundCreating and Evaluating Chatbots as Eligibility Assistants for Clinical Trials
Chuan, C., & Morgan, S. E. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare · doi:10.1145/3403575 · Cited by 13
“In contrast, Ho et al. [2018] examined the content of the conversation between the chatbot and the user.”
BackgroundFrick, N., Brünker, F., Roß, B., & Stieglitz, S. (2021) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458221994861 · Cited by 13
“21 However, details about tobacco and alcohol consumption may seem more socially acceptable, causing patients to be more likely to disclose that information.”
Han, H. J., Mendu, S., Jaworski, B. K., Owen, J. E., & Abdullah, S. (2023) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/45894 · Cited by 13
“Perceived social presence is critical in developing strong trust with users [32,33,44,45].”
BackgroundKang, B., & Hong, M. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/58791 · Cited by 18
Ma, S., & Koike, M. (2025) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2481211 · Cited by 12
“Unlike human-to-human relationships, human-chat agent interactions tend to be one-sided, with chat agents primarily serving as listeners and providers of comfort (Ho et al., 2018).”
Social Interaction and Pain Threshold in Virtual Reality
Won, A. S., Pandita, S., & Kruzan, K. P. (2020) · Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2020.0055 · Cited by 12
Factors of attraction in human-machine communication
Edwards, A. P., Gambino, A., & Edwards, C. C. (2022) · Publizistik · doi:10.1007/s11616-022-00756-6 · Cited by 12
The quasi-domestication of social chatbots: The case of Replika
Neff, G., & Nagy, P. (2025) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448251359218 · Cited by 13
“Other applications, also known as social chatbots, are specifically designed to serve as social actors (Ho et al., 2018) and communicative machines (Kempt, 2020).”
AI or human: How the type of information to be disclosed alters customer service agent preferences
Dai, X., Zhang, L., Huang, Z., & Wang, L. (2025) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104621 · Cited by 12
Ronneberg, C. R., Lv, N., Ajilore, O., Kannampallil, T., Smyth, J. M., Kumar, V., Barve, A., Garcia, C., Dosala, S., Wittels, N. E., et al. (2024) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2024.107574 · Cited by 15
“Additionally, conversational partners (text-based chatbots or humans) have been demonstrated to be equally effective at creating emotional, relational, and psychological benefits [14], and establishing strong therapeutic alliances [15].”
Core Theories Applied in Chatbot Context
Bialkova, S. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-56471-0_3 · Cited by 13
Memristor-Based Emotion Regulation Circuit and Its Application in Faulty Robot Monitoring
Sun, J., Gao, P., Liu, P., & Wang, Y. (2024) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3418839 · Cited by 11
“Seventy or eighty percent of human interactions are emotional interactions, while only 20% or 30% are truly rational information exchanges [1], [2].”
BackgroundInforming the design of question-asking conversational agents for reflection
Karaturhan, P., Orhan, İ., Kuşçu, K., & Yantaç, A. E. (2024) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-024-01831-7 · Cited by 12
“Extensive research shows that interacting with CAs can build rapport [12], enhance user engagement [13], and lower burden [14].”
Stević, A., Koban, K., & Matthes, J. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108540 · Cited by 16
Wang, P., Yue, Y., Ouyang, M., Yin, L., Yin, Y., & Li, B. (2024) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393241308511 · Cited by 12
“This fi nding aligns with prior research suggesting GenAI can facilitate interactions yielding relational outcomes akin to those of human – human interactions and mitigate users ’ negative emotions (Drouin et al., 2022; Ho et al., 2018).”
Misra, R., Malik, G., & Singh, P. (2025) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-11-2023-2223 · Cited by 14
Knowledge cues to human origins facilitate self-disclosure during interactions with chatbots
Warren-Smith, G., Laban, G., Pacheco, E.-M., & Cross, E. S. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100174 · Cited by 13
Framing Effects on Judgments of Social Robots’ (Im)Moral Behaviors
Banks, J., & Koban, K. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.627233 · Cited by 14
Bui, T. A., Pohl, M., Rosenfelt, C. S., Ogourtsova, T., Yousef, M., Whitlock, K., Majnemer, A., Nicholas, D. B., Epp, C. D., Zai͏̈ane, O. R., et al. (2022) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/31991 · Cited by 14
“They compensate for staff shortages; provide anonymity, convenience, and faster access to information; and lessen the reluctance to share sensitive (eg, emotional and factual) information [20].”
BackgroundInferring Stressors from Conversation: Towards an Emotional Support Robot Companion
Huang, Y.-C., Gamborino, E., Huang, Y.-J., Qian, X., Fu, L., & Yeh, S. (2022) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-022-00902-0 · Cited by 9
“While the above examples have their own merits in exploring different ways to achieve autonomous emotional support, we posit that the most natural way to understand others’ feelings is through conversation [30].”
BackgroundShim, H., Cho, J., & Sung, Y. H. (2024) · Asian Communication Research · doi:10.20879/acr.2024.21.019 · Cited by 11
Heissler, R., Jonáš, J., Carre, N., Mostovoy, K., & Bunge, E. L. (2024) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/2024/6738001 · Cited by 12
“Interestingly, CA research has shown that users tend to attribute human characteristics to the bots [8], establish bonds similar to the ones observed between humans [8 – 10], and report positive feelings towards the bot [11].”
Gorrieri, L. (2024) · Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.55613/jeet.v34i1.149 · Cited by 14
Autonomous technology in the marketplace: The impact of enjoyment on consumer responses
Rohden, S. F., Netto, C. F. S., & Espartel, L. B. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2025.108647 · Cited by 10
Chatting about the unaccepted: Self-disclosure of unaccepted news exposure behaviour to a chatbot
Ischen, C., Butler, J., & Ohme, J. (2023) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2237605 · Cited by 14
“…enhances relationship building between users and chatbots (S. Y. Lee and Choi 2017; Skjuve et al. 2022), or that disclosing more intimate information towards a chatbot can positively in fl uence emotional, relational and psychological outcomes (Ho, Hancock, and Miner 2018; Y.-C. Lee et al. 2020).”
Pham, S., Churruca, K., Ellis, L. A., & Braithwaite, J. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/49494 · Cited by 11
Designing Depression Screening Chatbots
Giunti, G., Isomursu, M., Gabarron, E., & Solad, Y. (2021) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/shti210719 · Cited by 10
“In the case of mental conditions such as depression, the fact that chatbots do not “think” or form “judgments” may lead to people feeling more comfortable disclosing personal issues to them compared to a person or they may not be willing to share at all[19].”
BackgroundLinh, P. M., Starčič, A. I., & Wu, T. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-15273-3_55 · Cited by 11
Nadarzynski, T., Knights, N., Husbands, D., Graham, C. A., Llewellyn, C. D., Buchanan, T., Montgomery, I., Khlafa, N., Tichackova, J., Odeyemi, R., et al. (2024) · Sexual Health · doi:10.1071/sh24058 · Cited by 9
Chatterjee, R., George, S. R., Verma, J. S., Heggde, G. S., & Gadhavi, D. D. (2025) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-08-2024-0258 · Cited by 9
Meng, H., Li, Z., Xu, X., Wang, J., Zhang, X., & Chen, M. (2025) · Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management · doi:10.1108/jfmm-02-2025-0081 · Cited by 11
Ran, M. O., Zuozhi, F. A. N. G., & Jiandong, F. A. N. G. (2022) · Advances in Psychological Science · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1042.2023.00669 · Cited by 10
“00145v1 (Ho et al., 2018)。不过，ISIs 程序往往需要与服务器通讯，因此以纯文本聊天机器人进行倾听与 回应时，其回复速度也会影响其社交吸引力(Lew & Walther, 2022)，而基于上下文的 动态回复相对于过于即时或延迟的效果更好(Samsudin, 2020) (Cummins & Cui, 2014)，进而将关系线索归因于聊天机器人(Hortensius & Cross, 2018)，并 进一步提升倾听、鼓励的效果。然而，鼓励可能并不适用于所有群体(Arndt et al., 2020) (Rogers, 1957)。而在无指导 ISI 的情…”
Do cognitive and affective expressions matter in purchase conversion? A live chat perspective
Kang, L., Tan, C., & Zhao, J. L. (2019) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24254 · Cited by 9
Towards Chatbots to Support Bibliotherapy Preparation and Delivery
McAllister, P. M., Kerr, J., McTear, M., Mulvenna, M. D., Bond, R., Kirby, K., Morning, J., & Glover, D. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39540-7_9 · Cited by 9
The influence of communicating agent on users’ willingness to interact: A moderated mediation model
Zhou, Q., & Li, B. (2024) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2024-2-7 · Cited by 8
Liao, S., Chen, K., Yao, Y., & Chen, Q. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2430911 · Cited by 8
“Humans will show higher levels of liking for chatbots when they express their preferences similar to those of humans (Ho et al., 2018).”
Joshi, A. C., Ghogare, A. S., & Madavi, P. B. (2025) · Industrial Psychiatry Journal · doi:10.4103/ipj.ipj_363_24 · Cited by 8
“[13] Research by Ho et al ., [ 14] suggests that chatbot conversations can provide emotional, relational, and psychological benefits similar to those experienced in human interactions.”
Examining the Content and Form of Supportive Conversations with Chatbots
Meng, J., Rains, S. A., Qin, J., & Rheu, M. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2467450 · Cited by 8
“…focused on aggregated linguistics features such as the number of positive/negative emotion words (Rains et al., 2020a, 2020b), word count, (Lee et al., 2020) and disclosure characteristics (e.g., disclosure intimacy, Ho et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020) across supportive conversations with chatbots.”
Abu-Haltam, D. (2025) · Chinese Political Science Review · doi:10.1007/s41111-025-00297-z · Cited by 8
“…error, omitted variables, or selection bias, first, I lagged all control variables by two year to mitigate reverse causality and ensure that the conditions preceding partnership formation were adequately captured (Bel‑ lemare and Kröger 2007; Leszczensky and Wolbring 2019; Ho et al. 2018).”
The Impact of a Chatbot's Ephemerality-Framing on Self-Disclosure Perceptions
Cox, S. R., Jacobsen, R. M., & van Berkel, N. (2025) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3719160.3736617 · Cited by 19
“It has also been found that (similarly to human relationships) self-disclosure is important in forming human-CA relationships [26, 49, 91, 93], and self-disclosure to a chatbot may be equally beneficial to self-disclosure to a human [42].”
PITCH: Designing Agentic Conversational Support for Planning and Self-reflection
Abbas, A., Wohn, C., Hu, D., Rho, E. H. R., & Lee, S. W. (2025) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3719160.3736634 · Cited by 11
“While existing literature is mixed on whether people disclose more to chatbots than to humans [23], some studies have found that disclosure to AI agents can be as effective as disclosure to human listeners [49].”
Lee, Y.-H., & Yuan, C. W. (2025) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2025.102339 · Cited by 9
Addressing loneliness by AI chatbot: a qualitative study of empty-nest elderly
Jiao, F., Mei-yu, L., Liu, M., & Zhang, Q. (2026) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-026-26283-x · Cited by 9
“…contribution: although prior work has shown that chatbots can deliver selected dimensions of support (such as emotional reassurance) [46, 65], no research has demonstrated their capacity to simultaneously span emotional, companionship, appraisal, and informational support within a…”
Kostka, G., & Zhou, H. (2026) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103379 · Cited by 16
Gros, D., Li, Y., & Yu, Z. (2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.544 · Cited by 15
“Robot Disclosure: Other work has looked how systems disclosing their non-human identity affects the conversation (Mozafari et al., 2020; Ho et al., 2018).”
BackgroundThe avatar face-off: a face(less) avatar facilitates adults’ reports of personal events
Hsu, C.-W., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (2023) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2187242 · Cited by 8
“In a study with contrary results, Ho, Hancock, and Miner (2018) examined participants ’ disclosure of either a current problem they were facing (a more sensitive topic) or their schedule for the week (a less sensitive topic).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Ho, A., Hancock, J., & Miner, A. S.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Department of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ho, Annabell
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-05-30
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 712-733
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2466
- PMC
- PMC6074615
- OpenAlex
- W2806569034
- Cited by
- 629
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 153 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 39.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Communication (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- National Institutes of Health
- National Center for Advancing Translational Science (KL2TR001083, UL1TR001085)
- Clinical and Translational Science (KL2TR001083, UL1TR001085)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- self-disclosure, chatbots, human-computer interaction, emotional disclosure, interpersonal relationships
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
