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 501–600 of 630
Abe, K., Quan, C., Cao, S., & Luo, Z. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15095092
Suraj, A. (2025) · Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · doi:10.22215/etd/2025-16361
How does turning to AI for companionship predict loneliness and vice versa?Preprint
Folk, D. P., & Dunn, E. W. (2025) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/bq7v3_v2
Conversational Agent Design: A Comprehensive Analysis of Research from Leading Conferences
Aktaş, N. B., & Akbıyık, A. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88705-5_9
My Digital 'Friend': Response Machine or Conversational Companion?
Segal, T. (2025) · QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.257422
Influence of the Use of Emojis by Chatbots on Interaction Satisfaction
Shen, W., & Li, S. (2025) · Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness · doi:10.33423/jmdc.v19i2.7685
Standards, Policies, Ethical Guidelines and Governance in Artificial Intelligence
Purohit, S., & Arora, R. (2025) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394275311.ch1
Synthetic Empathy and the Influence Trap
Katoch, H., & Sandhu, D. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3658-9.ch004
A Longitudinal Study of the Processes and Outcomes of Trust in Ai ChatbotsPreprint
Ng, S. W. T., Zhang, R., & Tan, Y. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5396821
Lin, W.-S., Erlitio, A., & Rotchanachiraphaisan, U. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5418660
Kang, M., & Park, C. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197777497.013.0022
Lee, Y., Yamashita, N., & Huang, Y. (2024) · International Symposium of Chinese CHI (Chinese CHI) · doi:10.1145/3758871.3758882
Is a Random Human Peer Better Than a Highly Supportive Chatbot in Reducing Loneliness Over Time?Preprint
Li, R.-N., Folk, D. P., Singh, A., Ungar, L., & Dunn, E. W. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5704772
What Can I Do for You? Amplification and Suppression: The Double‐Edged Sword of Virtual Avatars
Wei, S., Hu, J., & Meng, N. (2025) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.70071
Human-Robot Trait Matching Effect: Consumers Appreciate Robots in Congruence with Their Self-Traits
Chai, D., Le, Y., & Li, J. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2588670
“However, consumers’ belief that AI lacks genuine emotional understanding limits the perceived warmth of service robots (Ho et al., 2018; Longoni et al., 2019).”
Virtual Assistant Avatars to Nudge Pro-Social Behavior: Exploratory Insights from a Co-Design Study
Abumalloh, R. A., Halabi, O., & Ali, R. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2589499
“In the experiment conducted by Ho et al. (2018), participants engaged in chat conversations; either a chatbot or a human.”
Sha, S., Loveys, K., Qualter, P., Shi, H., Krpan, D., & Galizzi, M. M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26744636
Luetke Lanfer, H., Reifegerste, D., Weber, W., Memenga, P., Baumann, E., Geulen, J., Klein, S., Müller, A., Hahne, A., & Weg‐Remers, S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26690860
Sha, S., Loveys, K., Qualter, P., Shi, H., Krpan, D., & Galizzi, M. M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26744630
Sharing motives shape interface preferences for social sharing of emotion with conversational AI
Nozaki, Y. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100229
Personalization of Companion Chatbot by Accessing to User’s Diary Entries
Miwa, K., Matsubayashi, S., & Nakahara, A. (2025) · International Workshop on Semantic and Social Media Adaptation and Personalization (SMAP) · doi:10.1109/smap66932.2025.00026
Two Years to Madness: A 30-Month Journal of Human–Machine Communication and Second-Hand Reality
Prahl, A. (2026) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.12.4
“Prior HMC work has mapped how humans negotiate agency with a wide variety of machines, including humanoid robots (Banks & de Graaf, 2020 ), voice assistants (Lutz & Tamó-Larrieux, 2020 ), and emotionally responsive chatbots (Ho et al., 2018 ).”
Revealing While Solving: Exploring the Strategy of Service-Oriented Self-Disclosure of AI Chatbots
Yang, M., & Rau, P. P. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2621280
“This aligns with prior findings that users respond more positively to agents expressing emotional or relational cues (Ho et al., 2018; Meng & Dai, 2021).”
InfluentialLin, W.-S., Hung, H.-Y., & Maneesai, T. (2026) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-03-2025-0227
Ferland, L., Qu, H., & Koutstaal, W. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341640
“There is an increasing body of evidence that users may experience many positive effects of interacting with conversational agents, sometimes even markedly more so than in face-to-face interactions with humans [19,50].”
InfluentialChen, C., Ren, H., Liu, J., Tian, F., & Wang, F. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2725999
Mitsuno, S., Ban, M., Ishiguro, H., & Yoshikawa, Y. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100292
Lan, L. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6623-4.ch010
Artificial Influence: How AI Role and Gender Reshape Team DynamicsPreprint
Traeger, M. L., Kormylo, C., Hubbard, T. D., & Villano, M. A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6469423
The Development of an AI Chatbot for Higher Education Institutions
Surman, V. (2026) · Eurasian studies in business and economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-10967-5_4
When Users Don't Want Privacy: Identity Laundering and Behavioral Privacy Nihilism in Generative AI
Imomotebegha, T. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798964
Foreign Domestic Workers' Perspectives on an LLM-Based Emotional Support Tool for Caregiving Burden
Teng, S. S. N., & Choo, K. T. W. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798761
“Prior studies suggest that chatbots can encourage emotional disclosure and foster a sense of being heard, particularly in contexts where users fear judgment or lack access to human support [5, 11].”
RECALLbot: Designing Agentic Memory and Reciprocal Disclosure for Human–Chatbot Relationships
Jiang, Z., Zheng, C., Chen, H., & Chen, L. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790714 · Cited by 7
“While users are initially willing to disclose personal information and often report positive emotional outcomes, particularly in non-judgmental contexts [40], this willingness frequently declines over time without reciprocal self-disclosure from the chatbot.”
Shirvani, M. S., Crowley, J., Peng, C., Liu, J., Chao, T. W.-C., Martinez, S., Brandt, L., Kim, I.-J., & Yoon, D. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790986 · Cited by 3
“…an AI system appears to “speak as me” and draws on the user’s past data, people may be especially prone to treating its responses as privileged self-knowledge—accurate readings of who I really am or what I truly think , rather than as one possible interpretation generated from patterns [49, 80].”
Liu, H., Tuerxun, N., & Chen, J. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9368123/v1
Galvão, A., Ala, S. M. F., & Baptista, G. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8337-8.ch006
Huang, L. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6623780
The rise of conversational agents: can they keep up with humans? Evidence from a meta-analysis
Ebrahimi, S., Farivar, S., & Eshghi, K. (2026) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2026.2662405
From Fiction to Fiduciary: Reframing AI Trust in Mental Healthcare
Yang, Y. T. (2026) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2026.2645574
“Ho et al. (2018) found that the emotional benefits of self-disclosure were equivalent whether participants believed they were disclosing to a chatbot or a person, suggesting that anthropomorphic interfaces can readily capture trust-like engagement.”
Bridging Human–Robot Social Distance: The Effects of Affiliative and Reciprocal Disclosure Responses
Lei, X., & Yikai, W. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2660886
Liljedahl, N., Ali, L., Liljedahl, S. I., Falk, Ö., & Steingrímsson, S. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.98840
Wang, Y., Wang, J., Zou, Y., Peng, Y., An, J., Dai, Y., Liang, W., Guo, H., Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2660852
Najeeb, A., Sharma, G. M., Gaur, P., & Bui, H. D. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7297-6.ch001
Olajubu, B. J., Etuka, C. E., Hussaini, M. L., & Angama, L. J. (2026) · Human Arenas · doi:10.1007/s42087-026-00619-w
“Ho et al. (2018 ) found that users perceive chatbots as safer confidants for sensitive self-disclosure because they operate free of bias and judgment.”
Jiang, G., & Wang, J. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107017
Generative AI for Mental Well-Being and Insights From High and Low Resource Languages
Sitoula, S., Bhatt, L. P., Pokhrel, A., & Neupane, A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7340-9.ch012 · Cited by 2
Liu, C. H., Wu, J., Zhao, A., Wang, L., & Yip, T. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100316
Embodied Agent-Facilitated Virtual Support Groups for University Students
Kian, M. J., Wang, Y.-W., Upadhyay, S., Li, Z.-J., Singh, A., Nan, Y., North, M., Zareno, K., Sang, P., Browning, W., et al. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · doi:10.1109/taffc.2026.3693987
“In a study by Ho et al. [30], participants interacted with a human, but were told either that it was a human or a chatbot.”
A pilot study of human–AI conversational interaction and its impact on loneliness and wellbeing
Trylińska-Tekielska, E., Fijałkowski, M., Kolek, A., Furman, F., & Ładoś, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1687924 · Cited by 1
“In the emotional condition, participants felt they were more likely to reveal their emotions and share more personal information compared with participants in the factual condition [ F (1, 94) = 133.84, p 0.001] (14).”
InfluentialDoes AI identity disclosure stimulate user responses? An exploration based on meta-analysis
Sun, M., Chen, H., Chen, H., & Jiang, B. (2026) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-06-2025-0813
Arnout, B. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1782010
Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Monitoring
Pabbi, V., Sandhu, M. K., & Angurala, M. (2026) · International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development · doi:10.23919/indiacom70271.2026.11525482
“Studies show that they lack emotional depth and are not well-suited for crisis situations or major mental health crises [13, 14, 15, 24].”
Yang, S., Zheng, X., & Ning, X. (2026) · Multilingual education yearbook · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-20155-3_11
Effects of Psychiatric Medication Counseling Chatbot in Patients with Schizophrenia (Preprint)Preprint
Kim, W.-S., Min, D., Odkhuu, S., & Chung, Y. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.102461
Duy, P. K., & Truong-Dinh, B. Q. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2026.109061 · Cited by 1
Mediating Reflectivity: AI Coaching Conversations as Reflective Mirror of Relational Orientations
Malafronte, O., & FATIEN, P. (2026) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/00218863261453415
“Also, a dialogue with a technology rather than a human can also favor more balanced relationships, reducing defensive reactions that typically impede re fl ective processes in power – laden relationships (Ho et al., 2018).”
Attitudes Toward Ai-powered Mental Health Chatbots Among University StudentsPreprint
Isaiah, U. S., Effiong, J. E., Adili-George, C. F., Abiama, E. E., & Ineme, M. E. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9622300/v1
Luo, X., & Shan, S. (2026) · Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565261459269
Qiao, C., Pamirzad, Q. H., & Susyall, G. A. (2026) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1093/anncom/wlag026
Cheng, P. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107278
Rahman, M. S., Zhang, J., & Hossain, G. M. S. (2026) · Nankai Business Review International · doi:10.1108/nbri-03-2025-0037
Jahanbazi, R., & Sarafraz, M. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101177 · Cited by 1
Therapeutic Twins for Creative Digital Mental Health: A Review Through a Trust-in-Automation Lens
Zhang, Y. Z., 岳改玲, & Zheng-ming, S. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2689526
Zengzhan, X., & mingpeng, L. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2026.109111
Zhang, Z., Zhou, Y., & Chen, X. H. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2695435
‘She lifted me up’: kinship construction in human-AI resilient communication among Chinese users
Li, Y. W., Luo, M., & Ren, H. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1832594
“…distance from AI and increases their perceived self-relevance of AI-generated information (Ni & Huang, 2026), and that forming intimate ties with social chatbots can shape users’ emotional regulation, patterns of social interaction, and expectations about relationships (Ho et al., 2018).”
Self-Disclosure to AI and Stress: A Cross-Lagged Panel Study with Social Anxiety as a Moderator
Xu, Y., & Chen, S. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2697354
BİLGİCİ, C., & Şişman, Ö. Ö. (2026) · Connectist Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences · doi:10.26650/connectist2026-1756435
Beyond I-It and I-Thou: The I-AI Mode for the Age of Generative AIPreprint
Major, M., Peralta, S., & Taylor, N. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7084198
Lin, Q., Hu, H., Zhao, R., & Ahmed, A. (2026) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-01-2026-0190
Lu, C., Lu, W., & Lu, H. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18157542
Person-Centered Support From Chatbots Versus Humans
Li, S., Wei, R., Han, S., & Dang, M. (2026) · Journal of Media Psychology Theories Methods and Applications · doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000515
Fan, Y., Song, Z., & Lyu, C. (2026) · Journal of Sexual Aggression · doi:10.1080/13552600.2026.2708940
Cheng, J. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16081316
“Chatbots that display emotional disclosure or supportive reciprocity tend to elicit greater user disclosure, and emotionally meaningful disclosure itself is associated with positive relational and psychological outcomes (Ho et al., 2018; Meng & Dai, 2021; Park et al., 2023).”
The effects of AI identity disclosure on user responses: A meta-analysis
Chen, H., Sun, M., Chen, H., & Liu, B. (2026) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2026.104411
Gazi, V., Adamaki, A., & Papachristou, C. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01280-3
“…sug - gests that emotional disclosure processes in digital settings do not differ substantially from the therapeutic context, while their emotional and relational benefits emerge regard - less of the partner’s perceived identity (human therapist vs conversational agent) and humanness [28 ].”
Meng, X. (2026) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2026.2714952
Lee, J.-Y. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03290-5 · Cited by 2
Liu, S., Zheng, C., & Zeng, N. (2026) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2026.104412
Between humans and machines: exploring how AI chatbots shape motivation for real relationships
Salim, N., Şafak, A., & Güçlü-Aydoğan, M. (2026) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-026-09896-8
“Prior research similarly shows that individuals are more willing to disclose to non-human agents when concerns about social evaluation are reduced (Lucas et al., 2014), and that disclosure to chatbots can shape emotional and relational experience within the interaction (Ho et al., 2018).”
AI‐Caramba: The Experience of Mothers in Central Texas With BRAT, a Parenting AI Chatbot
Fuentes‐Balderrama, J., Zhong, H., Cárdenas, M. E., Ayala, S., Velasco, S. I., & Cui, J. (2026) · Child & Family Social Work · doi:10.1111/cfs.70266
Liljedahl, N., Ali, L., Liljedahl, S., Falk, Ö., & Steingrímsson, S. (2026) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/98840
Premi, P., & Purani, K. (2026) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-11-2025-0973
Li, B., Huang, Y., & Zhang, R. (2026) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.70252
Hao, Y., Sheng, Y., He, J., He, S., & Fu, Z. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2712099
Huang, L. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7346483
Szczuka, J. M., Mühl, L., Ebner, P., & Dubé, S. (2026) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.13.3 · Cited by 6
How Do Fans Use AI Social Chatbots? A Multi-Method Exploration of Fan Accounts
Lopez, S. C., & Taylor, L. D. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16091481
Hao, J. (2026) · Transactions on Social Science Education and Humanities Research · doi:10.62051/hzg3ew47
Liu, Z., Yang, S., & Jiang, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2722515
Context, script, cue: understanding human–AI intimate relationships
Yang, F., Du, M., Li, N., & Yan, Q. (2026) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmag016
Should We Make the Bots More Human?
Fares, O. H. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-0512-5.ch005
Impact of Companion Agent's Self-Disclosure Levels on User Perception
Calvo, R. L., Bowers, C., Barquero, A. D., & Ruiz, J. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA) · doi:10.1145/3806774.3827968
Beattie, A. J., & High, A. C. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009639057.007
Perry, A., & Cameron, C. D. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009639057.002
Models Match or Surpass Objective Human Performance on Various Tasks
Goldstein, A., & Stanovsky, G. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009639057.006
ИИ как голографическое когнитивное зеркало
NOAKK, N. V., & Костина, Т. А. (2026) · Cifrovaâ èkonomika. · doi:10.34706/de-2026-04-07
Hudon, A., Bhat, V., Nuñez, J.-J., Paquin, V., Malouin-Lachance, A., & Lespérance, F. (2026) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/108766
“Ho et al [7] found broadly similar effects of emotional self-disclosure when participants believed they were conversing with a chatbot or another person.”
Aboshi, S., Thomas, D., & Moshfeghi, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2026.103941
Ramadhan, F. H., & Hikmawan, R. (2026) · Sinergi International Journal of Education · doi:10.61194/education.v4i3.1080
“Studies on human – chatbot interaction further suggest that individuals are often more willing to engage in meaningful self-disclosure when interacting with chatbots due to perceived anonymity, reduced social judgment, and supportive conversational responses (Ho et al., 2018).”
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
