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
Nadarzynski, T., Miles, O., Cowie, A., & Ridge, D. (2019) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/2055207619871808 · Cited by 810
“This is in line with previous research showing that users might be as likely to disclose emotional and factual information to a chatbot as they do to a human partner.(31) The perceived understanding, disclosure intimacy and cognitive reappraisal were similar in conversations conducted with chatbots and humans, indicat…”
ResultMy Chatbot Companion - a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships
Skjuve, M., Følstad, A., Fostervold, K. I., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601 · Cited by 797
“Relationships with social chatbots may potentially impact users ’ affective and social processes as well as their expectations from a relationship (Ho et al., 2018).”
BackgroundInfluentialAn Emerging Theory of Avatar Marketing
Miao, F., Kozlenkova, I. V., Wang, H., Xie, T., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242921996646 · Cited by 688
Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm
Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. (2020) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.1.5 · Cited by 626
“Ho et al. (2018) found that the positive effects of interpersonal emotional disclosure applied to interactions with perceived chatbots.”
BackgroundChaves, A. P., & Gerosa, M. A. (2021) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1841438 · Cited by 572
“[Ho et al. 2018] measured users’ experience in conversations with a chatbot compared to a human partner as well as the amount of intimacy disclosure and cognitive reappraisal.”
BackgroundInfluential
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
