CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can Chatbots Ever Provide More Social Connection Than Humans?

Folk, Dunigan, Yu, Stephanie, Dunn, Elizabeth·2024·Collabra: Psychology
DOI 10.1525/collabra.117083
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Around the world, hundreds of millions of people have used social chatbots designed to provide companionship to their users. But can people reap genuine social benefits from interacting with chatbots? In Studies 1a&b (pre-registered; N=801), participants shared good news with a supportive or less supportive interaction partner whom they believed was either a chatbot or a human. Participants’ feelings following the interaction were influenced by their partner’s response style, but not by whether their partner was human. In Study 2 (pre-registered, N=201), participants derived more social connection from having a supportive conversation with ChatGPT than with a less supportive human. In a final pre-registered study (Study 3; N=401), we identified an important boundary condition, demonstrating that the relative benefits of interacting with chatbots (vs. humans) may be reduced when they claim too much humanity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/collabra.117083

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Similar trends have been reported for ChatGPT and related models, where users describe emotional relief, self-reflection, and a sense of being understood.

    “Similar trends have been reported in research on ChatGPT and related models, where users describe emotional relief, self-reflection, and a sense of being understood (Al Mazroui & Alzyoudi, 2024;Folk et al., 2024;Kim et al., 2025;De Frietas et al., 2024;Laban et al., 2024, Pruss et al., 2025).”

    From Artificial intelligence and unconditional love: the rise of generative AI as an alternative form of mental health support (2026) · cites this paper as Folk et al., 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497- 529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., & Ahrenberg, L. (1993). Wizard of Oz studies -why and how. Knowledge-Based Systems, 6(4), 258-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(93)90017-n · DOI · Paper page
  3. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., & Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well-being. In Assessing well-being (pp. 247-266). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12 · DOI
  4. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. SAGE.
  5. Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of CHATBOTS AND SOCIAL CONNECTION personality and social psychology, 87(2), 228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.87.2.228 · DOI
  6. Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2005). Social snacking and shielding: Using social symbols, selves, and surrogates in the service of belonging needs. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 227-242). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  7. Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-Disclosure in Personal Relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 409-427). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606632.023 · DOI
  8. Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American journal of psychology, 57(2), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416950 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Krämer, N. C., Lucas, G., Schmitt, L., & Gratch, J. (2018). Social snacking with a virtual agent- On the interrelation of need to belong and effects of social responsiveness when CHATBOTS AND SOCIAL CONNECTION interacting with artificial entities. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 109, 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.09.001 · DOI
  10. Lok, I., & Dunn, E. (2022). The UBC state social connection scale: Factor structure, reliability, and validity. Social Psychological and Personality Science, https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221132090 · DOI
  11. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American sociological review, 71(3), 353-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100301 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Morelli, S. A., Torre, J. B., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2014). The neural bases of feeling understood and not understood. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 9(12), 1890-1896. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst191 · DOI
  13. Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98-100.
  14. Pollmann, M. M., & Finkenauer, C. (2009). Investigating the role of two types of understanding in relationship well-being: Understanding is more important than knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), 1512-1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209342754 · DOI
  15. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33, 19-36.
  16. Wang, S., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Rochat, P. (2015). The uncanny valley: Existence and explanations. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 393-407.
  17. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063.
  18. Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Folk, D., Yu, S., & Dunn, E.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 1 ,
  • University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA 2 ,
Venue
Collabra: Psychology
Publisher
University of California Press
Published
2024
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
2474-7394
DOI
10.1525/collabra.117083
Cited by
21
References
15
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (vor, 135 d)

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.

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