Cited by 90

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Therapeutic Potential of Social Chatbots in Alleviating Loneliness and Social Anxiety: Quasi-Experimental Mixed Methods Study

Kim, Myungsung, Lee, Seonmi, Kim, Sieun, Heo, Jeong-in, Lee, Sangil, Shin, Yu-Bin, Cho, Chul-Hyun, Jung, Dooyoung·2025·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) social chatbots represent a major advancement in merging technology with mental health, offering benefits through natural and emotional communication. Unlike task-oriented chatbots, social chatbots build relationships and provide social support, which can positively impact mental health outcomes like loneliness and social anxiety. However, the specific effects and mechanisms through which these chatbots influence mental health remain underexplored. Objective: This study explores the mental health potential of AI social chatbots, focusing on their impact on loneliness and social anxiety among university students. The study seeks to (i) assess the impact of engaging with an AI social chatbot in South Korea, "Luda Lee," on these mental health outcomes over a 4-week period and (ii) analyze user experiences to identify perceived strengths and weaknesses, as well as the applicability of social chatbots in therapeutic contexts. Methods: A single-group pre-post study was conducted with university students who interacted with the chatbot for 4 weeks. Measures included loneliness, social anxiety, and mood-related symptoms such as depression, assessed at baseline, week 2, and week 4. Quantitative measures were analyzed using analysis of variance and stepwise linear regression to identify the factors affecting change. Thematic analysis was used to analyze user experiences and assess the perceived benefits and challenges of chatbots. Results: A total of 176 participants (88 males, average age=22.6 (SD 2.92)) took part in the study. Baseline measures indicated slightly elevated levels of loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale, mean 27.97, SD (11.07)) and social anxiety (Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, mean 25.3, SD (14.19)) compared to typical university students. Significant reductions were observed as loneliness decreasing by week 2 (t175=2.55, P=.02) and social anxiety decreasing by week 4 (t175=2.67, P=.01). Stepwise linear regression identified baseline loneliness (β=0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.89), self-disclosure (β=–0.65, 95% CI –1.07 to –0.23) and resilience (β=0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13) as significant predictors of week 4 loneliness (R2=0.64). Baseline social anxiety (β=0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.03) significantly predicted week 4 anxiety (R2=0.65). These findings indicate higher baseline loneliness, lower self-disclosure to the chatbot, and higher resilience significantly predicted higher loneliness at week 4. Additionally, higher baseline social anxiety significantly predicted higher social anxiety at week 4. Qualitative analysis highlighted the chatbot's empathy and support as features for reliability, though issues such as inconsistent responses and excessive enthusiasm occasionally disrupted user immersion. Conclusions: Social chatbots may have the potential to mitigate feelings of loneliness and social anxiety, indicating their possible utility as complementary resources in mental health interventions. User insights emphasize the importance of empathy, accessibility, and structured conversations in achieving therapeutic goals. Trial Registration: Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) KCT0009288; https://tinyurl.com/hxrznt3t

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 · 10.2196/65589

Cites

23 of 23 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?

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: 24

  1. 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30230-X · DOI
  2. 10.2196/mental.9782 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Liu, C, 2023, Reading Matrix, 23
  4. 10.21509/kjys.2019.10.26.10.53 · DOI
  5. 10.15842/kjcp.2007.26.1.015 · DOI
  6. 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Lee, HH, 2003, Korean J Clin Psychol, 22, 935
  8. Park, SJ, 2010, Anxiety and Mood, 6, 119
  9. 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.3928/19404921-20150806-72 · DOI
  11. 10.4306/pi.2010.7.2.109 · DOI
  12. 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.46 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.3390/su142416456 · DOI
  15. Kim, W, 2012, Korean J Social Welfare Educ, 20, 203
  16. 10.15818/ihss.2023.24.2.251 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/00207411.2022.2046924 · DOI
  18. 10.1080/00049530.2021.1904498 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/1540-4560.00246 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00040-2 · DOI
  21. 10.2307/1126465 · DOI
  22. Fraser, M, 1997, Risk and Resilience: An Ecological Perspective
  23. 10.1007/s00607-013-0352-y · DOI
  24. 10.1080/10447318.2022.2150745 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Kim, M., Lee, S., Kim, S., Heo, J.-I., Lee, S., Shin, Y.-B., Cho, C.-H., & Jung, D.
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2025-01-14
Volume
27
Pages
e65589
ISSN
1438-8871
Cited by
90
References
23
Language
en

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