Cited by 10Digital Mental Health InterventionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Predicting Engagement With Conversational Agents in Mental Health Therapy by Examining the Role of Epistemic Trust, Personality, and Fear of Intimacy: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study

Open access
Guglielmucci, Fanny, Di Basilio, Daniela·2025·JMIR Human Factors

Abstract

Background: The use of conversational agents (CAs) in mental health therapy is gaining traction due to their accessibility, anonymity, and nonjudgmental nature. However, understanding the psychological factors driving preferences for CA-based therapy remains critical to ensure ethical and effective application. Variables such as epistemic trust, attachment styles, personality traits, and fear of intimacy appear central in shaping attitudes toward these artificial intelligence (AI)–driven interventions. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the role of epistemic trust, attachment styles, personality traits, and fear of intimacy in influencing individuals’ willingness to engage with CA-based therapy. Methods: An online survey was administered to 876 psychology students, yielding 736 responses (84.01% response rate). Variables measured included epistemic trust, attachment styles, personality traits, and fear of intimacy. A 5-point ordinal scale assessed willingness to engage in CA-based therapy. The data were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression models, including proportional odds models (POMs), nonproportional odds models (NPOMs), and partial proportional odds models (PPOMs), with residual deviance used to compare model fit. Results: The PPOM provided the best model fit (residual deviance=3530.47), outperforming both the NPOM (deviance=6244.01) and the POM based on Brant test results indicating violations of the proportional odds assumption ( χ ² 105 =187.8; P <.001). In the final model (n=735), epistemic trust significantly increased willingness to engage in CA-based therapy across all ordinal thresholds (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.50, 2.03; P <.001). Fear of sharing demonstrated a nonuniform effect, with stronger associations at higher levels of willingness (OR 1.086; P =.001). Among personality traits, detachment negatively predicted CA preference (OR 0.95; P =.001), while psychoticism showed a positive association (OR 1.12; P =.003). Being single emerged as a strong predictor of preference for CA-based therapy (OR 3.717; P <.001). Attachment styles showed more nuanced effects. While dismissing and fearful-avoidant individuals were descriptively less inclined to engage in traditional human-based therapy, this association was nonsignificant in the case of fearful-avoidant attachment ( P =.34) and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions: Epistemic trust and fear of intimacy emerged as pivotal factors influencing preferences for CA-based therapy, underscoring the role of interpersonal dynamics and emotional vulnerabilities. The findings suggest that individuals with avoidant attachment styles or maladaptive personality traits are more inclined toward AI-mediated interventions, driven by reduced fear of judgment and increased perceived safety. The relative homogeneity of the sample considered—particularly in terms of age, education level, and cultural exposure—limits the generalizability of these findings to broader or more diverse populations. Nonetheless, these insights highlight the need for ethical considerations and personalized approaches in deploying CA-based mental health tools to balance user reliance with human-centric therapeutic values.

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 · 10.2196/70698

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Such anthropomorphization can increase emotional investment and amplify interpretive biases, especially in individuals with preexisting schizotypal traits or attachment vulnerabilities.

    “Such anthropomorphization can increase emotional investment and amplify interpretive biases, especially in individuals with preexisting schizotypal traits or attachment vulnerabilities [22,23].”

    From Delusional Experiences Emerging From AI Chatbot Interactions or “AI Psychosis” (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction (Background; page unavailable) warns that relationships with conversational agents may elicit dependence and overreliance, and the Discussion links attachment patterns and psychoticism to preferences for AI therapy. But the paper does not establish that anthropomorphization increases emotional investment or amplifies interpretive biases, particularly in people with schizotypal traits; its Limitations section proposes studying anthropomorphism in future work. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 74 · Cited by 10

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [25]Duschinsky R Foster S Mentalizing and Epistemic Trust: The Work of Peter Fonagy and Colleagues at the Anna Freud Centre Oxford University Press 2021 ISBN 0-19-887118-X
  2. [64]Agresti A Categorical Data Analysis 3rd John Wiley & Sons 2013

Authors
Guglielmucci, F., & Di Basilio, D.
Affiliations
Roma Tre University (IT)
Venue
JMIR Human Factors
Published
2025-07-30
Volume
12
Pages
e70698-e70698
ISSN
2292-9495 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410817540
Cited by
10
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4
FWCI
8.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Human Factors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Iris (Roma Tre University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
chatbots, epistemic trust, attachment styles, personality traits, fear of intimacy, willingness to engage, detachment, psychoticism, singlehood, dismissing attachment, fearful attachment, psychology students, digital mental health interventions, informed consent, informed refusal
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality, Psychotherapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Trust, Young Adult

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