The Evaluation of Efficacy, Feasibility, and Technical Outcomes of a GPT-4o-based Chatbot Amanda for Relationship Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Open accessAbstract
This randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy, feasibility, and technical outcomes of Amanda, a GPT-4-based chatbot, in delivering single-session relationship interventions. A total of 258 participants were randomly assigned to engage with either Amanda (n = 130) or a writing task (n = 128) focused on conflict reappraisal. Findings revealed significant improvements in relationship functioning, problem-specific outcomes, and individual well-being in both conditions, supporting the effectiveness of the interventions. Usability and therapeutic skills were rated highly, with participants reporting positive engagement with Amanda. However, technical issues, such as repetitive responses, and the chatbot’s limited ability to identify safety concerns highlight areas for improvement. The results suggest that chatbots like Amanda offer a promising, scalable tool for relationship support, though further research is required to assess long-term effectiveness and address safety concerns in higher-risk populations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Among the 26 studies, 1 study measured only positive well-being, 1 had chatbot designs in the control group, 3 did not report sufficient data, and 8 were not randomized trials, leaving 14 RCTs eligible for meta-analysis.
“Among the 26 studies, 1 study measured only positive well-being instead of mental health issues [29], 1 study had chatbot designs in the control group [24], 3 studies did not report sufficient data for calculating pooled effect size, and 8 studies were not randomized trials, leaving a total of 14 RCTs eligible for meta-analysis to estimate the effectiveness of GenAI chatbot on mental health issues”
From Generative AI Mental Health Chatbots as Therapeutic Tools: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Role in Reducing Mental Health Issues (2025) · cites this paper as [29]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 6
- Authors
- Vowels, L. M., Vowels, M. J., Sweeney, S., Hatch, S. G., & Darwiche, J.
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2024-09-20
- OpenAlex
- W4402678848
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Keywords
- GPT-4o, chatbot therapy, relationship support, single-session intervention, relationship functioning, well-being, chatbot usability, chatbot safety, digital mental health
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
