PreprintCited by 10Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionSocial Robot Interaction and HRIDigital Mental Health Interventions

Increasing happiness through conversations with artificial intelligence

Open access
Heffner, Joseph, Qin, Chongyu, Chadwick, Martin, Knutsen, Chris, Summerfield, Christopher, Kurth-Nelson, Zeb, Rutledge, Robb B.·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Chatbots powered by artificial intelligence (AI) have rapidly become a significant part of everyday life, with over a quarter of American adults using them multiple times per week. While these tools offer potential benefits and risks, a fundamental question remains largely unexplored: How do conversations with AI influence subjective well-being? To investigate this, we conducted a study where participants either engaged in conversations with an AI chatbot (N = 334) or wrote journal entires (N = 193) on the same randomly assigned topics and reported their momentary happiness afterward. We found that happiness after AI chatbot conversations was higher than after journaling, particularly when discussing negative topics such as depression or guilt. Leveraging large language models for sentiment analysis, we found that the AI chatbot mirrored participants' sentiment while maintaining a consistent positivity bias. When discussing negative topics, participants gradually aligned their sentiment with the AI's positivity, leading to an overall increase in happiness. We hypothesized that the history of participants' sentiment prediction errors, the difference between expected and actual emotional tone when responding to the AI chatbot, might explain this happiness effect. Using computational modeling, we find the history of these sentiment prediction errors over the course of a conversation predicts greater post-conversation happiness, demonstrating a central role of emotional expectations during dialogue. Our findings underscore the effect that AI interactions can have on human well-being.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2504.02091

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Previous qualitative research highlighted students' fears of unfair judgement for declaring AI use.

    “Previous qualitative research 19,32 highlighted students' fears of unfair judgement for declaring AI use.”

    From Style, sentiment, and quality of undergraduate writing in the AI era: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of 4,820 authentic empirical reports (2025) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Abstract and Methods describe a study comparing conversations with an AI chatbot against journaling, and the Discussion addresses happiness and well-being. I searched for students’ fears of unfair judgment when declaring AI use, but found no passage in our copy addressing that point. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 13 Markov, T. et al. A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real World. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.03274 (2022). https://doi.org:10.48550/arXiv.2208.03274 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 14 Ouyang, L. et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.02155 (2022). https://doi.org:10.48550/arXiv.2203.02155 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 15 Costello, T. H., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI. Science 385, eadq1814 (2024). https://doi.org:doi:10.1126/science.adq1814 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Science 386, eadq2852 (2024). https://doi.org:doi:10.1126/science.adq2852 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heffner, J., Qin, C., Chadwick, M., Knutsen, C., Summerfield, C., Kurth-Nelson, Z., & Rutledge, R. B.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4409602923
Cited by
10
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
AI chatbots, happiness, subjective well-being, human-AI interaction, journaling, positivity bias, emotional expectations, depression, guilt, large language models, computational modeling

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