Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 115 references

From Interaction to Attitude: Exploring the Impact of Human-AI Cooperation on Mental Illness Stigma

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Cooperative chatbot interactions reduce mental-illness stigma by fostering a social relationship, while off-topic cooperation backfires by increasing coercion beliefs.

desk verdict A competent comparative chatbot study whose abstract overstates the causal claim; the group-specific coercion backfire is the real contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01220 v1 pith:FTG3Y3KZ submitted 2025-01-02 cs.HC

Tianqi Song , Jack Jamieson , Tianwen Zhu , Naomi Yamashita , Yi-Chieh Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords human-AIcooperationchatbotmentalillnessstigmasocialcontactinterventionIntergroupHypothesisuserimpressionscoercionbeliefslongitudinalmixed-methodsstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tests whether the way a person interacts with a chatbot changes that person's stigmatizing attitudes toward mental illness. It compares a one-way information-dissemination chatbot with two cooperative chatbots, one discussing mental-illness material and one discussing unrelated material, over a two-week study. The authors claim that human-AI cooperation reduces stigma by building a social relationship with the chatbot: cooperative users rated it more intelligent and likable, expressed more empathy in conversation, and shifted toward external explanations for the persona's depression. They also report a backfire effect: cooperation on unrelated content increased beliefs that people with mental illness should be coerced into treatment. The study's broader point is that interaction design, not just content delivery, shapes whether a chatbot can change attitudes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-week daily Telegram chatbot named Holly, a university-student persona with depression, whose interactions were scripted plus GPT-3.5 responses. On odd days all participants heard a first-person vignette about Holly's life; then Group 1 read NIH mental-illness material, while Groups 2 and 3 did a cooperation task in which chatbot and user alternately summarized the day's material and corrected one another (listener and recaller roles). This task operationalizes Allport's Intergroup Contact Hypothesis, with equal status, shared goals, and intergroup cooperation, and it is what the paper credits for making users feel they shared a goal with Holly, perceive her as competent and likable, and respond empathetically.

What would settle it

Run the same protocol with a fourth group that completes the pre/post surveys after two weeks without any chatbot contact; if that group shows the same decline in social-distance scores as the chatbot groups, the causal claim would be falsified. The backfire claim would be falsified if a replication of the unrelated-content cooperation condition fails to produce a rise in coercion beliefs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a two-way cooperative interaction with a chatbot can serve as a social-contact intervention against mental-illness stigma by creating the conditions under which users come to see the chatbot as a likable, competent, in-group member. Cooperative users rated the chatbot higher on intelligence and likeability than one-way information recipients, and their conversation logs contained more empathetic reactions (0.58 and 0.49 in the two cooperation groups versus 0.39 in the information group). Over the two weeks, all three conditions reduced social distance and fear/dangerousness ratings, but the two mental-health-content groups also reduced coercion beliefs, while the unrelated-content cooperation group increased them. The authors interpret this rise as a backfire: Holly's skilled task performance clashed with her depressed persona, making her condition seem controllable and therefore blameworthy.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the chatbot interactions caused the attitude changes assumes that the pre-post improvements were not due to taking the same survey twice, trying to look non-stigmatizing, or natural regression; no no-contact comparison was run to test this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Chatbots can be deployed as low-cost anti-stigma tools, but only when the cooperation task shares the mental-health context; off-topic cooperation may do harm.
  • Cooperative designs improve perceived intelligence and likeability, which the paper links to user acceptance and engagement in future human-AI applications.
  • The listener-and-recaller task combined with first-person vignettes provides a concrete template for designing social-contact chatbot interventions.
  • Including recovery and coping information in mental-health content appears to prevent competence perceptions from reinforcing the controllability stereotype.
  • If the pre-post reductions are causal, repeated cooperative interaction over two weeks is enough to shift some stigmatizing beliefs, supporting longitudinal chatbot-based anti-stigma campaigns.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the pattern of results suggests cooperation is not inherently stigma-reducing; the meaning of the shared goal, helping Holly versus just learning material, is likely the active ingredient, so a 2x2 experiment that independently varies cooperation and topic would isolate the mechanism.
  • Editorial inference: because no no-contact control condition was run, the paper cannot rule out that any attentive two-week interaction produces similar social-distance declines; a minimal-contact control is the cheapest next test of the causal claim.
  • Editorial inference: a testable design rule follows from the backfire finding: if an embodied agent represents a stigmatized group, its in-task competence should be narratively framed as coping or recovery, so that competence does not translate into blame and coercion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a two-week mixed-methods study in which 78 university students interacted with one of three chatbots: one that delivered mental-illness information one-way (Group 1), one that engaged in a cooperative summarization task on mental-illness content (Group 2), and one that engaged in the same cooperative task but on sleep-related content (Group 3). The authors measure pre/post stigma via the Social Distance Scale and Attribution Questionnaire, code empathetic responses in conversation logs, and supplement the surveys with semi-structured interviews. The paper's central claim is that human-AI cooperation reduces mental-illness stigma by fostering social contact relationships, while also reporting that cooperative chatbots are perceived as more intelligent and likeable and that cooperation on unrelated content can increase coercive attitudes. The design and reporting are careful in many respects, but the core causal claim about stigma reduction is not supported by the statistical analyses presented.

Significance. The comparative findings on user impressions, empathy, and the coercion backfire are potentially useful for HCI and CSCW research on chatbot-based anti-stigma interventions. Strengths include the longitudinal two-week deployment, the triangulation of surveys with conversation logs and interviews, the unusually transparent appendix with system prompts and survey items, and the report of inter-rater reliability for qualitative coding. If the claims are appropriately reframed, the study contributes empirical evidence about how cooperative interaction shapes users' impressions of a chatbot representing a stigmatized identity. However, the headline claim that cooperation reduces stigma is not established by the current design, and this limits the significance of the paper in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.2.1] The headline claim that human-AI cooperation reduces stigma is not supported by the reported analyses. For the main SDS outcome, the Scheirer-Ray-Hare test shows only a time-point effect (F=20.53, p<.001), with no group effect and no group-by-time interaction; all three conditions improved to a statistically indistinguishable degree. In the absence of a no-contact control, this pattern is equally compatible with repeated-testing effects, demand characteristics, regression to the mean, or any 16-day engagement with a mental-health chatbot. The causal wording of the Abstract and the statement in Section 5.1 that 'all three groups showed an overall reduction in stigma' therefore overstate what the design can establish.
  2. [Section 3; Section 5.6] The design omits both a no-contact control and the 'non-cooperative × other topics' condition. The exclusion of the latter is explicitly justified in Section 3 by theory and prior literature, but the former is not mentioned anywhere in Methods or Limitations. Section 5.6 lists four limitations, yet it does not acknowledge that the pre-post comparison cannot rule out retesting, passage of time, or demand characteristics as explanations for the SDS reduction. This is the load-bearing gap for RQ2 and the Abstract's causal claim. The manuscript should either add a no-contact control arm or reframe the stigma-reduction conclusion as an exploratory within-design trend rather than a causal effect of cooperation.
  3. [Section 4.2.1; Section 5.4] The coercion 'backfire' conclusion is not supported by the reported test statistics. The paper reports a group-membership effect for coercion (F=12.10, p<.01) and pairwise between-group comparisons, but no group-by-time interaction and no within-group pre-post paired tests. The claim that Group 3 'demonstrated an increase' in coercion (pre M=4.17, post M=4.65) requires evidence of differential change over time, which a group main effect does not provide. Please report the interaction term and within-group paired comparisons, or soften the causal claim about an increase caused by the unrelated-content cooperation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.5.1; Appendix A.2.1] The SDS response anchors are inconsistent: Section 3.5.1 states 0='definitely willing' and 3='definitely unwilling', while Appendix A.2.1 lists the reverse. Please align the two descriptions so readers can interpret the direction of the pre-post decrease.
  2. [Section 4.1.1] Kruskal-Wallis tests are reported with F statistics (e.g., F=9.67, p<.01), but the Kruskal-Wallis test produces an H (chi-square) statistic, not an F. The same issue appears in the empathy comparison reported as F=3.42, p=.064. Please correct the statistics or clarify which test was actually used.
  3. [Section 4.2.1] The descriptive statistics for Group 2's SDS are incomplete: the text gives pre M=11.58 and post M=8.92, SD=3.87, but no pre-test standard deviation. Please add the missing value for consistency with the other groups.
  4. [Section 5.2; Section 5.3] There are a few typographical errors: 'in Second 4.1.2' should be 'in Section 4.1.2', and 'leading 3 Group to lack' in Section 5.3 should be 'leading Group 3 to lack'. These are minor but should be corrected.
  5. [Introduction] The citation placeholder '95?' appears in the sentence about chatbots as social actors. Please replace it with a proper citation or remove the question mark.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the report of stigma change rests on newly collected external survey and interview data, not on self-citation or fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central comparisons in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are empirical contrasts among three chatbot conditions using external instruments (SDS, Attribution Questionnaire, and coded conversational logs). No parameter is fitted to the outcome, and no claimed prediction reduces by construction to an input. The design borrows vignettes and long-term interaction structure from the authors' prior work (refs [60, 61]; Section 3.2), but those citations motivate the manipulation rather than establish the reported result; the outcome data are new. The main weakness is the causal-validity gap noted in Section 4.2.1: the SDS showed a time effect with no group-by-time interaction, and no no-contact control was included. That is an internal-validity limitation, not a circular derivation, because the observed reductions are still measured outcomes rather than consequences of the paper's own definitions or fitted quantities. No circular step is therefore identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical HCI study with no fitted mathematical parameters or invented theoretical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are the theoretical transfer from human-human contact theory to human-chatbot interaction, the validity of self-report stigma scales, the chatbot as a proxy for a stigmatized group member, and comparability of non-randomized groups.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Social Contact Theory (Allport's Contact Hypothesis) transfers from human-human to human-chatbot interaction.
    Section 2.2 and 5.3 assume that cooperation, equal status, and shared goals with a chatbot produce the same prejudice-reduction mechanisms as intergroup contact between humans. This is the theoretical load-bearing premise connecting the design to the outcome.
  • domain assumption Self-reported SDS and Attribution Questionnaire scores are valid measures of stigma and are sensitive to two-week chatbot interventions.
    Sections 3.5.1 and 4.2.1 treat pre-post changes on these scales as evidence of stigma change, without a control group to rule out testing effects.
  • domain assumption A chatbot persona with a depression vignette is an acceptable proxy for a member of the stigmatized group.
    Sections 2.3 and 3 define Holly as the out-group representative; generalizing to attitudes about all people with mental illness relies on this proxy (acknowledged in Section 5.6).
  • domain assumption Baseline equivalence across groups is sufficient for causal comparison.
    Section 3.1 describes balancing on SDS and gender rather than random assignment; the analysis in Section 4.2.1 treats the three groups as comparable for pre-post inference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Interaction to Attitude: Exploring the Impact of Human-AI Cooperation on Mental Illness Stigma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTG3Y3KZ

@misc{pith2026250101220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Interaction to Attitude: Exploring the Impact of Human-AI Cooperation on Mental Illness Stigma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTG3Y3KZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01220}
}
read the original abstract

AI conversational agents have demonstrated efficacy in social contact interventions for stigma reduction at a low cost. However, the underlying mechanisms of how interaction designs contribute to these effects remain unclear. This study investigates how participating in three human-chatbot interactions affects attitudes toward mental illness. We developed three chatbots capable of engaging in either one-way information dissemination from chatbot to a human or two-way cooperation where the chatbot and a human exchange thoughts and work together on a cooperation task. We then conducted a two-week mixed-methods study to investigate variations over time and across different group memberships. The results indicate that human-AI cooperation can effectively reduce stigma toward individuals with mental illness by fostering relationships between humans and AI through social contact. Additionally, compared to a one-way chatbot, interacting with a cooperative chatbot led participants to perceive it as more competent and likable, promoting greater empathy during the conversation. However, despite the success in reducing stigma, inconsistencies between the chatbot's role and the mental health context raised concerns. We discuss the implications of our findings for human-chatbot interaction designs aimed at changing human attitudes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01220 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Recent studies leverage digital technologies for social contact interventions. In one scenario, technology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental procedure. Throughout the two-week study period, all three groups completed daily [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrative example of content topic designs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustrative example of interaction mode designs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Each cooperation task was comprised of two rounds. Within each, the chatbot and the human user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: System design of the chatbot. (a) shows the chatbot development architecture, where the chatbot was [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Box plots showing how participants in each group rated the chatbot’s intelligence and likeability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Bar graph showing the rate of empathetic reactions for each group per day. The x-axis represents the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Box plots summarizing participants’ pre- and post-survey responses regarding stigmatizing beliefs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Barplots summarizing the percentage of participants in each group who, during their interview, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Barplots summarizing participant claims about whether their relationship with the chatbot was [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Carla Abi Doumit, Chadia Haddad, Hala Sacre, Pascale Salameh, Marwan Akel, Sahar Obeid, Maria Akiki, Elie Mattar, Najla Hilal, Souheil Hallit, et al. 2019. Knowledge, attitude and behaviors towards patients with mental illness: Results from a national Lebanese study. PloS one 14, 9 (2019), e0222172

    2019

  2. [2]

    Joseph Adu, Abe Oudshoorn, Kelly Anderson, Carrie Anne Marshall, and Heather Stuart. 2022. Social contact: Next steps in an effective strategy to mitigate the stigma of mental illness. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 43, 5 (2022), 485–488

    2022

  3. [3]

    Paolo Albiero and Giada Matricardi. 2013. Empathy towards people of different race and ethnicity: Further empirical evidence for the Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37, 5 (2013), 648–655

    2013

  4. [4]

    Gordon Willard Allport, Kenneth Clark, and Thomas Pettigrew. 1954. The nature of prejudice. (1954)

    1954

  5. [5]

    Theo Araujo. 2018. Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in human behavior 85 (2018), 183–189

    2018

  6. [6]

    Ines Arous, Jie Yang, Mourad Khayati, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux. 2020. Opencrowd: A human-ai collaborative approach for finding social influencers via open-ended answers aggregation. In Proceedings of The Web Conference

    2020

  7. [7]

    Zahra Ashktorab, Q Vera Liao, Casey Dugan, James Johnson, Qian Pan, Wei Zhang, Sadhana Kumaravel, and Murray Campbell. 2020. Human-ai collaboration in a cooperative game setting: Measuring social perception and outcomes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–20

    2020

  8. [8]

    Diane F Baker. 2017. Teaching empathy and ethical decision making in business schools. Journal of Management Education 41, 4 (2017), 575–598

    2017

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    Fiona Kate Barlow, Stefania Paolini, Anne Pedersen, Matthew J Hornsey, Helena RM Radke, Jake Harwood, Mark Rubin, and Chris G Sibley. 2012. The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and ...

    2012

  2. [10]

    Colleen L Barry and Emma E McGinty. 2014. Stigma and public support for parity and government spending on mental health: a 2013 national opinion survey. Psychiatric Services 65, 10 (2014), 1265–1268

    2014

  3. [11]

    Samantha A Batt-Rawden, Margaret S Chisolm, Blair Anton, and Tabor E Flickinger. 2013. Teaching empathy to medical students: an updated, systematic review. Academic Medicine 88, 8 (2013), 1171–1177

    2013

  4. [12]

    Anja Esther Baumann. 2007. Stigmatization, social distance and exclusion because of mental illness: The individual with mental illness as a ‘stranger’. International review of psychiatry 19, 2 (2007), 131–135

    2007

  5. [13]

    Katerina Bezrukova, Terri L Griffith, Chester Spell, Vincent Rice Jr, and Huiru Evangeline Yang. 2023. Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration. Group & Organization Management 48, 2 (2023), 629–670

    2023

  6. [14]

    Timothy Bickmore and Justine Cassell. 1999. Small talk and conversational storytelling in embodied conversational interface agents. In AAAI fall symposium on narrative intelligence . 87–92

    1999

  7. [15]

    Timothy W Bickmore, Daniel Schulman, and Candace Sidner. 2013. Automated interventions for multiple health behaviors using conversational agents. Patient education and counseling 92, 2 (2013), 142–148

    2013

  8. [16]

    Rupert Brown and Miles Hewstone. 2005. An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in experimental social psychology 37, 37 (2005), 255–343

    2005

  9. [17]

    Seth Brown. 2020. The effectiveness of two potential mass media interventions on stigma: video-recorded social contact and audio/visual simulations. Community mental health journal 56, 3 (2020), 471–477

    2020

  10. [18]

    Hello AI

    Carrie J Cai, Samantha Winter, David Steiner, Lauren Wilcox, and Michael Terry. 2019. " Hello AI": uncovering the onboarding needs of medical practitioners for human-AI collaborative decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–24

    2019

  11. [19]

    Arnaud Carré, Nicolas Stefaniak, Fanny d’Ambrosio, Leïla Bensalah, and Chrystel Besche-Richard. 2013. The Basic Empathy Scale in adults (BES-A): factor structure of a revised form. Psychological assessment 25, 3 (2013), 679

    2013

  12. [20]

    Jacky Casas, Elena Mugellini, and Omar Abou Khaled. 2018. Food diary coaching chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers. 1676–1680

    2018

  13. [21]

    Prithvijit Chattopadhyay, Deshraj Yadav, Viraj Prabhu, Arjun Chandrasekaran, Abhishek Das, Stefan Lee, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. 2017. Evaluating visual conversational agents via cooperative human-ai games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Cro...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Patrick Corrigan. 2004. How stigma interferes with mental health care. American psychologist 59, 7 (2004), 614. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2025. From Interaction to Attitude: Exploring the Impact of Human-AI Cooperation on Mental Illness Stigma 25

    2004

  15. [23]

    Patrick Corrigan, Fred E Markowitz, Amy Watson, David Rowan, and Mary Ann Kubiak. 2003. An attribution model of public discrimination towards persons with mental illness. Journal of health and Social Behavior (2003), 162–179

    2003

  16. [24]

    Patrick W Corrigan. 2000. Mental health stigma as social attribution: Implications for research methods and attitude change. Clinical psychology: science and practice 7, 1 (2000), 48

    2000

  17. [25]

    Patrick W Corrigan and Kristin A Kosyluk. 2013. Erasing the stigma: Where science meets advocacy. Basic and applied social psychology 35, 1 (2013), 131–140

    2013

  18. [26]

    Patrick W Corrigan, Jonathon Larson, Molly Sells, Nathaniel Niessen, and Amy C Watson. 2007. Will filmed presentations of education and contact diminish mental illness stigma? Community mental health journal 43 (2007), 171–181

    2007

  19. [27]

    Patrick W Corrigan and David L Penn. 1999. Lessons from social psychology on discrediting psychiatric stigma. American psychologist 54, 9 (1999), 765

    1999

  20. [28]

    Patrick W Corrigan, L Philip River, Robert K Lundin, David L Penn, Kyle Uphoff-Wasowski, John Campion, James Mathisen, Christine Gagnon, Maria Bergman, Hillel Goldstein, et al. 2001. Three strategies for changing attributions about severe mental illness. Schizophrenia bulletin...

    2001

  21. [29]

    Patrick W Corrigan and Amy C Watson. 2002. The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clinical psychology: Science and practice 9, 1 (2002), 35

    2002

  22. [30]

    Patrick W Corrigan and Amy C Watson. 2002. Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness. World psychiatry 1, 1 (2002), 16

    2002

  23. [31]

    Donald F Dansereau. 1988. Cooperative learning strategies. In Learning and study strategies . Elsevier, 103–120

    1988

  24. [32]

    Mauro De Gennaro, Eva G Krumhuber, and Gale Lucas. 2020. Effectiveness of an empathic chatbot in combating adverse effects of social exclusion on mood. Frontiers in psychology 10 (2020), 3061

    2020

  25. [33]

    Donna M Desforges, Charles G Lord, Shawna L Ramsey, Julie A Mason, Marilyn D Van Leeuwen, Sylvia C West, and Mark R Lepper. 1991. Effects of structured cooperative contact on changing negative attitudes toward stigmatized social groups. Journal of personality and social psycho...

    1991

  26. [34]

    Myths and facts

    Keith S Dobson and Savannah Rose. 2022. “Myths and facts” campaigns are at best ineffective and may increase mental illness stigma. Stigma and Health 7, 1 (2022), 27

    2022

  27. [35]

    Robert Elliott, Arthur C Bohart, Jeanne C Watson, and Leslie S Greenberg. 2011. Empathy. Psychotherapy 48, 1 (2011), 43

    2011

  28. [36]

    Sara Evans-Lacko, Jillian London, Sarah Japhet, Nicolas Rüsch, Clare Flach, Elizabeth Corker, Claire Henderson, and Graham Thornicroft. 2012. Mass social contact interventions and their effect on mental health related stigma and intended discrimination. BMC public health 12, 1...

    2012

  29. [37]

    Fabio Antonio Figoli, Lucia Rampino, Francesca Mattioli, et al. 2022. AI in design idea development: A workshop on creativity and human-AI collaboration. PROCEEDINGS OF DRS (2022), 1–17

    2022

  30. [38]

    Bettina Friedrich, Sara Evans-Lacko, Jillian London, Danielle Rhydderch, Claire Henderson, and Graham Thornicroft

  31. [39]

    Samuel L Gaertner, Jeffrey A Mann, John F Dovidio, Audrey J Murrell, and Marina Pomare. 1990. How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of personality and social psychology 59, 4 (1990), 692

    1990

  32. [40]

    Erving Goffman. 2009. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity . Simon and schuster

    2009

  33. [41]

    Kathleen M Griffiths, Bradley Carron-Arthur, Alison Parsons, and Russell Reid. 2014. Effectiveness of programs for reducing the stigma associated with mental disorders. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World psychiatry 13, 2 (2014), 161–175

    2014

  34. [42]

    Christine Grové. 2021. Co-developing a mental health and wellbeing chatbot with and for young people. Frontiers in psychiatry 11 (2021), 606041

    2021

  35. [43]

    Oliver L Haimson, Dykee Gorrell, Denny L Starks, and Zu Weinger. 2020. Designing trans technology: Defining challenges and envisioning community-centered solutions. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2020

  36. [44]

    Lisa D Hawke, Erin E Michalak, Victoria Maxwell, and Sagar V Parikh. 2014. Reducing stigma toward people with bipolar disorder: impact of a filmed theatrical intervention based on a personal narrative. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 60, 8 (2014), 741–750

    2014

  37. [45]

    Marlene Hecht, Andrea Kloß, and Anne Bartsch. 2022. Stopping the stigma. How empathy and reflectiveness can help reduce mental health stigma. Media Psychology 25, 3 (2022), 367–386

    2022

  38. [46]

    Miriam Heijnders and Suzanne Van Der Meij. 2006. The fight against stigma: an overview of stigma-reduction strategies and interventions. Psychology, health & medicine 11, 3 (2006), 353–363

    2006

  39. [47]

    Rainbow TH Ho, Jordan S Potash, Andy HY Ho, Vania FL Ho, and Eric YH Chen. 2017. Reducing mental illness stigma and fostering empathic citizenship: Community arts collaborative approach. Social Work in Mental Health 15, 4 (2017), 469–485. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication...

    2017

  40. [48]

    Sebastian Hobert and Florian Berens. 2020. Small talk conversations and the long-term use of chatbots in edu- cational settings–experiences from a field study. In Chatbot Research and Design: Third International Workshop, CONVERSATIONS 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Novembe...

    2020

  41. [49]

    Keke Hou, Tingting Hou, and Lili Cai. 2023. Exploring Trust in Human–AI Collaboration in the Context of Multiplayer Online Games. Systems 11, 5 (2023), 217

    2023

  42. [50]

    Darrick Jolliffe and David P Farrington. 2006. Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of adolescence 29, 4 (2006), 589–611

    2006

  43. [51]

    Anthony F Jorm. 2020. Effect of contact-based interventions on stigma and discrimination: a critical examination of the evidence. Psychiatric Services 71, 7 (2020), 735–737

    2020

  44. [52]

    Pranav Khadpe, Ranjay Krishna, Li Fei-Fei, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Michael S Bernstein. 2020. Conceptual metaphors impact perceptions of human-AI collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–26

    2020

  45. [53]

    Bogoan Kim, Daehyoung Lee, Aehong Min, Seungwon Paik, Georgia Frey, Scott Bellini, Kyungsik Han, and Patrick C Shih. 2020. PuzzleWalk: A theory-driven iterative design inquiry of a mobile game for promoting physical activity in adults with autism spectrum disorder. PLoS One 15...

    2020

  46. [54]

    Taewan Kim, Mintra Ruensuk, and Hwajung Hong. 2020. In helping a vulnerable bot, you help yourself: Designing a social bot as a care-receiver to promote mental health and reduce stigma. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2020

  47. [55]

    Rafal Kocielnik, Daniel Avrahami, Jennifer Marlow, Di Lu, and Gary Hsieh. 2018. Designing for workplace reflection: a chat and voice-based conversational agent. InProceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference. 881–894

    2018

  48. [56]

    Brandon A Kohrt, Mark JD Jordans, Elizabeth L Turner, Sauharda Rai, Dristy Gurung, Manoj Dhakal, Anvita Bhardwaj, Jagannath Lamichhane, Daisy R Singla, Crick Lund, et al. 2021. Collaboration with people with lived experience of mental illness to reduce stigma and improve prima...

    2021

  49. [57]

    S Koike, S Yamaguchi, Y Ojio, K Ohta, T Shimada, K Watanabe, G Thornicroft, and S Ando. 2018. A randomised con- trolled trial of repeated filmed social contact on reducing mental illness-related stigma in young adults. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences 27, 2 (2018), 199–208

    2018

  50. [58]

    Mariangela Lanfredi, Ambra Macis, Clarissa Ferrari, Luciana Rillosi, Elena Cadone Ughi, Agnese Fanetti, Nadia Younis, Lorenza Cadei, Caterina Gallizioli, Guido Uggeri, et al. 2019. Effects of education and social contact on mental health-related stigma among high-school studen...

    2019

  51. [59]

    Minha Lee, Sander Ackermans, Nena Van As, Hanwen Chang, Enzo Lucas, and Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2019. Caring for Vincent: a chatbot for self-compassion. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2019

  52. [60]

    Yi-Chieh Lee, Yichao Cui, Jack Jamieson, Wayne Fu, and Naomi Yamashita. 2023. Exploring effects of chatbot-based social contact on reducing mental illness stigma. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2023

  53. [61]

    I hear you, I feel you

    Yi-Chieh Lee, Naomi Yamashita, Yun Huang, and Wai Fu. 2020. " I hear you, I feel you": encouraging deep self- disclosure through a chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–12

    2020

  54. [62]

    Daphna Levinson, Matthew D Lakoma, Maria Petukhova, Michael Schoenbaum, Alan M Zaslavsky, Matthias Anger- meyer, Guilherme Borges, Ronny Bruffaerts, Giovanni De Girolamo, Ron De Graaf, et al. 2010. Associations of serious mental illness with earnings: results from the WHO Worl...

    2010

  55. [63]

    Jie Li, Yu Fan, Hua-Qing Zhong, Xiao-Ling Duan, Wen Chen, Sara Evans-Lacko, and Graham Thornicroft. 2019. Effectiveness of an anti-stigma training on improving attitudes and decreasing discrimination towards people with mental disorders among care assistant workers in Guangzho...

    2019

  56. [64]

    Jian Li, Jinsong Huang, Jiaxiang Liu, and Tianqi Zheng. 2022. Human-AI cooperation: Modes and their effects on attitudes. Telematics and Informatics 73 (2022), 101862

    2022

  57. [65]

    Tim MH Li, Michael Chau, Paul WC Wong, Eliza SY Lai, and Paul SF Yip. 2013. Evaluation of a web-based social network electronic game in enhancing mental health literacy for young people. Journal of medical Internet research 15, 5 (2013), e2316

    2013

  58. [66]

    Yin-Yi Lien, Hui-Shin Lin, Yin-Ju Lien, Chi-Hsuan Tsai, Ting-Ting Wu, Hua Li, and Yu-Kang Tu. 2021. Challenging mental illness stigma in healthcare professionals and students: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Psychology & Health 36, 6 (2021), 669–684. , Vol. 1, N...

    2021

  59. [67]

    Bruce G Link, Francis T Cullen, James Frank, and John F Wozniak. 1987. The social rejection of former mental patients: Understanding why labels matter. American journal of Sociology 92, 6 (1987), 1461–1500

    1987

  60. [68]

    It’s like With the Pregnancy Tests

    Juan F Maestre, Daria V Groves, Megan Furness, and Patrick C Shih. 2023. " It’s like With the Pregnancy Tests": Co- design of Speculative Technology for Public HIV-related Stigma and its Implications for Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors ...

    2023

  61. [69]

    A Makhmud, G Thornicroft, and PC Gronholm. 2022. Indirect social contact interventions to reduce mental health- related stigma in low-and middle-income countries: systematic review. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 31 (2022), e79

    2022

  62. [70]

    Rachel D Maunder and Fiona A White. 2019. Intergroup contact and mental health stigma: A comparative effectiveness meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review 72 (2019), 101749

    2019

  63. [71]

    Rachel D Maunder, Fiona A White, and Stefano Verrelli. 2019. Modern avenues for intergroup contact: Using E-contact and intergroup emotions to reduce stereotyping and social distancing against people with schizophrenia. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 22, 7 (2019), 947–963

    2019

  64. [72]

    McKee, Xuechunzi Bai, and Susan T

    Kevin R. McKee, Xuechunzi Bai, and Susan T. Fiske. 2022. Warmth and Competence in Human-Agent Cooperation. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (Virtual Event, New Zealand) (AAMAS ’22). International Foundation for Aut...

    2022

  65. [73]

    Nisha Mehta, Sarah Clement, Elena Marcus, A-C Stona, Nikita Bezborodovs, Sara Evans-Lacko, Jorge Palacios, Mary Docherty, Elizabeth Barley, Diana Rose, et al. 2015. Evidence for effective interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma and discrimination in the medium and...

    2015

  66. [74]

    Margo J Monteith, Jeffrey W Sherman, and Patricia G Devine. 1998. Suppression as a stereotype control strategy. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2, 1 (1998), 63–82

    1998

  67. [75]

    We’re All in the Same Boat

    Aya Nitzan and Hod Orkibi. 2021. “We’re All in the Same Boat”–The Experience of People With Mental Health Conditions and Non-clinical Community Members in Integrated Arts-Based Groups. Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021), 661831

    2021

  68. [76]

    Ross MG Norman, Richard M Sorrentino, Deborah Windell, and Rahul Manchanda. 2008. The role of perceived norms in the stigmatization of mental illness. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology 43 (2008), 851–859

    2008

  69. [77]

    Lorelli S Nowell, Jill M Norris, Deborah E White, and Nancy J Moules. 2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International journal of qualitative methods 16, 1 (2017), 1609406917733847

    2017

  70. [78]

    Changhoon Oh, Jungwoo Song, Jinhan Choi, Seonghyeon Kim, Sungwoo Lee, and Bongwon Suh. 2018. I lead, you help but only with enough details: Understanding user experience of co-creation with artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in ...

    2018

  71. [79]

    Stephen Oliver. 2019. Communication and trust: rethinking the way construction industry professionals and software vendors utilise computer communication mediums. Visualization in Engineering 7, 1 (2019), 1

    2019

  72. [80]

    Érica de Toledo Piza Peluso and Sérgio Luís Blay. 2009. Public stigma in relation to individuals with depression. Journal of affective disorders 115, 1-2 (2009), 201–206

    2009

  73. [81]

    Sachin R Pendse, Daniel Nkemelu, Nicola J Bidwell, Sushrut Jadhav, Soumitra Pathare, Munmun De Choudhury, and Neha Kumar. 2022. From treatment to healing: envisioning a decolonial digital mental health. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

    2022

  74. [82]

    Can I not be suicidal on a Sunday?

    Sachin R Pendse, Amit Sharma, Aditya Vashistha, Munmun De Choudhury, and Neha Kumar. 2021. “Can I not be suicidal on a Sunday?”: understanding technology-mediated pathways to mental health support. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2021

  75. [83]

    Thomas F Pettigrew and Linda R Tropp. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.Journal of personality and social psychology 90, 5 (2006), 751

    2006

  76. [84]

    Thomas F Pettigrew and Linda R Tropp. 2008. How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European journal of social psychology 38, 6 (2008), 922–934

    2008

  77. [85]

    Vanessa Pinfold, Hilary Toulmin, Graham Thornicroft, Peter Huxley, Paul Farmer, and Tanya Graham. 2003. Reducing psychiatric stigma and discrimination: evaluation of educational interventions in UK secondary schools. The British Journal of Psychiatry 182, 4 (2003), 342–346

    2003

  78. [86]

    Scott A Prevost, Timothy W Bickmore, Joseph W Sullivan, Elizabeth Churchill, and Andreas Girgensohn. 2003. Method and apparatus for embodied conversational characters with multimodal input/output in an interface device. US Patent 6,570,555

    2003

  79. [87]

    Florianne Rademaker, Anke de Boer, Elisa Kupers, and Alexander Minnaert. 2020. Applying the contact theory in inclusive education: A systematic review on the impact of contact and information on the social participation of students with disabilities. In Frontiers in Education,...

    2020

  80. [88]

    Minjin Rheu, Yue Dai, Jingbo Meng, and Wei Peng. 2024. When a Chatbot Disappoints You: Expectancy Violation in Human-Chatbot Interaction in a Social Support Context. Communication Research (2024), 00936502231221669

    2024

  81. [89]

    Matías E Rodríguez-Rivas, Adolfo J Cangas, Laura A Cariola, Jorge J Varela, and Sara Valdebenito. 2022. Innovative technology–based interventions to reduce stigma toward people with mental illness: systematic review and meta- analysis. JMIR Serious Games 10, 2 (2022), e35099

    2022

  82. [90]

    Matías E Rodríguez-Rivas, Adolfo J Cangas, and Daniela Fuentes-Olavarría. 2021. Controlled study of the impact of a virtual program to reduce stigma among university students toward people with mental disorders. Frontiers in psychiatry 12 (2021), 632252

    2021

  83. [91]

    Nicolas Rüsch, Matthias C Angermeyer, and Patrick W Corrigan. 2005. Mental illness stigma: Concepts, consequences, and initiatives to reduce stigma. European psychiatry 20, 8 (2005), 529–539

    2005

  84. [92]

    Norman Sartorius, Wolfgang Gaebel, Helen-Rose Cleveland, Heather Stuart, Tsuyoshi Akiyama, JULIO Arboleda- Flórez, Anja E Baumann, Oye Gureje, Miguel R Jorge, Marianne Kastrup, et al. 2010. WPA guidance on how to combat stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists. World Psy...

    2010

  85. [93]

    Ashish Sharma, Adam S Miner, David C Atkins, and Tim Althoff. 2020. A computational approach to understanding empathy expressed in text-based mental health support. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08441 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Marita Skjuve and Petter Bae Brandtzæg. 2018. Chatbots as a new user interface for providing health information to young people. Youth and news in a digital media environment–Nordic-Baltic perspectives (2018)

    2018

  87. [95]

    Marita Skjuve, Asbjørn Følstad, Knut Inge Fostervold, and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. 2022. A longitudinal study of human–chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 168 (2022), 102903

    2022

  88. [96]

    Daniela Stelzmann, Roland Toth, and David Schieferdecker. 2021. Can intergroup contact in virtual reality (VR) reduce stigmatization against people with schizophrenia? Journal of clinical medicine 10, 13 (2021), 2961

    2021

  89. [97]

    Alison Stubbs. 2014. Reducing mental illness stigma in health care students and professionals: a review of the literature. Australasian Psychiatry 22, 6 (2014), 579–584

    2014

  90. [98]

    Mark Tarrant, Sarah Dazeley, and Tom Cottom. 2009. Social categorization and empathy for outgroup members. British journal of social psychology 48, 3 (2009), 427–446

    2009

  91. [99]

    Graham Thornicroft, Nisha Mehta, Sarah Clement, Sara Evans-Lacko, Mary Doherty, Diana Rose, Mirja Koschorke, Rahul Shidhaye, Claire O’Reilly, and Claire Henderson. 2016. Evidence for effective interventions to reduce mental- health-related stigma and discrimination. The Lancet...

    2016

  92. [100]

    Karolis Tijunaitis, Debora Jeske, and Kenneth S Shultz. 2019. Virtuality at work and social media use among dispersed workers: Promoting network ties, shared vision and trust. Employee Relations: The International Journal 41, 3 (2019), 358–373

    2019

  93. [101]

    Gregory K Tippin and K Amanda Maranzan. 2022. Photovoice as a method to reduce the stigma of mental illness among health care students. Health Promotion Practice 23, 2 (2022), 331–337

    2022

  94. [102]

    Eric J Vanman. 2016. The role of empathy in intergroup relations. Current Opinion in Psychology 11 (2016), 59–63

    2016

  95. [103]

    Iain Walker and Mary Crogan. 1998. Academic performance, prejudice, and the jigsaw classroom: New pieces to the puzzle. Journal of community & applied social Psychology 8, 6 (1998), 381–393

    1998

  96. [104]

    Daniel Alexander Benjamin Walsh and Juliet Louise Hallam Foster. 2021. A call to action. A critical review of mental health related anti-stigma campaigns. Frontiers in Public Health 8 (2021), 569539

    2021

  97. [105]

    Dakuo Wang, Justin D Weisz, Michael Muller, Parikshit Ram, Werner Geyer, Casey Dugan, Yla Tausczik, Horst Samulowitz, and Alexander Gray. 2019. Human-ai collaboration in data science: Exploring data scientists’ perceptions of automated ai. Proceedings of the ACM on human-compu...

    2019

  98. [106]

    Jinping Wang, Hyun Yang, Ruosi Shao, Saeed Abdullah, and S Shyam Sundar. 2020. Alexa as coach: Leveraging smart speakers to build social agents that reduce public speaking anxiety. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2020

  99. [107]

    Amy C Watson, Emeline Otey, Anne L Westbrook, April L Gardner, Theodore A Lamb, Patrick W Corrigan, and Wayne S Fenton. 2004. Changing middle schoolers’ attitudes about mental illness through education. Schizophrenia bulletin 30, 3 (2004), 563–572

    2004

  100. [108]

    Yanelia Yabar and Ursula Hess. 2007. Display of empathy and perception of out-group members.New Zealand Journal of Psychology 36, 1 (2007), 42

    2007

  101. [109]

    Sosei Yamaguchi, Shu-I Wu, Milly Biswas, Madinah Yate, Yuta Aoki, Elizabeth A Barley, and Graham Thornicroft

  102. [110]

    Yan Yiren and Liu Ning. 2023. Warmth or Competence? Preference for Warmth and Competence in Cooperation. Journal of Psychological Science 46, 3 (2023), 594

    2023

  103. [111]

    The Journal of nervous and mental disease 201, 6 (2013), 490–503

    Effects of short-term interventions to reduce mental health–related stigma in university or college students: a systematic review. The Journal of nervous and mental disease 201, 6 (2013), 490–503

    2013

  104. [112]

    Anna SY Yuen and Winnie WS Mak. 2021. The effects of immersive virtual reality in reducing public stigma of mental illness in the university population of Hong Kong: randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical internet research 23, 7 (2021), e23683

    2021

  105. [113]

    Beibei Yue and Hu Li. 2023. The impact of human-AI collaboration types on consumer evaluation and usage intention: a perspective of responsibility attribution. Frontiers in Psychology 14 (2023). , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2025. From Interaction to Attit...

    2023

  106. [115]

    That’s tough, I understand

    Ruby Wenjiao Zhang, Xiaoning Liang, and Szu-Hsin Wu. 2024. When chatbots fail: exploring user coping following a chatbots-induced service failure. Information Technology & People 37, 8 (2024), 175–195. A Appendix A.1 Vignettes A.1.1 Vignettes in pre-survey. • Holly is a 22-yea...

    2024

  107. [2013]

    The British Journal of Psychiatry 202, s55 (2013), s89–s94

    Anti-stigma training for medical students: the Education Not Discrimination project. The British Journal of Psychiatry 202, s55 (2013), s89–s94

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.