Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 150 references

Understanding Attitudes and Trust of Generative AI Chatbots for Social Anxiety Support

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 The paper claims that symptom severity determines whether trust in GenAI chatbots for social anxiety rests on emotional connection or technical reliability, and that both trust modes must be designed for.

desk verdict Solid mixed-methods study, but the severity–trust split is softer than the abstract suggests and the qualitative attribution is confounded with usage duration. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15628 v1 pith:O6UVFMP6 submitted 2025-01-26 cs.HC

Yimeng Wang , Yinzhou Wang , Kelly Crace , Yixuan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords socialanxietygenerativeAIchatbotstrustmixedmethodsemotionalcognitive
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

The paper asks how people with social anxiety decide to trust generative AI chatbots as mental-health support, and whether that trust depends on symptom severity. Using survey data from 159 respondents and follow-up interviews with 17, it finds that trust and willingness to use move together, and that severity changes what people trust for. People with severe symptoms trust chatbots for emotional reasons—non-judgmental availability, perceived empathy, and a sense of being understood—while people with milder symptoms trust them for technical reasons—accuracy, memory, and user control. The paper argues that designers should build both kinds of trust and that small emotional cues can carry real weight for the most distressed users. If right, this means mental-health chatbots should not be judged only on factual reliability; for the people most likely to adopt them, perceived emotional comprehension is the bridge to trust.

What carries the argument

The paper's central instrument is a six-item trust scale measuring competence, honesty, experience, benevolence, reliability, and expectation; factor analysis showed the items load onto one trust factor, and the scale anchors every quantitative comparison. The Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN) supplies the severity grouping, and model-based cluster analysis of the undecided users identifies three profiles—high severity with long use, low severity with long use, and low severity with short use—which guide the interview sampling. Conceptually, the paper organizes trust into two modes: emotional trust, trust rooted in feeling unjudged, understood, and emotionally held, and cognitive trust, trust rooted in factual reliability and predictable competence. The qualitative analysis then uses these two modes to explain why the same technology is trusted for different reasons across severity groups.

What would settle it

Recruit people with very severe SPIN scores who have never used a GenAI chatbot, present all of them with the same first interaction, and ask what grounds their trust; if they do not emphasize non-judgmental emotional connection over technical reliability, the severity explanation fails. Re-analyzing the undecided cluster while controlling for duration of chatbot use would also settle whether the apparent severity effect survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that trust in GenAI chatbots for social anxiety support is not a single thing; it splits by symptom severity. In the survey, trust and willingness to use were significantly linked (rank correlation ρ = 0.30), and respondents with severe or very severe SPIN scores were significantly more willing to adopt chatbots than those with no symptoms. In the interviews, participants with severe symptoms said they trusted chatbots because interactions felt non-judgmental, emotionally attuned, and always available—trust rooted in emotional connection—while participants with milder symptoms said they trusted chatbots only when the model was accurate, remembered context, and left control with the user—trust rooted in technical reliability. The paper also found that even minimal empathy cues, such as a warm tone or a thinking animation, could build emotional trust, and that some users with disappointing therapy experiences considered a chatbot better than an inadequate human psychotherapist. The authors conclude that GenAI chatbot design for social anxiety should deliberately build both cognitive and emotional trust, depending on the user's symptom severity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the differing trust priorities reflect symptom severity, but severity and chatbot experience are entangled in the sample, and the paper itself notes there was no high-severity group that had never used GenAI, so prior familiarity could produce the same pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trust and willingness are coupled: survey respondents who were unwilling to use chatbots had the lowest trust scores, and trust rose as willingness moved from unwilling to undecided to willing, so trust-building should be expected to increase adoption.
  • Severe social anxiety is linked to significantly higher willingness to adopt GenAI chatbots, with severe and very severe SPIN groups showing the largest odds, making these users the natural early-adopter population.
  • For severe-symptom users, emotional trust can be built through small and consistent cues—warm wording, non-judgmental tone, constant availability, even minimal simulated empathy—so these design elements are not peripheral.
  • For mild-symptom users, cognitive trust is the gate: hallucinations, lack of long-term memory, rigid responses, and unclear user control all suppress trust, so reliability and transparency must come first for this group.
  • A chatbot can occupy a useful niche between no help and inadequate human psychotherapy, providing consistent basic support; the paper frames this as complementing, not replacing, professional care.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test, but its logic implies that conventional AI evaluation based on factual accuracy may miss the trust mechanism that matters most to highly distressed users; a plausible design corollary is that empathic tone could increase adoption more than a further accuracy gain.
  • A direct next study would separate severity from familiarity: compare high-severity users with no prior chatbot experience against high-severity long-term users on the same standardized interaction, because the current design cannot tell those two explanations apart.
  • The finding that minimal cues like a thinking spinner and warm text build emotional trust turns those cues into testable interventions; an A/B experiment varying tone and presence cues would quantify their causal effect on trust.
  • The cluster pattern hints at a selection loop in which users who feel emotionally held keep using chatbots and report more trust, while distrustful users never accumulate experience; longitudinal data from first session onward would reveal whether trust drives engagement or engagement drives trust.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. Wang et al. report a mixed-methods study (survey n = 159, interviews n = 17) of attitudes toward and trust in generative AI chatbots for social anxiety (SA) support. Quantitative analyses examine the trust–willingness association, an ordinal logistic regression of willingness on SA severity and GenAI usage patterns, and GMM clustering of participants in the 'undecided' willingness group. Qualitative thematic analysis of the interviews contrasts emotional trust among severe-symptom users with cognitive/technical trust among milder-symptom users. The paper derives design implications around emotional versus cognitive trust and discusses ethics and future research directions.

Significance. If fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to HCI and mental-health technology by showing that trust in GenAI support is situated and symptom-dependent, with concrete design implications. The study has notable strengths: a mixed-method design, use of the validated SPIN instrument, explicit reporting of statistical procedures and effect sizes, and a candid limitations section. The survey's severity–willingness effect is a meaningful empirical result. However, the headline qualitative claim that symptom severity drives trust priorities is currently confounded with GenAI usage duration, and the abstract's characterization of the trust–willingness relationship as 'strong' overstates the reported moderate effect sizes. As it stands, the findings are suggestive rather than conclusive for the paper's main design recommendation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, §4.3, §7] The qualitative contrast between severe and mild users' trust priorities is confounded with GenAI usage duration. In Figure 4B, the high-severity cluster is also the long-term-use cluster, and the interview participants in Section 5.1 are recruited from these clusters; Table 2 confirms that no interview participant was a never-user of GenAI. The Limitations (Section 7) acknowledge the absence of a high-severity, never-used group, but this caveat is not carried into the design implications in Section 6.2, which recommend tailoring emotional trust-building to severe-symptom users. The emotional-trust finding could equally be explained by familiarity and usage length rather than by symptom severity. The ordinal logistic regression in Table 5 estimates severity, duration, and frequency as separate main effects on willingness and does not test trust priorities, so it does not rescue the qualitative attribution. Please either substantially soften the causal framing to a description of the observed cluster profiles or provide additional data or analyses that separate severity from usage duration.
  2. [Abstract, §4.1.2, §4 Takeaways] The paper repeatedly calls the trust–willingness relationship 'strong' in the abstract and in the Section 4 'Takeaways' paragraph, but the reported Spearman rho = 0.30 and R-squared = 0.13 are moderate-to-weak by conventional social-science standards. The body text itself correctly describes the association as 'moderate' in Section 4.1.2. This inconsistency matters because the abstract's central claim overstates the quantitative support. Please harmonize the wording and either drop 'strong' or provide a field-specific benchmark justifying the label.
  3. [Abstract, §1, §4.2] The abstract and introduction say that individuals with severe symptoms 'tend to trust and embrace GenAI chatbots more readily,' but the quantitative result in Table 5 concerns willingness to use, not trust. Trust-by-severity is not directly tested in the survey; the qualitative data address trust priorities but are confounded as noted above. Please disambiguate 'trust' and 'willingness' throughout the claims so that the strength of each reported result is accurately represented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Table 5] The sentence following Table 5 says participants with very severe symptoms showed 'even stronger odds at 1.124,' but the coefficient for the Severe group is 1.233 and is larger than the Very Severe coefficient; please correct this description and avoid implying a strictly monotonic severity effect when Mild and Moderate are non-significant.
  2. [§4.3, Figure 4] The cluster figure and its caption contain garbled annotation text (e.g., 'with high severityof SA') and placeholder symbols such as 'group ' with no visible group names; please provide a clean legend and complete sentences in the figure so the three clusters are identifiable.
  3. [§4.3, Appendix Figure 5] The GMM cluster count is selected using WCSS and silhouette scores, which are typically associated with k-means; please clarify how these criteria were applied to Gaussian mixture models and whether mclust's model-selection criteria (e.g., BIC) were also considered.
  4. [§3.1.2, §4.1.1] The trust scale is adapted in part from the authors' own prior work (references [123] and [124]) and is validated with EFA on the same sample used for the main trust–willingness test; this is acceptable for an exploratory study, but please acknowledge explicitly that the factor structure and the association are not independent evidence.
  5. [Throughout] Please correct minor typos: 'Haman at el.' in reference [42] should be 'Haman et al.'; 'its'' in Section 1 should be 'its'; 'might might form' in Section 4 should be 'might form'; and the heading in Section 5.1.3 should read 'GenAI chatbots are slightly better than a bad psychotherapist.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the severity–trust findings are new empirical results and do not reduce to the measurement instrument or to self-citations.

full rationale

This is an empirical mixed-methods study, not a derivation, so there is no equation-level chain whose conclusions are equivalent to its inputs. The trust scale is adapted from prior work, including the authors' own references [123] and [124], and is validated with EFA on the same survey sample, but this is a psychometric internal-consistency check rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The central quantitative claims (trust correlates with willingness, and severe symptoms are associated with higher willingness) are estimated from separate survey items via regression and correlation; the EFA does not fit or force the willingness outcome. The qualitative claim that severe-symptom users prioritize emotional trust while mild-symptom users prioritize technical reliability comes from semi-structured thematic analysis of interview data, not from the clustering variables or the trust scale. The acknowledged confound between symptom severity and GenAI usage duration is a validity and causal-interpretation limitation, explicitly noted in Section 7, but it is not a circularity because the qualitative trust priorities were not defined in terms of severity or usage duration. The self-citations in the trust-scale adaptation are not load-bearing: the measured associations and interview findings have independent empirical content and would stand even if those citations were removed. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical social-science paper, so there are no hidden free parameters in the derivation sense. The statistical estimates (regression coefficients, factor loadings) are reported in the paper. The GMM cluster count k=3 is an exploratory model-selection choice, listed for completeness. The core assumptions are the validity of the SPIN instrument, the six-item trust scale, the single-item willingness measure, the proportional-odds assumption, and the meaningfulness of the GMM clusters for qualitative interpretation. No new entities are postulated; emotional trust and cognitive trust are concepts drawn from prior literature.

free parameters (1)
  • Number of GMM clusters = 3
    The k=3 cluster solution in Section 4.3 is selected via WCSS elbow and silhouette score. This is an exploratory model-selection choice used to structure the qualitative interview groups, not a hidden tuning parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SPIN scores and cutoffs validly classify social anxiety severity in this population.
    Severity groups are defined by SPIN thresholds (Table 6) and used in the ordinal regression and interview sampling. The paper does not independently validate SPIN in its sample.
  • domain assumption The six trust items measure trust in GenAI chatbots for SA support.
    Trust is operationalized with six Likert items adapted from [36, 123, 124]. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.831) and EFA on the same sample are reported, but external/ecological validity is not established, as acknowledged in the Limitations.
  • domain assumption Single-item three-option willingness question captures behavioral intention to use GenAI chatbots.
    Willingness is measured with one item (No/Yes/Possibly). The analysis treats this as a valid ordinally scaled intention measure without validation against actual usage.
  • standard math Proportional odds assumption holds for the ordinal logistic regression.
    The polr model in Section 3.1.3 assumes proportional odds; the paper does not report a test of this assumption.
  • domain assumption Gaussian Mixture Model cluster solution with k=3 reflects meaningful participant profiles.
    Clusters from Section 4.3 (Figure 4) are used to select and interpret interview groups, but the clusters are exploratory and not externally validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Understanding Attitudes and Trust of Generative AI Chatbots for Social Anxiety Support." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O6UVFMP6

@misc{pith2026250115628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Understanding Attitudes and Trust of Generative AI Chatbots for Social Anxiety Support},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O6UVFMP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15628}
}
read the original abstract

Social anxiety (SA) has become increasingly prevalent. Traditional coping strategies often face accessibility challenges. Generative AI (GenAI), known for their knowledgeable and conversational capabilities, are emerging as alternative tools for mental well-being. With the increased integration of GenAI, it is important to examine individuals' attitudes and trust in GenAI chatbots' support for SA. Through a mixed-method approach that involved surveys (n = 159) and interviews (n = 17), we found that individuals with severe symptoms tended to trust and embrace GenAI chatbots more readily, valuing their non-judgmental support and perceived emotional comprehension. However, those with milder symptoms prioritized technical reliability. We identified factors influencing trust, such as GenAI chatbots' ability to generate empathetic responses and its context-sensitive limitations, which were particularly important among individuals with SA. We also discuss the design implications and use of GenAI chatbots in fostering cognitive and emotional trust, with practical and design considerations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15628 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correlation matrix displaying the coefficients be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Kruskal-Wallis test assessed differences in trust [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Participants’ willingness to use GenAI chatbots for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: To better visualize the three-dimensional data, we reduced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Clustering using the Gaussian Mixture Model with distinct color-coded clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cluster and component definition criteria: (A) Within-Sum-of-Squares (WSS) for GMM clustering, (B) Average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plot (A) illustrating the relationship between predicted values and actual Trust, based on a linear regression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alaa Ali Abd-Alrazaq, Asma Rababeh, Mohannad Alajlani, Bridgette M Bewick, and Mowafa Househ. 2020. Effectiveness and Safety of Using Chatbots to Improve Mental Health: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22, 7 (July 2020), e16021. https://doi.org/10.2196/16021

    doi:10.2196/16021 2020

  2. [2]

    Bruce A Arnow, Dana Steidtmann, Christine Blasey, Rachel Manber, Michael J Constantino, Daniel N Klein, John C Markowitz, Barbara O Rothbaum, Michael E Thase, Aaron J Fisher, et al. 2013. The relationship between the therapeutic alliance and treatment outcome in two distinct psychotherapies for chronic depression. Journal of consulting and clinical psycho...

    work page doi:10.1037/a0031530 2013

  3. [3]

    Onur Asan, Alparslan Emrah Bayrak, and Avishek Choudhury. 2020. Artificial Intelligence and Human Trust in Healthcare: Focus on Clinicians. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22, 6 (June 2020), e15154. https://doi.org/10.2196/15154

    doi:10.2196/15154 2020

  4. [4]

    Orlando Ayala and Patrice Bechard. 2024. Reducing hallucination in structured outputs via Retrieval-Augmented Generation. , 228–238 pages. https://doi.org/ 10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-industry.19

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-industry.19 2024

  5. [5]

    Tita Alissa Bach, Amna Khan, Harry Hallock, Gabriela Beltrão, and Sonia Sousa

  6. [6]

    Ballinger, F

    Gary A. Ballinger, F. David Schoorman, and Kinshuk Sharma. 2024. What We Do While Waiting: The Experience of Vulnerability in Trusting Relationships. Academy of Management Review (Aug. 2024). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022. 0080

    work page doi:10.5465/amr.2022 2024

  7. [7]

    Patrick Bedué and Albrecht Fritzsche. 2021. Can we trust AI? An empirical investigation of trust requirements and guide to successful AI adoption. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 35, 2 (April 2021), 530–549. https://doi. org/10.1108/jeim-06-2020-0233

    doi:10.1108/jeim-06-2020-0233 2021

  8. [8]

    Devinney, and Madan M

    Rajeev Bhattacharya, Timothy M. Devinney, and Madan M. Pillutla. 1998. A Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcomes.The Academy of Management Review 23, 3 (July 1998), 459. https://doi.org/10.2307/259289

    work page doi:10.2307/259289 1998

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    Johanna Birkhäuer, Jens Gaab, Joe Kossowsky, Sebastian Hasler, Peter Krum- menacher, Christoph Werner, and Heike Gerger. 2017. Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 12, 2 (Feb. 2017), e0170988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170988

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Charlotte Blease and John Torous. 2023. ChatGPT and mental healthcare: balancing benefits with risks of harms. BMJ Mental Health 26, 1 (Nov. 2023), e300884. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2023-300884

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Arthur C Bohart and A Greaves Wade. 2013. The client in psychotherapy.Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change 6 (2013), 219–257

    2013

  4. [12]

    Why People Gotta be so Judgy?

    Dana C. Branson, Jocelyn S. Martin, Olivia E. Westbrook, River J. Ketcherside, and Christopher S. Bradley. 2021. “Why People Gotta be so Judgy?”: The Impor- tance of Agency-Wide, Non-judgmental Approach to Client Care. Alcoholism Understanding Attitudes and Trust of Generative...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Sarah Carr. 2020. ‘AI gone mental’: engagement and ethics in data-driven technology for mental health. Journal of Mental Health 29, 2 (Jan. 2020), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2020.1714011

    2020

  6. [14]

    Nancy Carter, Denise Bryant-Lukosius, Alba DiCenso, Jennifer Blythe, and Alan J. Neville. 2014. The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research.Oncology Nursing Forum 41, 5 (Aug. 2014), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.onf.545- 547

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Characters.AI. [n. d.]. Personalized AI for every moment of your day. https: //beta.character.ai/ Accessed: 2024-12-05

    2024

  8. [16]

    Dian Chen, Ying Liu, Yiting Guo, and Yulin Zhang. 2024. The revolution of generative artificial intelligence in psychology: The interweaving of behavior, consciousness, and ethics. Acta Psychologica 251 (Nov. 2024), 104593. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104593

    2024

  9. [17]

    Melvin Chen. 2023. Trust, understanding, and machine translation: the task of translation and the responsibility of the translator. AI and SOCIETY (May 2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01681-6

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Tiffany Chenneville, Brianna Duncan, and Gabriella Silva. 2024. More questions than answers: Ethical considerations at the intersection of psychology and generative artificial intelligence. Translational Issues in Psychological Science 10, 2 (June 2024), 162–178. https://doi.o...

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Connor, Jonathan R

    Kathryn M. Connor, Jonathan R. T. Davidson, L. Erik Churchill, Andrew Sher- wood, Richard H. Weisler, and Edna Foa. 2000. Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN): New self-rating scale. British Journal of Psychiatry 176, 4 (2000), 379–386. https://doi.org...

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    Paul Crits-Christoph, Agnes Rieger, Averi Gaines, and Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons. 2019. Trust and respect in the patient-clinician relationship: pre- liminary development of a new scale. BMC Psychology 7, 1 (Dec. 2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0347-3

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Sara Cruz, Mariana Sousa, Marta Marchante, and Vítor Alexandre Coelho. 2023. Trajectories of social withdrawal and social anxiety and their relationship with self-esteem before, during, and after the school lockdowns. Scientific Reports 13, 1 (Sept. 2023). https://doi.org/10.1...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Ilenia Cucciniello, Sara Sangiovanni, Gianpaolo Maggi, and Silvia Rossi. 2021. Validation of Robot Interactive Behaviors Through Users Emotional Perception and Their Effects on Trust. In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-M...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Luisa Cutillo. 2019. Parametric and Multivariate Methods . Elsevier, 738–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809633-8.20335-x

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    I Don’t Want to Bother You

    Katharine E. Daniel and Bethany A. Teachman. 2023.“I Don’t Want to Bother You” – A Case Study in Social Anxiety Disorder . Springer International Publishing, 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23650-1_16

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Alison Darcy. 2024. In Healthcare, Structure and Science is All You Need. https: //woebothealth.com/in-healthcare-structure-and-science-is-all-you-need/

    2024

  18. [26]

    Pendse, and Neha Kumar

    Munmun De Choudhury, Sachin R. Pendse, and Neha Kumar. 2023. Benefits and Harms of Large Language Models in Digital Mental Health. https://doi. org/10.48550/ARXIV.2311.14693

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Julian De Freitas, Ahmet Kaan Uğuralp, Zeliha Oğuz-Uğuralp, and Stefano Puntoni. 2024. Chatbots and mental health: Insights into the safety of generative AI. Journal of Consumer Psychology 34, 3 (2024), 481–491

    2024

  20. [28]

    Julian DeFreitas, Ahmet Kaan Uğuralp, Zeliha Oğuz-Uğuralp, and Stefano Pun- toni. 2023. Chatbots and mental health: Insights into the safety of genera- tive AI. Journal of Consumer Psychology 34, 3 (Dec. 2023), 481–491. https: //doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1393

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    John E. Donley. 1911. Psychotherapy and re-education. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology 6, 1 (April 1911), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071950

    1911 doi

  22. [30]

    Auerbach, Ronald C

    David Daniel Ebert, Marvin Franke, Fanny Kählke, Ann-Marie Küchler, Ronny Bruffaerts, Philippe Mortier, Eirini Karyotaki, Jordi Alonso, Pim Cuijpers, Matthias Berking, Randy P. Auerbach, Ronald C. Kessler, and Harald Baumeis- ter. 2018. Increasing intentions to use mental heal...

    2018

  23. [31]

    Zohar Elyoseph, Tamar Gur, Yuval Haber, Tomer Simon, Tal Angert, Yuval Navon, Amir Tal, and Oren Asman. 2024. An Ethical Perspective on the Democ- ratization of Mental Health With Generative AI. JMIR Mental Health 11 (Oct. 2024), e58011–e58011. https://doi.org/10.2196/58011

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Anders Ericsson

    K. Anders Ericsson. 2000. Expertise in interpreting: An expert-performance perspective. Interpreting 5, 2 (Dec. 2000), 187–220. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp. 5.2.08eri

    2000 doi

  25. [33]

    Amy Franklin and Jeritt Thayer. 2024. The Unintended Consequences of the Technology in Clinical Settings. Springer Nature Switzerland, 371–390. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69947-4_15

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Galanis, and Daniel L

    Andrew Franze, Christina R. Galanis, and Daniel L. King. 2023. Social chatbot use (e.g., ChatGPT) among individuals with social deficits: Risks and opportunities. Journal of Behavioral Addictions 12, 4 (Dec. 2023), 871–872. https://doi.org/10. 1556/2006.2023.00057

    2023

  27. [35]

    Piotr Gaczek, Rumen Pozharliev, Grzegorz Leszczyński, and Marek Zieliński

  28. [36]

    Ella Glikson and Anita Williams Woolley. 2020. Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research. Academy of Management Annals 14, 2 (July 2020), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057

    2020

  29. [37]

    Goodman, Ruba Rum, Gabriella Silva, and Todd B

    Fallon R. Goodman, Ruba Rum, Gabriella Silva, and Todd B. Kashdan. 2021. Are people with social anxiety disorder happier alone? Journal of Anxiety Disorders 84 (Dec. 2021), 102474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102474

    2021

  30. [38]

    Goodwin, Andrea H

    Renee D. Goodwin, Andrea H. Weinberger, June H. Kim, Melody Wu, and Sandro Galea. 2020. Trends in anxiety among adults in the United States, 2008–2018: Rapid increases among young adults. Journal of Psychiatric Research 130 (Nov. 2020), 441–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsyc...

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Yuval Haber, Inbar Levkovich, Dorit Hadar-Shoval, and Zohar Elyoseph. 2024. The Artificial Third: A Broad View of the Effects of Introducing Generative Artificial Intelligence on Psychotherapy. JMIR Mental Health 11 (May 2024), e54781–e54781. https://doi.org/10.2196/54781

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Muhammad Usman Hadi, Qasem Al Tashi, Rizwan Qureshi, Abbas Shah, Am- gad Muneer, Muhammad Irfan, Anas Zafar, Muhammad Bilal Shaikh, Naveed Akhtar, Syed Zohaib Hassan, Maged Shoman, Jia Wu, Seyedali Mirjalili, and Mubarak Shah. 2024. Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Surve...

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Hall-renn

    Karen E. Hall-renn. 2007. Mindful Journeys: Embracing the Present with Non- Judgmental Awareness. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health 2, 2 (Dec. 2007), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1300/j456v02n02_02

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    Michael Haman and Milan Školník. 2023. Behind the ChatGPT hype: are its suggestions contributing to addiction? Annals of biomedical engineering 51, 6 (2023), 1128–1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03201-5

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    P. A. Hancock, Theresa T. Kessler, Alexandra D. Kaplan, Kimberly Stowers, J. Christopher Brill, Deborah R. Billings, Kristin E. Schaefer, and James L. Szalma

  36. [44]

    M. I. Harrison, R. Koppel, and S. Bar-Lev. 2007. Unintended Consequences of Information Technologies in Health Care–An Interactive Sociotechnical Analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 14, 5 (Sept. 2007), 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m2384

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    Thomas F Heston. 2023. Safety of large language models in addressing depres- sion. Cureus 15, 12 (2023). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.50729

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Frontiers in Psychology 14 (March 2023)

    How and why humans trust: A meta-analysis and elaborated model. Frontiers in Psychology 14 (March 2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023. 1081086

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Zainab Iftikhar, Sean Ransom, Amy Xiao, and Jeff Huang. 2024. Therapy as an NLP Task: Psychologists’ Comparison of LLMs and Human Peers in CBT. arXiv:arXiv:2409.02244

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Becky Inkster, Catherine Knibbs, and Maria Bada. 2023. Cybersecurity: a critical priority for digital mental health. Frontiers in Digital Health 5 (Sept. 2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1242264

    2023

  41. [49]

    Hodgkinson and J

    Gerard P. Hodgkinson and J. Kevin Ford (Eds.). 2011. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2011 . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119992592 First published: 25 February 2011

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    Natarajan Kathirvel. 2020. Post COVID-19 pandemic mental health challenges. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 53 (Oct. 2020), 102430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp. 2020.102430

    2020

  43. [51]

    Zoha Khawaja and Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon. 2023. Your robot therapist is not your therapist: understanding the role of AI-powered mental health chatbots. Frontiers in Digital Health 5 (Nov. 2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023. 1278186

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Kaplan, Theresa T

    Alexandra D. Kaplan, Theresa T. Kessler, J. Christopher Brill, and P. A. Hancock

  45. [53]

    Nikolaos Koutsouleris, Tobias U Hauser, Vasilisa Skvortsova, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2022. From promise to practice: towards the realisation of AI-informed mental health care. The Lancet Digital Health 4, 11 (Nov. 2022), e829–e840. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00153-4

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    Lattie, Colleen Stiles-Shields, and Andrea K

    Emily G. Lattie, Colleen Stiles-Shields, and Andrea K. Graham. 2022. An overview of and recommendations for more accessible digital mental health services. Nature Reviews Psychology 1, 2 (feb 2022), 87–100. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s44159-021-00003-1

    2022

  47. [55]

    Mark R. Leary. 1995. Social Anxiety. Guilford Press, New York. CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Wang et al

    1995

  48. [56]

    Reuben Kindred and Glen Bates. 2023. The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Social Anxiety: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, 3 (Jan. 2023), 2362. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph20032362

    2023

  49. [57]

    Roman Lukyanenko, Wolfgang Maass, and Veda C. Storey. 2022. Trust in artificial intelligence: From a Foundational Trust Framework to emerging re- search opportunities. Electronic Markets 32, 4 (Nov. 2022), 1993–2020. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00605-4

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    Zilin Ma, Yiyang Mei, Yinru Long, Zhaoyuan Su, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2024. Evaluating the Experience of LGBTQ+ People Using Large Language Model Based Chatbots for Mental Health Support. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24, Vol...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Jack McGuire, David De Cremer, Yorck Hesselbarth, Leander De Schutter, Ke Michael Mai, and Alain Van Hiel. 2023. The reputational and ethical consequences of deceptive chatbot use. Scientific Reports 13, 1 (Sept. 2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41692-3

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    Lee, John Torous, Munmun De Choudhury, Colin A

    Ellen E. Lee, John Torous, Munmun De Choudhury, Colin A. Depp, Sarah A. Graham, Ho-Cheol Kim, Martin P. Paulus, John H. Krystal, and Dilip V. Jeste

  53. [61]

    Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging 6, 9 (Sept

    Artificial Intelligence for Mental Health Care: Clinical Applications, Barriers, Facilitators, and Artificial Wisdom. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging 6, 9 (Sept. 2021), 856–864. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.bpsc.2021.02.001

    2021

  54. [62]

    Chatting with ChatGPT

    Devadas Menon and K Shilpa. 2023. “Chatting with ChatGPT”: Analyzing the factors influencing users’ intention to Use the Open AI’s ChatGPT using the UTAUT model. Heliyon 9, 11 (Nov. 2023), e20962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. heliyon.2023.e20962

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    Maria Moudatsou, Areti Stavropoulou, Anastas Philalithis, and Sofia Koukouli

  56. [64]

    You have to put a lot of trust in me

    Regina Müller, Nadia Primc, and Eva Kuhn. 2023. “You have to put a lot of trust in me”: autonomy, trust, and trustworthiness in the context of mobile apps for mental health. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 26, 3 (March 2023), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10146-y

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    McKinsey & Company. 2023. The State of AI in 2023: Generative AI’s Breakout Year. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the- state-of-ai-in-2023-generative-ais-breakout-year

    2023

  58. [66]

    Jonker, and Myrthe L

    Siddharth Mehrotra, Carolina Centeio Jorge, Catholijn M. Jonker, and Myrthe L. Tielman. 2024. Integrity-based Explanations for Fostering Appropriate Trust in AI Agents. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 14, 1 (Jan. 2024), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610578

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    Jingping Nie, Hanya Shao, Yuang Fan, Qijia Shao, Haoxuan You, Matthias Preindl, and Xiaofan Jiang. 2024. LLM-based Conversational AI Therapist for Daily Functioning Screening and Psychotherapeutic Intervention via Everyday Smart Devices. arXiv:arXiv:2403.10779

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Yilin Ning, Salinelat Teixayavong, Yuqing Shang, Julian Savulescu, Vaishaanth Nagaraj, Di Miao, Mayli Mertens, Daniel Shu Wei Ting, Jasmine Chiat Ling Ong, Mingxuan Liu, Jiuwen Cao, Michael Dunn, Roger Vaughan, Marcus Eng Hock Ong, Joseph Jao-Yiu Sung, Eric J Topol, and Nan Li...

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    Andrzej Nowak, Mikolaj Biesaga, Karolina Ziembowicz, Tomasz Baran, and Piotr Winkielman. 2023. Subjective consistency increases trust.Scientific Reports 13, 1 (April 2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32034-4

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    A O’Donovan and S May. 2007. The advantages of the mindful therapist. Psy- chotherapy in Australia 13, 4 (2007), 46–53

    2007

  63. [71]

    Naber, Stephanie C

    Andrew M. Naber, Stephanie C. Payne, and Sheila Simsarian Webber. 2018. The relative influence of trustor and trustee individual differences on peer assessments of trust. Personality and Individual Differences 128 (July 2018), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.022

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    CBS News. 2023. Mental health chatbots powered by artificial intelligence providing support. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mental-health-chatbots- powered-by-artificial-intelligence-providing-support-60-minutes-transcript/

    2023

  65. [73]

    OpenAI. 2024. ChatGPT. https://openai.com/chatgpt/

    2024

  66. [74]

    Peterson K Ozili. 2022. The Acceptable R-Square in Empirical Modelling for Social Science Research. SSRN Electronic Journal (2022). https://doi.org/10. 2139/ssrn.4128165

    2022

  67. [75]

    Corina Pelau, Dan-Cristian Dabija, and Irina Ene. 2021. What makes an AI device human-like? The role of interaction quality, empathy and perceived psychological anthropomorphic characteristics in the acceptance of artificial intelligence in the service industry. Computers in H...

    2021

  68. [76]

    Gabrijela Perković, Antun Drobnjak, and Ivica Botički. 2024. Hallucinations in LLMs: Understanding and Addressing Challenges. In 2024 47th MIPRO ICT and Electronics Convention (MIPRO) . IEEE, 2084–2088. https://doi.org/10.1109/ mipro60963.2024.10569238

    2024

  69. [77]

    National Institute of Mental Health. 2022. Social Anxiety Disorder: More Than Just Shyness. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/social-anxiety- disorder-more-than-just-shyness

    2022

  70. [78]

    Ogle, Jason C

    Derek H. Ogle, Jason C. Doll, A. Powell Wheeler, and Alexis Dinno. 2023. FSA: Simple Fisheries Stock Assessment Methods . https://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=FSA R package version 0.9.5

    2023

  71. [79]

    Klaus Ranta, Terhi Aalto-Setälä, Tiina Heikkinen, and Olli Kiviruusu. 2023. Social anxiety in Finnish adolescents from 2013 to 2021: change from pre-COVID-19 to COVID-19 era, and mid-pandemic correlates. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 59, 1 (April 2023), 121–13...

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    Russell Razzaque, Emmanuel Okoro, and Lisa Wood. 2013. Mindfulness in Clinician Therapeutic Relationships. Mindfulness 6, 2 (Aug. 2013), 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0241-7

    2013 doi

  73. [81]

    Replika. 2024. Replika - AI Companion. https://replika.com/ Replika, Website

    2024

  74. [82]

    Kevin Roose. 2024. Can A.I. Be Blamed for a Teen’s Suicide? https://www. nytimes.com/2024/10/23/technology/characterai-lawsuit-teen-suicide.html

    2024

  75. [83]

    Stefano Porcelli, Nic Van Der Wee, Steven van der Werff, Moji Aghajani, Jef- frey C. Glennon, Sabrina van Heukelum, Floriana Mogavero, Antonio Lobo, Francisco Javier Olivera, Elena Lobo, Mar Posadas, Juergen Dukart, Rouba Kozak, Estibaliz Arce, Arfan Ikram, Jacob Vorstman, Amy...

    2019 doi

  76. [84]

    R Core Team. 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R- project.org/

    2022

  77. [85]

    Damian F Santomauro, Ana M Mantilla Herrera, Jamileh Shadid, Peng Zheng, Charlie Ashbaugh, David M Pigott, Cristiana Abbafati, Christopher Adolph, Joanne O Amlag, Aleksandr Y Aravkin, Bree L Bang-Jensen, Gregory J Berto- lacci, Sabina S Bloom, Rachel Castellano, Emma Castro, S...

  78. [86]

    Surjodeep Sarkar, Manas Gaur, Lujie Karen Chen, Muskan Garg, and Biplav Srivastava. 2023. A review of the explainability and safety of conversational agents for mental health to identify avenues for improvement. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 6 (Oct. 2023). https://doi.o...

    2023

  79. [87]

    Brendan Murphy, and Adrian E

    Luca Scrucca, Michael Fop, T. Brendan Murphy, and Adrian E. Raftery. 2016. mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models. The R Journal 8, 1 (2016), 289–317. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ- 2016-021

    2016 doi

  80. [88]

    Emre Sezgin, Faraaz Chekeni, Jennifer Lee, and Sarah Keim. 2023. Clinical Accuracy of Large Language Models and Google Search Responses to Postpar- tum Depression Questions: Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 25 (Sept. 2023), e49240. https://doi.org/10...

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Giovanni Rubeis. 2022. iHealth: The ethics of artificial intelligence and big data in mental healthcare. Internet Interventions 28 (April 2022), 100518. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100518

    2022

  82. [90]

    Hamid Reza Saeidnia, Seyed Ghasem Hashemi Fotami, Brady Lund, and Nasrin Ghiasi. 2024. Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence Interventions for Mental Health and Well-Being: Ensuring Responsible Implementation and Im- pact. Social Sciences 13, 7 (July 2024), 381. ht...

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    Mayank Sharma. 2024. AI Bot Disclaimers: Shielding Companies While Los- ing Customers. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/302180/20240229/ai-bot- disclaimers-shielding-companies-losing-customers.htm

    2024

  84. [92]

    2021), 1700–1712

    Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.The Lancet 398, 10312 (Nov. 2021), 1700–1712. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02143-7

    2020 doi

  85. [93]

    Helge Skirbekk, Anne-Lise Middelthon, Per Hjortdahl, and Arnstein Finset. 2011. Mandates of Trust in the Doctor–Patient Relationship. Qualitative Health Re- search 21, 9 (April 2011), 1182–1190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311405685

    2011 doi

  86. [94]

    Barry Solaiman. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and decision- making: Legal and ethical hurdles for implementation in mental health. In- ternational Journal of Law and Psychiatry 97 (Nov. 2024), 102028. https: Understanding Attitudes and Trust of Generative AI...

    2024

  87. [95]

    Clay Spinuzzi. 2005. The methodology of participatory design. Technical communication 52, 2 (2005), 163–174

    2005

  88. [96]

    Emre Sezgin and Ian McKay. 2024. Behavioral health and generative AI: a perspective on future of therapies and patient care. npj Mental Health Research 3, 1 (June 2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44184-024-00067-w

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    Hamid Shamszare and Avishek Choudhury. 2023. Clinicians’ Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence: Focus on Workload, Risk, Trust, Clinical Decision Making, and Clinical Integration. Healthcare 11, 16 (Aug. 2023), 2308. https://doi.org/10. 3390/healthcare11162308

    2023

  90. [98]

    Vivian Ta, Caroline Griffith, Carolynn Boatfield, Xinyu Wang, Maria Civitello, Haley Bader, Esther DeCero, and Alexia Loggarakis. 2020. User Experiences of Social Support From Companion Chatbots in Everyday Contexts: Thematic Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22, ...

    2020 doi

  91. [99]

    Elisabeth Shaw. 2012. The place for judgement in postmodern clinical practice. Psychotherapy in Australia 19, 1 (2012), 28–34

    2012

  92. [100]

    Tamar Tavory. 2024. Regulating AI in Mental Health: Ethics of Care Perspective. JMIR Mental Health 11 (Sept. 2024), e58493. https://doi.org/10.2196/58493

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    David R. Thomas. 2006. A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation 27, 2 (June 2006), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

    2006 doi

  94. [102]

    John Torous and Charlotte Blease. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence in mental health care: potential benefits and current challenges. World Psychiatry 23, 1 (Jan. 2024), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21148

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    David M Stein and Michael J Lambert. 1984. On the relationship between therapist experience and psychotherapy outcome. Clinical Psychology Review 4, 2 (1984), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(84)90025-4

    1984 doi

  96. [104]

    Clare A. M. Sutherland, Nichola S. Burton, Jeremy B. Wilmer, Gabriëlla A. M. Blokland, Laura Germine, Romina Palermo, Jemma R. Collova, and Gillian Rhodes. 2020. Individual differences in trust evaluations are shaped mostly by environments, not genes. Proceedings of the Nation...

    2020 doi

  97. [105]

    Reddit User. 2023. I asked Chat GPT for help with social anxiety and the response was deeply comforting. https://www.reddit.com/r/Anxiety/comments/12g425j/ i_asked_chat_gpt_for_help_with_social_anxiety_and/

    2023

  98. [106]

    Wei Tang and David Kreindler. 2017. Supporting Homework Compliance in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: Essential Features of Mobile Apps.JMIR Mental Health 4, 2 (June 2017), e20. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.5283

    2017 doi

  99. [107]

    Tiffany C Veinot, Hannah Mitchell, and Jessica S Ancker. 2018. Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 25, 8 (May 2018), 1080–1088. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocy052

    2018 doi

  100. [108]

    W. N. Venables and B. D. Ripley. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S (fourth ed.). Springer, New York. https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4/ ISBN 0-387- 95457-0

    2002

  101. [109]

    von Eschenbach

    Warren J. von Eschenbach. 2021. Transparency and the Black Box Problem: Why We Do Not Trust AI. Philosophy and Technology 34, 4 (Sept. 2021), 1607–1622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00477-0

    2021 doi

  102. [110]

    Leda Tortora. 2024. Beyond Discrimination: Generative AI Applications and Ethical Challenges in Forensic Psychiatry. Frontiers in Psychiatry 15 (March 2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1346059

    2024

  103. [111]

    Quora User. 2024. What should I do if due to social anxiety, fear of being judged by others overshadows my life in everything I do, and it slowly ruins my life? https://www.quora.com/What-should-I-do-if-due-to-social-anxiety-fear-of- being-judged-by-others-overshadows-my-life-...

    2024

  104. [112]

    Uma Warrier, Aparna Warrier, and Komal Khandelwal. 2023. Ethical consid- erations in the use of artificial intelligence in mental health. The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery 59, 1 (Oct. 2023). https: //doi.org/10.1186/s41983-023-00735-2

    2023 doi

  105. [113]

    Frank J. P. van der Hulst, Anne E. M. Brabers, and Judith D. de Jong. 2023. The relation between trust and the willingness of enrollees to receive healthcare advice from their health insurer. BMC Health Services Research 23, 1 (Jan. 2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-09016-9

    2023 doi

  106. [114]

    William Revelle. 2024. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. https://CRAN. R-project.org/package=psych R package version 2.4.3

    2024

  107. [115]

    Winslade

    John M. Winslade. 2013. From being non-judgemental to deconstructing nor- malising judgement. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 41, 5 (Nov. 2013), 518–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2013.771772

    2013

  108. [116]

    Woebot Health. 2024. Woebot Health - Scalable Enterprise Solution for Mental Health. https://woebothealth.com/

    2024

  109. [117]

    Heyuan Wang, Ziyi Wu, and Junyu Chen. 2019. Multi-Turn Response Selection in Retrieval-Based Chatbots with Iterated Attentive Convolution Matching Network. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’19) . ACM. https:/...

    2019 doi

  110. [118]

    Xiaojie Wang, Beibei Wang, Yu Wu, Zhaolong Ning, Song Guo, and Fei Richard Yu. 2024. A Survey on Trustworthy Edge Intelligence: From Security and Reliability To Transparency and Sustainability. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials (2024), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/coms...

    2024

  111. [119]

    Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2024. Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models. https://doi.org/10.48550/ ARXIV.2401.11817

    2024 doi arXiv

  112. [120]

    Elina Weiste. 2015. Describing therapeutic projects across sequences: Balancing between supportive and disagreeing interventions. Journal of Pragmatics 80 (2015), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.02.001

    2015 doi

  113. [121]

    Caglar Yildirim. 2021. An Immersive Model of User Trust in Conversational Agents in Virtual Reality. In 2021 Third International Conference on Transdisci- plinary AI (TransAI). IEEE, 17–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/transai51903.2021. 00011

    2021

  114. [122]

    Liangru Yu and Yi Li. 2022. Artificial Intelligence Decision-Making Transparency and Employees’ Trust: The Parallel Multiple Mediating Effect of Effectiveness and Discomfort. Behavioral Sciences 12, 5 (April 2022), 127. https://doi.org/10. 3390/bs12050127

    2022

  115. [123]

    Yixuan Zhang, Joseph D Gaggiano, Nutchanon Yongsatianchot, Nurul M Suhaimi, Miso Kim, Yifan Sun, Jacqueline Griffin, and Andrea G Parker. 2023. What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Re- view. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human F...

    2023

  116. [124]

    Tianyu Wu, Shizhu He, Jingping Liu, Siqi Sun, Kang Liu, Qing-Long Han, and Yang Tang. 2023. A Brief Overview of ChatGPT: The History, Status Quo and Potential Future Development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 10, 5 (May 2023), 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1109/jas.2023.123618

    2023

  117. [125]

    Zhou, Wenxi Chen, Huahai Yang, and Changyan Chi

    Ziang Xiao, Michelle X. Zhou, Wenxi Chen, Huahai Yang, and Changyan Chi

  118. [126]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20)

    If I Hear You Correctly: Building and Evaluating Interview Chatbots with Active Listening Skills. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20) . ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831. 3376131

    2020 doi

  119. [128]

    2023.Person-Centered Therapy (Rogerian Therapy)

    L Yao and R Kabir. 2023.Person-Centered Therapy (Rogerian Therapy). StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL)

    2023

  120. [132]

    Yixuan Zhang, Yimeng Wang, Nutchanon Yongsatianchot, Joseph D Gaggiano, Nurul M Suhaimi, Anne Okrah, Miso Kim, Jacqueline Griffin, and Andrea G Parker. 2024. Profiling the Dynamics of Trust and Distrust in Social Media: A Survey Study. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on H...

    2024 doi

  121. [133]

    Jiawei Zhou, Yixuan Zhang, Qianni Luo, Andrea G Parker, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2023. Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinforma- tion and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (C...

    2023

  122. [134]

    No, ” 1 = “Yes

    Have you ever been diagnosed with a social anxiety condition by a healthcare professional? (0 = “No, ” 1 = “Yes. ”)

  123. [135]

    No, ” 1 = “Yes,

    Do you consider yourself to have social anxiety? (0 = “No, ” 1 = “Yes, ” 2 = “Not Sure. ”)

  124. [136]

    The SPIN consists of 17 items, each rated on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely), resulting in total scores ranging from 0 to 68

    Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN) [19] is a validated scale used to assess the severity of social anxiety symptoms. The SPIN consists of 17 items, each rated on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely), resulting in total scores ranging from 0 to 68. Scoring involves sum- min...

    2025

  125. [137]

    No, ” “Therapy,

    Have you sought external support or resources for managing your social anxiety? ( Participants were allowed to select all appli- cable options from the following list: “No, ” “Therapy, ” “Medication, ” “GenAI Chatbots or digital mental health apps, ” “Others. ”)

  126. [138]

    Cultural limitations,

    Please select any of the following barriers you experience when seeking help for your mental health. ( Participants were allowed to select all applicable options from the following list “Cultural limitations, ” “Social or family pressures, ” “Financial constraints, ” “Feelings...

  127. [139]

    Never, ” “Less than 3 month,

    How long have you been using GenAI chatbots? (Responses were categorized into time frames such as “Never, ” “Less than 3 month, ” “3-6 months, ” “6-12 months, ” “More than one year. ”)

  128. [140]

    Never, ”“Rarely (once or twice a month),

    In the past 6 months, how often have you used a GenAI chatbot for social anxiety support? (Participants could choose from options such as “Never, ”“Rarely (once or twice a month), ” “Occasionally (a few times a month), ” “Frequently (once or twice a week), ” “Very frequently (...

  129. [141]

    I believe GenAI chatbots can provide accurate and helpful infor- mation. Rationale: This measure reflects the dimension of competence, which pertains to the users’ perceptions of the GenAI chatbots’ ability to provide accurate, reliable, and useful information and confidence t...

  130. [142]

    Rationale: This measure captures the dimension of honesty, which relates to users’ beliefs about the chatbot’s integrity and trans- parency in handling their personal data

    I trust GenAI chatbots to handle my sensitive or personal infor- mation securely. Rationale: This measure captures the dimension of honesty, which relates to users’ beliefs about the chatbot’s integrity and trans- parency in handling their personal data. Trust in this context ...

  131. [143]

    I would be willing to follow a suggestion or recommendation made by a GenAI chatbot, even if I was unsure if it was the best choice. Rationale: This measure reflects the dimension of experience, which relates to users’ past interactions with the chatbot and how these experienc...

  132. [144]

    I believe GenAI chatbots operate in my best interest. Rationale: This measure captures the dimension of benevolence, which pertains to users’ perceptions of the chatbot’s intentions and the belief that the chatbot is designed to support and prioritize the user’s mental health,...

  133. [145]

    I feel that GenAI chatbots understand my needs and respond appropriately. Rationale: This measure reflects the dimension of reliability, which involves the users’ expectation that the chatbot will con- sistently respond in a manner that is attuned to the user’s specific circum...

  134. [146]

    Rationale: This measure captures the dimension of expectation, which relates to users’ forward-looking beliefs about the future capabilities of GenAI chatbots

    I think GenAI chatbots will become more trustworthy as tech- nology advances and they become more sophisticated. Rationale: This measure captures the dimension of expectation, which relates to users’ forward-looking beliefs about the future capabilities of GenAI chatbots. Demo...

  135. [147]

    We collected participants’ ages as numeric data, which were categorized into two groups (18-24 and 25+)

    Age. We collected participants’ ages as numeric data, which were categorized into two groups (18-24 and 25+)

  136. [148]

    Woman, ” “Man,

    Gender.Participants were given the options of “Woman, ” “Man, ” “Non-binary, ” and “Prefer not to answer. ”

  137. [149]

    What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?

    Education. Participants were asked about their highest level of education using the question, “What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?” The response options included: “High school graduate, ” “Associate degree, ” “Bachelor’s degree, ” “Master’s degree...

  138. [150]

    White, ” “African American or Black,

    Race. Participants could select from the options for race: “White, ” “African American or Black, ” “Asian, ” “Other, ” and “Prefer not to answer. ” A.2 Supplement for Survey Results Understanding Attitudes and Trust of Generative AI Chatbots for Social Anxiety Support CHI ’25,...

    2025

  139. [2020]

    Healthcare 8, 1 (Jan

    The Role of Empathy in Health and Social Care Professionals. Healthcare 8, 1 (Jan. 2020), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8010026

    2020 doi

  140. [2021]

    Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 65, 2 (May 2021), 337–359

    Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Meta-Analytic Findings. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 65, 2 (May 2021), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211013988

    2021 doi

  141. [2022]

    International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 40, 5 (Nov

    A Systematic Literature Review of User Trust in AI-Enabled Systems: An HCI Perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 40, 5 (Nov. 2022), 1251–1266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2138826

    2022

  142. [2023]

    Journal of Interactive Marketing 58, 2–3 (Feb

    Overcoming Consumer Resistance to AI in General Health Care. Journal of Interactive Marketing 58, 2–3 (Feb. 2023), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10949968221151061

    2023

Pith tools

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