Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the use of personal narratives in peer support among caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's Disease, contrasting human interactions with responses generated by large language models (LLMs). Through psycholinguistic analysis, the researchers found that while human peers employed significantly more first-person and past-focused language, LLMs often produced emotionally resonant responses that lacked genuine experiential grounding. The findings highlight a "narrative authenticity gap," emphasizing the need for AI systems to differentiate between supportive language and the misleading implication of shared lived experiences.
AI can mimic the warmth of human peer support but risks misleading users by fabricating lived experiences it doesn't possess.
Caregivers often turn to online communities for informational and emotional support. In these spaces, peer supporters frequently draw on personal narratives to respond to emotionally complex caregiving situations. As LLMs are increasingly designed as peer-like sources of support, they introduce a critical tension: AI can provide immediate, private, and nonjudgmental support, but it cannot authentically possess the lived experiences that make human peer support meaningful. Yet, when prompted to sound peer-like, LLMs may generate language that implies lived experience. This creates a synthetic lived experience paradox: the same experiential language that may make AI support feel warm, relatable, and peer-like can also falsely position the system as someone with lived experience. We examine this paradox in the context of family caregivers of people living with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). Drawing on caregiver support exchanges from online communities and prompted peer-like responses from three LLMs -- LLaMA, GPT-4o-mini, and MedGemma -- we analyze how human peers use personal narratives and how AI incorporates similar narrative forms. Psycholinguistic analysis shows that peer responses used significantly more first-person and past-focused language than peer-like AI responses. Qualitatively, we identify seven types of personal narratives in human peer support and show that AI often captures their emotional work, but can fabricate experiential grounding. These findings reveal a narrative authenticity gap: peer-like AI can generate synthetic lived experience without the real experience that makes peer support meaningful. We argue that caregiver-support AI systems need mechanisms to distinguish supportive peer-like framing from fabricated lived experience, ensuring that models can offer warmth and validation without falsely positioning themselves as experiential peers.
