Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates how the choice of emotional support source鈥攈uman or AI鈥攁ffects user satisfaction and future preferences. Through three experiments with nearly 2,000 participants, it was found that AI support was rated higher only when individuals had chosen it, yet interactions with AI consistently increased the likelihood of selecting AI in the future, regardless of initial preferences. A longitudinal study further revealed that personal conversations with AI significantly shifted participants' preferences away from human support over time.
Choosing AI for emotional support not only enhances immediate satisfaction but also reshapes long-term preferences away from human interaction.
People increasingly face a novel decision when seeking emotional support: human or AI. In existing studies, AI's empathic messages are rated as well as or better than humans'. But these studies either assigned the support source or honored people's choice. In real life, support is often incongruent with choice, as people want one source and receive the other. Across three experiments (N = 1,951), participants chose whether to share an emotional experience with a human or an AI, then were randomly assigned to a congruent or incongruent partner. AI support was rated as superior only among those who had chosen it. Yet regardless of congruence, interacting with AI increased willingness to choose it again. In a 28-day study with OpenAI (N = 981), daily conversations shifted preferences toward AI and away from humans, but only when conversations turned personal. Emotional support choices are thus path-dependent, progressively redirecting away from human connection.
MIT CSAIL