AI is judged better only when people opt in — yet even unsolicited AI chats nudge users toward choosing AI again; repeated personal conversations progressively shift preferences away from human support.

Main Finding

AI-based emotional support becomes subjectively superior only when people choose it; however, merely interacting with AI (even when it is not the chosen source) increases people’s subsequent willingness to choose AI. Over repeated, personal interactions (28 days), exposure to AI shifts preferences toward AI and away from humans, demonstrating path dependence in support-source choice.

Key Points

• Pre-interaction beliefs:
  • People see humans as more emotionally supportive but also more judgmental than AI. AI is seen as more confidential; perceived advice quality is similar.
  • In Studies 1–3 combined, humans > AI on emotional support (t(1893)=18.62; d≈0.43; mean diff ≈0.79) and humans > AI on perceived judgment (t(1893)=31.11; d≈0.71; mean diff ≈1.32). AI > human on confidentiality (t(1893)=7.53; d≈0.17; mean diff ≈0.39).
• Choice drivers:
  • Differences in perceived emotional support and nonjudgment were the strongest predictors of choosing humans vs. AI. Logistic regression (human vs. AI choice) showed:
    • Emotional-support difference: OR ≈ 3.25 per unit (β ≈ 1.18, p < 0.001)
    • Nonjudgment difference: OR ≈ 2.25 (β ≈ 0.81, p < 0.001)
    • Advice quality and confidentiality also predicted choice (smaller ORs ~1.4 and ~1.36).
• Conversation outcomes (Studies 2–3):
  • When participants actually conversed, AI was rated as superior only among participants who had initially chosen AI. If participants had chosen a human, human-rated support tended to be rated better.
  • Regardless of whether partner assignment matched initial choice (congruent vs incongruent), interacting with AI increased participants’ willingness to choose AI in the future.
• Longitudinal exposure (Study 4, OpenAI data):
  • Daily, brief interactions over 28 days (N ≈ 981) shifted preferences toward AI only when conversations were personal in nature; non-personal interactions produced little or no preference shift.
• Overall implication: initial choice and direct exposure both shape evaluations and future choice; exposure to AI produces path-dependent increases in AI preference, especially via personal conversations.

Data & Methods

• Overall design:
  • Multi-study program: a survey (Study 1), two controlled experiments with live 5-minute text conversations (Studies 2–3), and a 28-day longitudinal study using OpenAI conversation data (Study 4).
  • Total recruited across Studies 1–3: N = 1,951; after exclusions pre-conversation analyses N = 1,894. Conversation sample across Studies 2–3 (sharer role only) after exclusions: N = 944 (AI n = 529; human n = 415). Study 4: N ≈ 981.
• Pre-conversation task:
  • Participants recalled a recent significant emotional experience and rated beliefs about sharing with (a) an AI chatbot and (b) a human on 14 items. Factor analysis reduced items to four dimensions: emotional support, perceived judgment (nonjudgment), confidentiality, and advice quality.
  • Participants then chose preferred partner (binary and continuous measures).
• Experimental manipulation (Studies 2–3):
  • After choice, participants were randomly assigned to a congruent or incongruent partner for a 5-minute text conversation. AI partners: Study 2 used GPT-4o; Study 3 used Claude Opus 4.6. Human partners were other participants instructed to be empathetic listeners.
  • Conversations followed the same script: participant shares recalled experience; partner responds empathically; 5-minute exchange. Excluded if either side sent fewer than three messages.
  • Post-conversation: same four-dimension ratings plus empathy, enjoyment, satisfaction, desire to continue, and future choice.
• Longitudinal study (Study 4):
  • Collaboration with OpenAI to observe daily 5-minute interactions across three topics (personal, non-personal, open-ended) over 28 days; tracked changes in preference for AI vs human for personal issues and linked conversational behavior to preference change.
• Analysis:
  • Mixed-effects models with a random intercept for study (to pool Studies 1–3); preregistration for Study 3; preregistered exclusions and hypotheses adjustments informed by earlier studies.
• Limitations noted by authors (implicit in methods):
  • Short conversations (5 minutes) and text-only exchanges; real-world contexts may differ.
  • Participants were instructed and aware of partner identity; generalizing to fully naturalistic, incidental exposures requires caution (though Study 4 helps address this).
  • The AI models used and platform contexts will evolve, which may change magnitudes of effects.

Implications for AI Economics

• Demand dynamics and adoption:
  • Path dependence implies that early exposure and choice architecture matter: promoting early, personal interactions with AI can increase future demand for AI emotional-support services, generating durable market shifts away from human-provided support.
  • Because choice and labeling affect perceived quality, marketing and UX that allow users to voluntarily choose AI is likely to increase satisfaction and repeat use—raising customer lifetime value for AI-support platforms.
• Market structure and competition:
  • AI’s appeal as less judgmental and more confidential creates a distinct value proposition vs human providers. This could expand the market by attracting users who avoid human help due to stigma, potentially reducing demand for lower-tier human support while complementing or substituting for professional services.
  • Platform incumbency and network effects: frequent exposure and habituation via platforms can create sticky demand for particular LLM-based services. This favors large AI platforms that can deliver repeated, personalized interactions at scale.
• Labor and welfare implications:
  • Potential substitution effects on occupations that provide informal emotional support (counselors, peer-support moderators) and possible downstream effects on mental-health service demand. Policymakers and employers should anticipate shifts in labor demand and consider retraining or reallocation.
  • Welfare trade-offs: easier access to empathetic AI can improve reach but may reduce human social contact and its benefits; economic evaluations should weigh consumer surplus from accessible, low-cost AI support against potential social capital externalities.
• Pricing, product design, and regulation:
  • Pricing strategies can exploit path dependence (free/low-cost trial personal interactions to build preference). Firms may prioritize features that facilitate voluntary choice of AI and encourage personal sharing (since personal content drives preference shifts).
  • Regulation should consider long-term social effects and informed-consent/labeling: since choice and labeling affect satisfaction, transparency about AI involvement matters but may also alter user evaluations and adoption.
• Measurement and valuation:
  • Revealed-preference measures may understate true adoption potential if initial access or stigma blocks trial. Economists modeling demand should incorporate exposure effects (experience-based preference updating) and account for heterogeneity by interaction type (personal vs non-personal).
• Research & policy priorities:
  • Monitor substitution vs complementarity between AI and human support, estimate welfare impacts at population scale, and evaluate distributional consequences (who gains access to human support vs who is channeled to AI).

If you want, I can produce concise figures/tables summarizing the key quantitative results, or draft policy-relevant scenarios (e.g., market-share projections under different trial/personalization strategies).