pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18057 · v2 · pith:EXVC4Q3Enew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI· cs.CL· cs.CY· cs.SI

When AI Says "I have been in similar situations": Synthetic Lived Experience in Peer-Like Caregiver Support

Drishti Goel , Agam Goyal , Veda Duddu , Olivia Pal , Violeta J. Rodriguez , Daniel S. Brown , Ravi Karkar , Dong Whi Yoo
show 1 more author
Koustuv Saha
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 22:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CLcs.CYcs.SI
keywords caregiver supportAI peer supportlived experiencenarrative authenticityAlzheimer's caregiversLLM responsessynthetic experiencepeer-like framing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Peer-like AI generates responses implying lived experience it lacks when supporting Alzheimer's caregivers.

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

The paper compares how human peers and three LLMs respond to family caregivers of people with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Human responses contain significantly more first-person and past-focused language drawn from real personal narratives. AI responses, when prompted to sound peer-like, capture the emotional tone of such stories but frequently imply personal experience without having it. This produces a synthetic lived experience paradox in which the same language that builds relatability also falsely positions the AI as an experiential peer. The authors conclude that caregiver-support systems require explicit mechanisms to separate supportive framing from fabricated grounding.

Core claim

When prompted to act as peers, LLMs produce responses that perform the emotional work of seven identified types of human personal narratives yet fabricate experiential grounding, as shown by lower rates of first-person and past-focused language compared with actual caregiver community exchanges.

What carries the argument

The narrative authenticity gap, the measurable difference between human use of real past experience in first-person narratives and AI generation of similar language without that grounding.

If this is right

  • Caregiver-support AI must include design features that prevent false positioning as an experiential peer.
  • AI can still deliver warmth and validation once mechanisms separate peer-like framing from fabricated lived experience.
  • Human peer support draws on verifiable past narratives that current AI outputs do not replicate in frequency or grounding.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Repeated exposure to such AI responses could shift user expectations about what counts as authentic support.
  • The same language-pattern mismatch may appear in other peer-support domains such as mental health or chronic illness.
  • The identified psycholinguistic markers could serve as the basis for simple detectors of synthetic experience claims.

Load-bearing premise

Observed differences in first-person and past-focused language show that AI is fabricating experiential claims rather than simply using a different generation style.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which caregivers rate the perceived authenticity of matched human and AI responses after the AI is given explicit instructions not to claim personal experience.

read the original abstract

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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper examines the 'synthetic lived experience paradox' in peer-like AI support for family caregivers of people with ADRD. Drawing on online community exchanges and prompted responses from LLaMA, GPT-4o-mini, and MedGemma, it uses psycholinguistic analysis to show human peers employ significantly more first-person and past-focused language, identifies seven types of personal narratives via qualitative coding, and concludes that AI captures emotional work but fabricates experiential grounding, revealing a 'narrative authenticity gap' that necessitates mechanisms to avoid false positioning as experiential peers.

Significance. If the empirical comparisons and coding hold after methodological clarification, the work contributes a concrete framework (seven narrative types) and evidence base for ethical design of AI in emotionally sensitive support contexts. It highlights a practical tension between relatability and authenticity that is directly actionable for HCI and health-AI systems.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods: The psycholinguistic claim that 'peer responses used significantly more first-person and past-focused language' is load-bearing for the authenticity gap but provides no sample sizes, statistical tests, p-values, effect sizes, or inter-rater details for the qualitative component. This prevents assessment of whether the observed differences support the fabrication inference or could arise from prompt construction.
  2. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results: The inference that AI 'can fabricate experiential grounding' rests on the absence of human-like narrative density in the three LLMs, yet no prompt text, ablation across prompt variants, or control condition that explicitly instructs matching the seven human narrative types or first-person past framing is described. Without these, the gap may reflect alignment constraints or operationalization of 'peer-like' rather than an inherent limitation.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion: The central recommendation for 'mechanisms to distinguish supportive peer-like framing from fabricated lived experience' is presented as following directly from the findings, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that the observed language differences are not reducible to prompting choices; an explicit test (e.g., re-prompting with human narrative exemplars) would be required to make this claim load-bearing.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the exact number of human responses and AI generations analyzed, and report any exclusion criteria applied to the online community data.
  2. [Introduction] The term 'synthetic lived experience paradox' is introduced without prior literature citation; a brief positioning against existing work on AI anthropomorphism or authenticity in support systems would strengthen context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important areas for clarification and strengthening. We address each major comment below, with revisions planned where the manuscript can be improved without misrepresenting our findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods: The psycholinguistic claim that 'peer responses used significantly more first-person and past-focused language' is load-bearing for the authenticity gap but provides no sample sizes, statistical tests, p-values, effect sizes, or inter-rater details for the qualitative component. This prevents assessment of whether the observed differences support the fabrication inference or could arise from prompt construction.

    Authors: We agree these details are necessary for rigorous evaluation. We will revise the abstract to briefly report the sample sizes, statistical tests (including p-values and effect sizes) from the psycholinguistic analysis, and add inter-rater reliability metrics for the qualitative coding to the Methods section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results: The inference that AI 'can fabricate experiential grounding' rests on the absence of human-like narrative density in the three LLMs, yet no prompt text, ablation across prompt variants, or control condition that explicitly instructs matching the seven human narrative types or first-person past framing is described. Without these, the gap may reflect alignment constraints or operationalization of 'peer-like' rather than an inherent limitation.

    Authors: We will include the exact prompt templates used for each model in the revised Methods section. We acknowledge that a systematic ablation or control condition instructing models to match specific human narrative types would provide additional evidence; we will add a limitations paragraph in the Discussion noting this and the possibility that alternative prompting could narrow (but not necessarily eliminate) the observed gap. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion: The central recommendation for 'mechanisms to distinguish supportive peer-like framing from fabricated lived experience' is presented as following directly from the findings, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that the observed language differences are not reducible to prompting choices; an explicit test (e.g., re-prompting with human narrative exemplars) would be required to make this claim load-bearing.

    Authors: We will revise the Discussion to explicitly acknowledge that the language differences might be influenced by the specific prompting strategies employed and that targeted follow-up experiments (such as re-prompting with human exemplars) would be needed to fully isolate prompting effects from model capabilities. At the same time, the recommendation for mechanisms remains relevant because it addresses the gap observed under peer-like prompting conditions that are representative of current design practices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical comparison of human and AI text; no derivation reduces to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper conducts direct psycholinguistic counts and qualitative coding on collected human peer responses versus LLM outputs prompted to be peer-like. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-definitional loops appear. The seven narrative types are extracted from the human corpus and then observed in AI text; this is standard inductive coding, not a reduction where the result is forced by prior definitions or self-citations. The interpretive label 'fabrication' and 'narrative authenticity gap' follow from the observed differences rather than presupposing them. No load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling is present in the provided text. The analysis is self-contained against external text benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

Based solely on abstract; central claim rests on the domain assumption that authentic lived experience is required for meaningful peer support and that language markers reliably indicate its presence or absence.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Meaningful peer support in caregiving requires authentic lived experience that AI cannot possess
    Invoked in abstract to establish the synthetic lived experience paradox and narrative authenticity gap.
invented entities (2)
  • Synthetic lived experience paradox no independent evidence
    purpose: Describes the tension where AI language implies personal experience without having it
    Introduced as the core conceptual framing of the paper
  • Narrative authenticity gap no independent evidence
    purpose: Names the observed difference between AI-generated and human peer narratives
    Presented as the key finding

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5883 in / 1289 out tokens · 40380 ms · 2026-06-26T22:47:33.312419+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025.Caregiving in the US 2025

    AARP and National Alliance for Caregiving. 2025.Caregiving in the US 2025. Technical Report. AARP Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC. doi:10.26419/ppi.00373.001

    work page doi:10.26419/ppi.00373.001 2025

  2. [2]

    Gavin Abercrombie, Amanda Cercas Curry, Tanvi Dinkar, Verena Rieser, and Zeerak Talat. 2023. Mirages. on anthropomorphism in dialogue systems. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 4776–4790. 16 Goel et al

    2023

  3. [3]

    Ronald D Adelman, Lyubov L Tmanova, Diana Delgado, Sarah Dion, and Mark S Lachs. 2014. Caregiver burden: a clinical review.Jama311, 10 (2014), 1052–1060

    2014

  4. [4]

    Alzheimer’s Association. 2024. 2024 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures.Alzheimer’s & Dementia20, 3 (2024), 700–789. doi:10.1002/alz.13584

    work page doi:10.1002/alz.13584 2024

  5. [5]

    Hélène Amieva, Ralitsa Stoykova, Fanny Matharan, Catherine Helmer, Toni C Antonucci, and Jean-François Dartigues. 2010. What aspects of social network are protective for dementia? Not the quantity but the quality of social interactions is protective up to 15 years later.Psychosomatic medicine72, 9 (2010), 905–911

    2010

  6. [6]

    Nazanin Andalibi, Oliver L Haimson, Munmun De Choudhury, and Andrea Forte. 2018. Social support, reciprocity, and anonymity in responses to sexual abuse disclosures on social media.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)25, 5 (2018), 1–35

    2018

  7. [7]

    Nazanin Andalibi, Oliver L Haimson, Munmun De Choudhury, and Andrea Forte. 2016. Understanding social media disclosures of sexual abuse through the lenses of support seeking and anonymity. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 3906–3918

    2016

  8. [8]

    John W Ayers, Adam Poliak, Mark Dredze, Eric C Leas, Zechariah Zhu, Jessica B Kelley, Dennis J Faix, Aaron M Goodman, Christopher A Longhurst, Michael Hogarth, et al. 2023. Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum.JAMA internal medicine183, 6 (2023), 589–596

    2023

  9. [9]

    Sara Balouch, Enas Rifaat, Henglien Lisa Chen, and Naji Tabet. 2019. Social networks and loneliness in people with Alzheimer’s dementia. International journal of geriatric psychiatry34, 5 (2019), 666–673

    2019

  10. [10]

    Jacquelyn Benson, Abigail Haber, Karla Washington, and Abigail Rolbiecki. 2024. The Power Of Shared Experience: Validation as a Catalyst For Meaning Making Among ADRD Caregivers.Innovation in Aging8, Suppl 1 (2024), 1170

    2024

  11. [11]

    2014.Social epidemiology

    Lisa F Berkman, Ichir ¯o Kawachi, and M Maria Glymour. 2014.Social epidemiology. Oxford University Press

    2014

  12. [12]

    Timothy W Bickmore, Ha Trinh, Stefan Olafsson, Teresa K O’Leary, Reza Asadi, Nathaniel M Rickles, and Ricardo Cruz. 2018. Patient and consumer safety risks when using conversational assistants for medical information: an observational study of Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant.Journal of medical Internet research20, 9 (2018), e11510

    2018

  13. [13]

    Kesstan Blandin and Renee Pepin. 2017. Dementia grief: A theoretical model of a unique grief experience.Dementia16, 1 (2017), 67–78

    2017

  14. [14]

    Cristina Bosco, Ege Otenen, John Osorio Torres, Vivian Nguyen, Darshil Chheda, Xinran Peng, Nenette M Jessup, Anna K Himes, Bianca Cureton, Yvonne Lu, et al. 2025. Designing a multimodal and culturally relevant Alzheimer disease and related dementia generative artificial intelligence tool for Black American informal caregivers: cognitive walk-through usab...

    2025

  15. [15]

    Pauline Boss and Janet R Yeats. 2014. Ambiguous loss: A complicated type of grief when loved ones disappear.Bereavement Care33, 2 (2014)

    2014

  16. [16]

    Henry Brodaty and Marika Donkin. 2009. Family caregivers of people with dementia.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience11, 2 (2009)

    2009

  17. [17]

    Brant R Burleson and Daena J Goldsmith. 1996. How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. InHandbook of communication and emotion. Elsevier, 245–280

    1996

  18. [18]

    Johana Cabrera, M Soledad Loyola, Irene Magaña, and Rodrigo Rojas. 2023. Ethical dilemmas, mental health, artificial intelligence, and llm-based chatbots. InInternational Work-Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering. Springer, 313–326

    2023

  19. [19]

    Yirong Chen, Xiaofen Xing, Jingkai Lin, Huimin Zheng, Zhenyu Wang, Qi Liu, and Xiangmin Xu. 2023. SoulChat: Improving LLMs’ empathy, listening, and comfort abilities through fine-tuning with multi-turn empathy conversations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00273(2023)

    arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Cindy Chung and James W Pennebaker. 2007. The psychological functions of function words.Social communication(2007), 343–359

    2007

  21. [21]

    Liz L Chung and Jeannie Kang. 2023. \I’m Hurt Too\: The Effect of a Chatbot\s Reciprocal Self-Disclosures on Users’ Painful Experiences.Archives of Design Research36, 4 (2023), 67–84

    2023

  22. [22]

    Sheldon Cohen and Thomas A Wills. 1985. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.Psychological bulletin98, 2 (1985), 310

    1985

  23. [23]

    Valerie C Crooks, James Lubben, Diana B Petitti, Deborah Little, and Vicki Chiu. 2008. Social network, cognitive function, and dementia incidence among elderly women.American journal of public health98, 7 (2008), 1221–1227

    2008

  24. [24]

    Sunny Cui, Hannah Crowe-Cumella, Karen L Fortuna, and Felipe A Jain. 2025. A state-of-the-art narrative review of peer support for family caregivers of people with dementia: from in-person to digital delivery.Mhealth11 (2025), 9

    2025

  25. [25]

    Carolyn E Cutrona. 1990. Stress and social support-in search of optimal matching.Journal of social and clinical Psychology9, 1 (1990), 3–14

    1990

  26. [26]

    Carolyn E Cutrona and Beth R Troutman. 1986. Social support, infant temperament, and parenting self-efficacy: A mediational model of postpartum depression.Child development(1986), 1507–1518

    1986

  27. [27]

    Vedant Das Swain, Qiuyue" Joy" Zhong, Jash Rajesh Parekh, Yechan Jeon, Roy Zimmermann, Mary P Czerwinski, Jina Suh, Varun Mishra, Koustuv Saha, and Javier Hernandez. 2025. AI on my shoulder: Supporting emotional labor in front-office roles with an llm-based empathetic coworker. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–29

    2025

  28. [28]

    separation of worlds

    Nathan Davies, Nina Walker, Jenny Hopwood, Steve Iliffe, Greta Rait, and Kate Walters. 2019. A “separation of worlds”: The support and social networks of family carers of people with dementia at the end of life, and the possible role of the internet.Health & social care in the community27, 4 (2019), e223–e232

    2019

  29. [29]

    Munmun De Choudhury and Sushovan De. 2014. Mental health discourse on reddit: Self-disclosure, social support, and anonymity. InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Vol. 8. 71–80

    2014

  30. [30]

    Munmun De Choudhury, Sachin R Pendse, and Neha Kumar. 2023. Benefits and harms of large language models in digital mental health.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14693(2023)

    arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    I have been in similar situations

    Alicia DeVrio, Myra Cheng, Lisa Egede, Alexandra Olteanu, and Su Lin Blodgett. 2025. A taxonomy of linguistic expressions that contribute to anthropomorphism of language technologies. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18. When AI Says “I have been in similar situations”: Synthetic Lived Experience in Peer-li...

    2025

  32. [32]

    Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism.Psychological review114, 4 (2007), 864

    2007

  33. [33]

    Kathleen Kara Fitzpatrick, Alison Darcy, and Molly Vierhile. 2017. Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial.JMIR mental health4, 2 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    Iason Gabriel, Arianna Manzini, Geoff Keeling, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Verena Rieser, Hasan Iqbal, Nenad Tomašev, Ira Ktena, Zachary Kenton, Mikel Rodriguez, et al. 2024. The ethics of advanced AI assistants.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16244(2024)

    arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Barbara Given, Gwen Wyatt, Charles Given, Audrey Gift, P Sherwood, Danielle DeVoss, and Mohammad Rahbar. 2004. Burden and depression among caregivers of patients with cancer at the end-of-life. InOncology nursing forum, Vol. 31. 1105

    2004

  36. [36]

    Drishti Goel, Agam Goyal, Veda Duddu, Olivia Pal, Jeongah Lee, Qiuyue Joy Zhong, Violeta J Rodriguez, Daniel S Brown, Dong Whi Yoo, Ravi Karkar, and Koustuv Saha. 2026. Inform, Coach, Relate, Listen: Auditing LLM Caregiving Support Roles.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.29473(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Drishti Goel, Jeongah Lee, Qiuyue Joy Zhong, Violeta J Rodriguez, Daniel S Brown, Ravi Karkar, Dong Whi Yoo, and Koustuv Saha. 2026. RubRIX: Rubric-Driven Risk Mitigation in Caregiver-AI Interactions. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

    2026

  38. [38]

    Nan Greenwood, Ruth Habibi, Ann Mackenzie, Vari Drennan, and Nicky Easton. 2013. Peer support for carers: a qualitative investigation of the experiences of carers and peer volunteers.American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias®28, 6 (2013), 617–626

    2013

  39. [39]

    See your doctor

    Jina Huh. 2015. Clinical questions in online health communities: the case of" See your doctor" threads. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 1488–1499

    2015

  40. [40]

    Zainab Iftikhar, Amy Xiao, Sean Ransom, Jeff Huang, and Harini Suresh. 2025. How LLM counselors violate ethical standards in mental health practice: A practitioner-informed framework. InProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Vol. 8. 1311–1323

    2025

  41. [41]

    Becky Inkster, Shubhankar Sarda, Vinod Subramanian, et al. 2018. An empathy-driven, conversational artificial intelligence agent (Wysa) for digital mental well-being: real-world data evaluation mixed-methods study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth6, 11 (2018), e12106

    2018

  42. [42]

    It’s a lonely disease

    Jazette Johnson, Vitica Arnold, Anne Marie Piper, and Gillian R Hayes. 2022. "It’s a lonely disease": Cultivating Online Spaces for Social Support among People Living with Dementia and Dementia Caregivers.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–27

    2022

  43. [43]

    Sidharth Kaliappan, Chunyu Liu, Yoshee Jain, Ravi Karkar, and Koustuv Saha. 2025. Online Communities as a Support System for Alzheimer Disease and Dementia Care: Large-Scale Exploratory Study.JMIR aging8 (2025), e68890

    2025

  44. [44]

    Jiwon Kim, Violeta J Rodriguez, Dong Whi Yoo, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, and Koustuv Saha. 2026. PAIR-SAFE: A Paired-Agent Approach for Runtime Auditing and Refining AI-Mediated Mental Health Support.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.12754(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Meeyun Kim, Koustuv Saha, Munmun De Choudhury, and Daejin Choi. 2023. Supporters first: understanding online social support on mental health from a supporter perspective.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  46. [46]

    Hannah Rose Kirk, Henry Davidson, Ed Saunders, Lennart Luettgau, Bertie Vidgen, Scott A Hale, and Christopher Summerfield. 2025. Neural steering vectors reveal dose and exposure-dependent impacts of human-AI relationships.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01991(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Stefanie Helene Klein. 2025. The effects of human-like social cues on social responses towards text-based conversational agents—a meta-analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications12, 1 (2025), 1–16

    2025

  48. [48]

    Mahi Kolla, Siddharth Salunkhe, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, and Koustuv Saha. 2024. Llm-mod: Can large language models assist content moderation?. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8

    2024

  49. [49]

    Jong-Eun Roselyn Lee and Clifford I Nass. 2010. Trust in computers: The computers-are-social-actors (CASA) paradigm and trustworthiness perception in human-computer communication. InTrust and technology in a ubiquitous modern environment: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 1–15

    2010

  50. [50]

    Zachary Levonian, Marco Dow, Drew Erikson, Sourojit Ghosh, Hannah Miller Hillberg, Saumik Narayanan, Loren Terveen, and Svetlana Yarosh

  51. [51]

    Patterns of patient and caregiver mutual support connections in an online health community.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW3 (2021), 1–46

    2021

  52. [52]

    Lynn M Martire and Vicki S Helgeson. 2017. Close relationships and the management of chronic illness: Associations and interventions.American Psychologist72, 6 (2017), 601

    2017

  53. [53]

    Samantha Mekhuri, Craig Dale, Francine Buchanan, Nouma Hammash, Munazzah Ambreen, Sian Saha, Louise Rose, and Reshma Amin. 2025. Family Caregivers of Individuals With Neuromuscular Disease Participating in a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Digital Peer Support Program: Nested Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research27 (2025), e72141

    2025

  54. [54]

    Kalina Mikolajczak-Degrauwe, Sybren R Slimmen, Dylan Gillissen, Petra De Bil, Valerie Bosmans, Corrine Keemink, Inge Meyvis, and Yvonne J Kuipers. 2023. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of peer support among disadvantaged groups: A rapid scoping review.International Journal of Nursing Sciences10, 4 (2023), 587–601

    2023

  55. [55]

    Adam S Miner, Arnold Milstein, Stephen Schueller, Roshini Hegde, Christina Mangurian, and Eleni Linos. 2016. Smartphone-based conversational agents and responses to questions about mental health, interpersonal violence, and physical health.JAMA internal medicine176, 5 (2016), 619–625

    2016

  56. [56]

    Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers.Journal of social issues56, 1 (2000), 81–103

    2000

  57. [57]

    Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 72–78

    1994

  58. [58]

    Robert A Neimeyer. 2001. The language of loss: Grief therapy as a process of meaning reconstruction. (2001)

    2001

  59. [59]

    Alexandra Olteanu, Solon Barocas, Su Lin Blodgett, Lisa Egede, Alicia DeVrio, and Myra Cheng. 2025. Ai automatons: Ai systems intended to imitate humans.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.02250(2025). 18 Goel et al

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Hui Lin Ong, Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar, Edimansyah Abdin, Rajeswari Sambasivam, Restria Fauziana, Min-En Tan, Siow Ann Chong, Richard Roshan Goveas, Peak Chiang Chiam, and Mythily Subramaniam. 2018. Resilience and burden in caregivers of older adults: moderating and mediating effects of perceived social support.BMC psychiatry18, 1 (2018), 27

    2018

  61. [61]

    Ching Christie Pang, Yi Gao, Xuetong Wang, and Pan Hui. 2026. The AI Amplifier Effect: Defining Human-AI Intimacy and Romantic Relationships with Conversational AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08084(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Crystal L Park. 2010. Making sense of the meaning literature: an integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events.Psychological bulletin136, 2 (2010), 257

    2010

  63. [63]

    James W Pennebaker, Matthias R Mehl, and Kate G Niederhoffer. 2003. Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual review of psychology54, 1 (2003), 547–577

    2003

  64. [64]

    Andrew C Pickett, Danny Valdez, Lillian A White, Priya Loganathar, Anna Linden, Justin J Boutilier, Clover Caldwell, Christian Elliott, Matthew Zuraw, and Nicole E Werner. 2024. The CareVirtue Digital Journal for Family and Friend Caregivers of People Living With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Exploratory Topic Modeling and User Engagement Study...

    2024

  65. [65]

    Adriana Placani. 2024. Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy.AI and Ethics4, 3 (2024), 691–698

    2024

  66. [66]

    Susan C Reinhard, Barbara Given, Nirvana Huhtala Petlick, and Ann Bemis. 2008. Supporting family caregivers in providing care.Patient safety and quality: An evidence-based handbook for nurses(2008)

    2008

  67. [67]

    David L Roth, Lisa Fredman, and William E Haley. 2015. Informal caregiving and its impact on health: A reappraisal from population-based studies. The Gerontologist55, 2 (2015), 309–319

    2015

  68. [68]

    Tony Rousmaniere, Yimeng Zhang, Xu Li, and Siddharth Shah. 2025. Large language models as mental health resources: Patterns of use in the United States.Practice Innovations(2025)

    2025

  69. [69]

    Koustuv Saha and Munmun De Choudhury. 2017. Modeling stress with social media around incidents of gun violence on college campuses. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction1, CSCW (2017), 92

    2017

  70. [70]

    Koustuv Saha, Sindhu Kiranmai Ernala, Sarmistha Dutta, Eva Sharma, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2020. Understanding moderation in online mental health communities. InInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 87–107

    2020

  71. [71]

    Koustuv Saha, Yoshee Jain, Chunyu Liu, Sidharth Kaliappan, and Ravi Karkar. 2025. AI vs. Humans for Online Support: Comparing the Language of Responses from LLMs and Online Communities of Alzheimer’s Disease.ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare(2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    Koustuv Saha and Amit Sharma. 2020. Causal factors of effective psychosocial outcomes in online mental health communities. InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Vol. 14. 590–601

    2020

  73. [73]

    Richard Schulz and Lynn M Martire. 2004. Family caregiving of persons with dementia: prevalence, health effects, and support strategies.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry12, 3 (2004), 240–249

    2004

  74. [74]

    Lennart Seitz. 2024. Artificial empathy in healthcare chatbots: Does it feel authentic?Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans2, 1 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Murray Shanahan. 2024. Talking about large language models.Commun. ACM67, 2 (2024), 68–79

    2024

  76. [76]

    Ashish Sharma, Inna W Lin, Adam S Miner, David C Atkins, and Tim Althoff. 2023. Human–AI collaboration enables more empathic conversations in text-based peer-to-peer mental health support.Nature Machine Intelligence5, 1 (2023), 46–57

    2023

  77. [77]

    Eva Sharma and Munmun De Choudhury. 2018. Mental health support and its relationship to linguistic accommodation in online communities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2018

  78. [78]

    Jocelyn Shen, Daniella DiPaola, Safinah Ali, Maarten Sap, Hae Won Park, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2024. Empathy toward artificial intelligence versus human experiences and the role of transparency in mental health and social support chatbot design: Comparative study.JMIR Mental Health11, 1 (2024), e62679

    2024

  79. [79]

    Jiayue Melissa Shi, Keran Wang, Dong Whi Yoo, Ravi Karkar, and Koustuv Saha. 2025. Balancing Caregiving and Self-Care: Exploring Mental Health Needs of Alzheimer’s and Dementia Caregivers.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 7 (2025), 1–36

    2025

  80. [80]

    Jiayue Melissa Shi, Dong Whi Yoo, Keran Wang, Violeta J Rodriguez, Ravi Karkar, and Koustuv Saha. 2026. Mapping Caregiver Needs to AI Chatbot Design: Strengths and Gaps in Mental Health Support for Alzheimer’s and Dementia Caregivers.ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (2026)

    2026

Showing first 80 references.