ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
The paradox of agency in psychotherapy: How people with mental distress experience support from generative AI chatbots and human therapists.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conversational AI and Personal Growth: Insights from a Critical Integrative Review.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid advancement of Large Language Models has sparked heated debate over whether Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots can serve as “digital therapists” capable of providing therapeutic support. While much of this discussion focuses on AI’s lack of agency, understood as the absence of mental states, consciousness, autonomy, and intentionality, empirical research on users’ real-world experiences remains limited.
objectiveThis study explores how individuals with mental distress experience support from both generative AI chatbots and human psychotherapy in natural and unguided contexts, with a focus on how perceptions of agency shape therapeutic experiences. By drawing on participants’ dual exposure, the study seeks to contribute to the ongoing debate about “AI therapists” by clarifying the role of agency in therapeutic change.
methodsSixteen adults who had sought mental health support from both human therapists and ChatGPT participated in semi-structured interviews, during which they shared and compared their experiences with each type of interaction. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsThree themes captured participants’ perceptions of ChatGPT relative to human therapists: (1) encouraging open and authentic self-disclosure but limiting deep exploration; (2) the myth of relationship: caring, acceptance, and understanding; (3) fostering therapeutic change: the promise and pitfalls of data-driven solutions. We propose a conceptual model that illustrates how differences in agency status between AI chatbots and human therapists shape the distinct ways they support individuals with mental distress, with agency functioning as both a strength and a limitation for therapeutic engagement.
conclusionGiven that agency functions as a double-edged sword in therapeutic interactions, future mental health services should consider integrated care models that combine the non-agential advantages of AI chatbots with the agentic qualities of human therapists. Rather than anthropomorphizing AI chatbots, their non-agential features—such as responsiveness, absence of intentions, objectivity, and disembodiment—should be strategically leveraged to complement specific functions in human-delivered psychotherapy. At the same time, practitioners should maximize the benefits of their agentic qualities while remaining cautious of the risks. The findings should be interpreted with caution as the sample consisted mainly of young, well-educated Chinese participants from a collectivist cultural context, which may limit transferability to other populations, particularly those from individualistic cultures with different mental health literacy levels, stigma patterns, and therapeutic norms. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.