ArticleCognitive processing2026
Exploring conflict-related behavioral intentions in AI and human role-playing interventions: evidence from behavioral experiments and linguistic analyses.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Interpersonal conflict often impairs decision-making and communication. This study examined whether AI-enabled role-playing (AI-RP) can regulate behavioral intentions in conflict situations and how it compares with the human counsellor-guided role-playing. Two experiments and a linguistic analysis (LIWC and BERTopic) were conducted. Participants were assigned to AI, the human counsellor, or no-interaction conditions. Behavioral intentions and interaction texts were analyzed. Both AI- and human-guided role-playing reduced revenge intentions and increased understanding compared with the control condition. These effects were context-dependent and did not transfer to parallel scenarios. The AI and human counsellor conditions did not differ in revenge or understanding outcomes, but the AI condition was associated with higher willingness to communicate in the specific context of Study 2a. Linguistic analyses showed AI responses were more structured and function-oriented, whereas the human counsellor responses emphasized emotional validation. AI-RP and the human counseling play complementary roles in conflict intervention. AI may facilitate rapid de-escalation and communication initiation, whereas in this study the human counsellor's responses were more oriented toward emotional validation and relational repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42667482What 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.