Truace
Subscribe
68/100

Moderate evidence

Cite
More
Export CSVExport JSONEmailLinkedInX

Consumers in two experiments expected more satisfaction from human therapists than AI

Study title: How Consumers Evaluate Human, AI , and Hybrid Therapists: Psychological Pathways to Expected Service Satisfaction

Evidence type
Controlled or validated comparison
Sample
n = 395
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
Published
1 min read
Truvace record
TRV-2026-2617cite or check it

Study title: How Consumers Evaluate Human, AI , and Hybrid Therapists: Psychological Pathways to Expected Service Satisfaction

Two experiments found that consumers expected to be more satisfied with a human therapist than with an AI therapist or a hybrid AI/human therapist. Study 1 had 200 participants and Study 2 had 195.

Read the study abstract

ABSTRACT As generative artificial intelligence becomes prominent in digital therapy, understanding how consumers evaluate human, AI, and hybrid therapists is increasingly important. Drawing on insights from signaling, construal level, stimulus‐organism‐response, and perceived risk research, this paper examines how therapy delivery mode shapes expected service satisfaction through capabilities‐based, relational‐based, and risk‐based pathways. Across two experiments, consumers reported higher expected service sati…

The problem

In two experiments with 395 participants combined, consumers expected to be less satisfied with AI or hybrid AI/human therapists than with human therapists.

In brief

In Study 1, the gap was partly explained by how competent and expert participants judged the therapist to be, and by how psychologically close they felt to it. In Study 2, the preference for human over hybrid therapists was fully explained by skepticism of the therapist.

Privacy concerns and psychological closeness did not significantly explain the human-over-hybrid preference in Study 2. The authors say the findings bear on consumer protection, transparency and the design of responsible digital therapy.

Main points

  1. Study 1 (200 participants) found higher expected satisfaction for human therapists than for AI or hybrid therapists.
  2. In Study 1, perceived competence, perceived expertise and psychological closeness partially mediated the effect.
  3. Study 2 (195 participants) found the preference for human over hybrid therapists was fully mediated by skepticism of the therapist.
  4. In Study 2, privacy concerns and psychological closeness were not significant mediators.
  5. The paper draws on signaling, construal level, stimulus-organism-response and perceived risk research.

The full story

The paper tests how therapy delivery mode (human, AI or hybrid AI/human) shapes expected service satisfaction. It frames three routes: capabilities-based, relational-based and risk-based.

Study 1 (N = 200) compared human, AI and hybrid therapists and found the human advantage was partly carried by perceived competence, perceived expertise and psychological closeness. Study 2 (N = 195) found that skepticism fully accounted for the preference for human over hybrid therapists, while privacy concerns did not.

The authors conclude that consumer responses depend on inferred capability, relational connection and skepticism. They point to implications for consumer protection, transparency and responsible digital therapy design.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Journal of Consumer Affairsdoi:10.1111/joca.70061
    Peer-reviewed2026-05-26

Talk it over

Four questions to start onWho carries this cost, and what would have to change to prevent it?

Start with a question

Consumers in two experiments expected more satisfaction from human therapists than AIhttps://truvace.com/item/how-consumers-evaluate-human-ai-and-hybrid-therapists-psychological-pathways-to-

  1. Who carries this cost, and what would have to change to prevent it?

    The problem In two experiments with 395 participants combined, consumers expected to be less satisfied with AI or hybrid AI/human therapists than with human therapists.

    Answer in the thread

  2. How do we know? What can this kind of evidence show, and what can’t it?

    The evidence This rests on a controlled comparison with a sample of 395, from Journal of Consumer Affairs.

    Answer in the thread

  3. What does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?

    The record’s own caveat The studies measured expected service satisfaction, not satisfaction or outcomes after actual therapy with an AI or hybrid therapist.

    Answer in the thread

  4. Have you seen AI used this way where you study, work or live? Did it go the same way?

    Answer in the thread

The questions are the same on every record. The details under them are taken from this record as written.

What readers say

More from Health