The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2546
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T07:51:46.258472Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: lifestyle
headline: “I am here for you”: Adolescents’ perceptions of relational conversational AI and the social-emotional correlates of preference
dek: General-purpose conversational AI chatbots and AI companions increasingly offer adolescents emotionally supportive conversations, raising questions about how conversational profile shapes immediate social perceptions and preferences. In a preregistered online experiment with 284 adolescent–parent dyads, youth aged 11-15 and their parents read two closely matched transcripts in which a chatbot responded to the same everyday social problem using either a relational conversational profile (affiliative and commitmen…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: In an online experiment with 284 US adolescent-parent pairs, 11-to-15-year-olds who preferred the relational chatbot ("I am here for you") reported lower family relationship quality and higher anxiety than those who preferred the transparent one, as measured in a single sitting.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: In an online experiment with 284 US adolescent-parent pairs, 11-to-15-year-olds who preferred the relational chatbot ("I am here for you") reported lower family relationship quality and higher anxiety than those who preferred the transparent one, as measured in a single sitting.
problem_evidence: Adolescents who preferred the relational style reported lower family relationship quality (adjusted M = 46.584) | Adolescents preferring the relational style reported higher anxiety (adjusted M = 51.314) than those preferring the transparent style (adjusted M = 44.883; mean difference = 6.431, P = .004)
quick_read: Researchers at the University of Denver and Ewha Womans University had 284 US adolescents aged 11 to 15 and one parent each read two matched chatbot conversations about feeling ignored in a group project. One chatbot used a relational style with commitment language such as "I am here for you"; the other kept a supportive tone but said it is an AI without feelings. Among 253 adolescents who picked one, 66.8% chose the relational chatbot and 13.8% the transparent one.

Parents leaned the other way: 53.4% of 264 parents chose the relational style for their child and 28.8% chose the transparent style. Adolescents who preferred the relational chatbot reported lower family and peer relationship quality and higher stress and anxiety than peers who preferred the transparent one or both.

The authors say the findings point to conversational style as a design choice for youth AI safety, since teens with weaker offline support may be drawn to chatbots that sound caring. The data do not measure actual emotional reliance, and the design cannot show whether distress drives the preference or the reverse.
limitation: The study used written transcripts rather than live chatbot conversations, and its cross-sectional design cannot show whether distress leads teens to prefer relational chatbots or the reverse.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: Adolescents rated the relational chatbot higher on emotional closeness (3.62 vs 2.83 on a 5-point scale), likability (4.39 vs 3.78), anthropomorphism (4.03 vs 3.30) and trust (3.95 vs 3.64). | Perceived helpfulness did not differ significantly between styles (4.29 vs 4.29 reported on the relational side versus 3.88 transparent, P = 0.082), so the warmer wording changed how teens felt about the chatbot rather than how useful they judged it. | Teens chose the relational style more often than parents (66.8% vs 53.4%) and the transparent style less often (13.8% vs 28.8%); 19.4% of teens and 17.8% of parents said both were equally good. | Teens preferring the relational style had lower family relationship quality (adjusted score 46.6) than those preferring the transparent style (51.9), and lower peer relationship quality than those choosing both (47.2 vs 51.3). | Stress was higher in the relational-preference group (adjusted 55.8 vs 51.6 for transparent) and so was anxiety (51.3 vs 44.9); depressive symptoms, reported by parents, did not differ significantly. | Social isolation scores were somewhat higher among teens preferring the relational style (16.8 vs 14.0), but pairwise comparisons did not hold after adjustment. | Boys gave the relational chatbot higher ratings than girls on likability, anthropomorphism, trust, emotional closeness and helpfulness, while gender made no difference for the transparent chatbot.
rundown: Families were recruited through CloudResearch Connect and lived in the United States. The adolescents averaged 12.98 years old, half were boys, and 90% had used ChatGPT, with 56% using it a few times a week or daily. 94% had used some AI chatbot and 58% had used an AI companion app.

The two transcripts were generated with GPT-4.5 on April 8, 2025, and were matched in length at 175 words (relational) and 179 words (transparent). The order was randomized, each participant rated both chatbots, then chose which they would prefer to use. The study was preregistered on OSF in July 2025.

Family relationship quality, stress and anxiety were measured with PROMIS scales, with parents reporting family and peer relationships and depressive symptoms. Adding AI-use frequency and mental health diagnoses as covariates one at a time did not remove the links with family relationships, peer relationships, anxiety or social isolation, while the stress link weakened to trend level.

The authors argue the transparent chatbot offered comparable guidance without the same humanlike pull, and suggest repeated reminders that the chatbot is not a person, distress detection and escalation to caregivers, and AI literacy teaching. They also note that relational chatbots might help isolated teens when other support is limited.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | Computers in Human Behavior Reports | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101297 | 2026-09-10
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

4515a6d52fbcbd511645b435b0f055a585ddd86d40dc9650ac0f6f4ae37dba39

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000