ArticlePloS one2025
Emotional engagement and perceived empathy in live vs. automated psychological interviews.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Geriatric medicine and its multiple roles in shaping the future of health care.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
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
In clinical in-person conditions, social presence, perceived empathy, and emotional engagement are related to positive outcomes. In online settings, it is unclear how these factors affect outcomes. Here, in 10-15-minute interviews, we investigated the influence of automation. Participants (N = 75) engaged in one of three possible interviews: live semi-scripted, live scripted, or video scripted. In the first two, participants communicated with a live interviewer and, in the third, with pre-recorded interviewer questions and answers. Emotion recognition software revealed that expressed joy differed between conditions (χ2(2) = 18.08, p < .001); both live conditions had higher scores (vs. video scripted). Self-rated perceived interviewer empathy also differed between conditions in the same way (F[2, 72] = 9.445, p < 0.001). We found a positive correlation between perceived empathy and expressed joy (r = .35; p < .01). In sum, automatized interviews differed in perceived empathy and expressed emotion compared with live interviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.