ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Comparing researcher-curated AI-drafted feedback styles for negative automatic thought believability: an online randomized scenario-based experiment.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: AI-drafted feedback is increasingly used in learning support, emotional support, peer support, and self-guided reflection, yet empirical studies often combine emotional validation, advice, reappraisal, and Socratic questioning within the same response. This study compared four researcher-curated AI-drafted feedback styles: neutral information, empathetic feedback, Socratic challenge, and integrated feedback. Methods: An online randomized scenario-based experiment was conducted using four daily stress scenarios crossed with the four feedback conditions. After screening 427 questionnaire records collected from March 12 to March 20, 2026, valid responses from 389 adults were analyzed. Participants read one scenario, rated negative automatic thought (NAT) believability and negative affect, received one feedback text, completed post-test and feedback evaluation measures, and wrote a balanced alternative thought. Regression models controlled for pre-test scores, scenario, trait NAT tendency, AI trust, and trait reactance. Results: All three active feedback styles predicted lower post-test NAT believability than neutral information, with the largest adjusted difference observed for integrated feedback, followed by Socratic challenge and empathetic feedback. Empathetic feedback produced higher perceived empathy and greater affect reduction, whereas Socratic challenge produced higher cognitive reappraisal and reframing quality. Integrated feedback combined high feedback acceptance with strong evidence-based examination of the negative thought. Discussion: In this scenario-based task, researcher-curated AI-drafted feedback produced larger reductions in NAT believability and higher evidence-based reframing quality when emotional validation was followed by evidence testing, alternative explanation, and fact-inference distinction.
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.