Therapy Without a Heart: Why Even Psychologists Fall for AI 🤖

Are machines becoming better listeners? A 2025 study investigated in a scientific blind test how well Artificial Intelligence can give therapeutic advice compared to real experts. The AI used was based on the GPT-4 language model. The result is absolutely mind-blowing!

Key Facts from the Experiment:

• AI Wins on Emotions: The AI’s responses were rated significantly more empathetic than those of real therapists, especially regarding emotional and motivational empathy.
• Equal Quality: In terms of scientific quality and cognitive empathy, the AI and the experts were completely on par.
• Flying Blind: The participating psychologists could not reliably distinguish whether a text was written by the AI or a human colleague.
• The Illusion (Bias): When test subjects believed a text came from an expert, they preferred it over 93 percent of the time—regardless of whether it was actually written by a human.

Important Limitations: Despite the excitement, science puts the results into perspective:

• Not Real Therapy: The AI merely answered one-off advice column letters. This cannot replace real psychotherapy, as it lacks the foundation of a genuine therapeutic relationship and human trust.
• Risk of Loneliness: Those who get too used to an always-agreeing AI might struggle with human conflicts in real life. A longitudinal study suggests that excessive use of AI for social companionship can actually make people lonelier in the long run.
• Data Privacy: Currently, highly intimate problems are often processed on the servers of large tech companies, which poses a clear privacy risk.

Despite these limitations, the development is rapid: Around 22.2% of 18- to 21-year-olds in the US already turn to AI for emotional distress. Furthermore, initial studies show that special AI therapy bots are already showing success in alleviating symptoms of depression and anxiety.

📚 Sources:

Main Study (Blind Test AI vs. Experts): Föyen, L. F. et al. (2025). Artificial intelligence vs. human expert… Internet Interventions, 41.

Therapy Chatbot (Therabot Study): Heinz, M.V. et al. (2025). Evaluating therabot: a randomized control trial… NEJM AI.

Longitudinal Study (AI & Loneliness): Folk, D., & Dunn, E. How does turning to AI for companionship predict loneliness and vice versa? (Preprint).

Usage Frequency Survey: McBain, R.K. et al. (2025). Use of Generative AI for Mental Health Advice Among US Adolescents and Young Adults. JAMA Network Open.

#ArtificialIntelligence #Psychology #ComfortWithoutAHeart #Science #Psychotherapy #ChatGPT #Therabot

The perception of being watched can serve as a powerful intervention to modify human behavior. A field experiment investigated this phenomenon regarding hand hygiene compliance in a public restroom.

In the study conducted by Pfattheicher et al. (2018), researchers observed the behavior of 354 women. A poster was placed above the soap dispenser featuring the text: “Hands spread pathogens. Hand washing protects”. The visual cue displayed above this message was manipulated to test the effect of social pressure.

In the control condition, three stars were displayed above the text. Under this condition, 71.9% of individuals utilized the soap dispenser.

In the experimental condition, the stars were replaced by a pictogram of watching eyes. The presence of these eyes significantly increased compliance to 83.3%. Statistical analysis (Odds Ratio: 1.95) indicates that the probability of hand washing was significantly higher when the watching eyes were present.

The study further identified a moderator effect regarding the duration of the restroom visit. The “watching eyes” effect was statistically significant only for individuals who spent a relatively short time in the restroom (approximately 2 minutes). The authors suggest that in these shorter visits—potentially associated with urination only—the intrinsic motivation to wash hands is lower, making the external cue of the eyes more effective in enforcing social norms.

These findings suggest that simple, low-cost “nudges” utilizing cues of social presence can effectively improve hygiene behavior in public settings.

Reference: Pfattheicher, S., Strauch, C., Diefenbacher, S., & Schnuerch, R. (2018). A field study on watching eyes and hand hygiene compliance in a public restroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(4), 188–194.

__________________

Studies (just a small selection):

Bateson, M., Callow, L., Holmes, J. R., Redmond Roche, M. L., & Nettle, D. (2013). Do images of ‘watching eyes’ induce behaviour that is more pro-social or more normative? A field experiment on littering. PloS one, 8(12), e82055.

Conty, L., George, N., & Hietanen, J. K. (2016). Watching Eyes effects: When others meet the self. Consciousness and cognition, 45, 184-197.

Dear, K., Dutton, K., & Fox, E. (2019). Do ‘watching eyes’ influence antisocial behavior? A systematic review & meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(3), 269-280.

Nettle, D., Harper, Z., Kidson, A., Stone, R., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Bateson, M. (2013). The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: it’s not how much you give, it’s being seen to give something. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(1), 35-40.

Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (2015). The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self‐awareness. European journal of social psychology, 45(5), 560-566.

Pfattheicher, S., Strauch, C., Diefenbacher, S., & Schnuerch, R. (2018). A field study on watching eyes and hand hygiene compliance in a public restroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(4), 188–194.

The Psychology Trick You’re Probably Already Falling For…

In this video, we explore the intriguing concept of the “ego trap”—an influence technique that leverages the idea that people are more likely to agree when it affirms their positive qualities. We examine the recent study “Egotistic Trap as a Social Influence Technique” by Dolinski, Grzyb, and Kulesza (2023), which provides a detailed analysis of this approach.

The study highlights just how powerful this technique can be: In one experiment, 52.4% of participants agreed to take part in a survey when they were told it was aimed at intelligent people—a significant increase compared to 32.7% in the control group. In another experiment, the willingness to have cars inspected at official workshops rose from 56.7% to 71.7% when participants were told, “reasonable customers have their cars officially inspected.”  There’s also an alternative version of the ego trap that might be even more effective…

How many people cross at red lights when there are no cars to be seen for miles around?
And above all: How much are they influenced by the “negative” example of other people? A German research team secretly observed people at traffic lights in Munich to find out…

__________________

Studies (only a small selection selection):

Bergquist, M., Helferich, M., Thiel, M., Hellquist, S. B., Skipor, S., Ubianuju, W., & Ejelöv, E. (2023). Are broken windows spreading? Evaluating the robustness and strengths of the cross-norm effect using replications and a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 88, 102027.

Keuschnigg, M., & Wolbring, T. (2012). Physical Disorder, Social Capital, and Norm Violation.

Keuschnigg, M., & Wolbring, T. (2015). Disorder, social capital, and norm violation: Three field experiments on the broken windows thesis. Rationality and Society, 27(1), 96-126.

Mullen, B., Copper, C., & Driskell, J. E. (1990). Jaywalking as a function of model behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 320-330.

Volker, B. (2017). Revisiting broken windows: The role of neighborhood and individual characteristics in reaction to disorder cues. Sociological Science, 4, 528–551. https:// doi.org/10.15195/v4.a22

Wolbring, T., & Keuschnigg, M. (2015, July). Feldexperimente in den Sozialwissenschaften. In Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 222-250). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.

Robert Cialdini certainly ranks among the most influential psychologists in the world. His studies have significantly shaped the research field of social psychology and his books on influencing techniques have been bought millions of times. All the more exciting is the fact that one of his most famous studies has only recently been replicated (Bergquist et al. 2021). With moderate success…

__________________

Studies (only small selection):

Bergquist, M., Blumenschein, P., Karinti, P., Köhler, J., Ramos, É. M. S., Rödström, J., & Ejelöv, E. (2021). Replicating the focus theory of normative conduct as tested by Cialdini et al.(1990). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101573.

Cialdini, R. B., & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1-8.

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of personality and social psychology, 58(6), 1015.

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 55, 591-621.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). Academic Press.

Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012.

Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(1), 104.

What makes people “successful” in life?

For decades, researchers have been trying to answer this question in numerous studies. In the process, they have indeed come across some personality traits that can be used to predict at least a large part of some people’s success (e.g., intelligence, self-control, conscientiousness, openness, extroversion, self-efficacy expectations, etc.). However, even when these “best” predictors are combined and statistically corrected for measurement error, a very large amount of variance remains unexplained in many studies.

Apparently, there is another major success factor that is drastically underestimated by many people. There is some evidence to suggest that this is the “chance” factor. And some researchers – such as today’s guest speaker Professor Dr. Christian Busch – are convinced that we can learn to make better use of the success factor of chance by adopting the right mindset. And so we can possibly turn a trivial coincidence into luck.

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Busch, C. (2020). The serendipity mindset: The art and science of creating good luck. Penguin.

Busch, C. (2022). Towards a Theory of Serendipity: A Systematic Review and Conceptualization. Journal of Management Studies.

Busch, C., & Barkema, H. (2022). Planned luck: How incubators can facilitate serendipity for nascent entrepreneurs through fostering network embeddedness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(4), 884-919.

Busch, C., & Barkema, H. (2021). From necessity to opportunity: Scaling bricolage across resource‐constrained environments. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 741-773.

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological science, 16(12), 939-944.

Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., … & Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693-2698.

PLUTINO, A., BIONDO, A., & Rapisarda, A. (2018). Talent vs Luck: the role of randomness in success and failure.

Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. S., & Shaffer, J. A. (2016). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 100 years. Fox School of Business Research Paper, 1-74.

Strömbäck, C., Lind, T., Skagerlund, K., Västfjäll, D., & Tinghög, G. (2017). Does self-control predict financial behavior and financial well-being?. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 14, 30-38.

Wiseman, R. (2004). The luck factor. Random House.

Educational psychology: are there effective alternatives to “yelling and scolding”?

A recently published meta-analysis, in which quite a few studies were summarized and analyzed, provides impressive evidence:

Leijten, P., Gardner, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Van Aar, J., Hutchings, J., Schulz, S., … & Overbeek, G. (2019). Meta-analyses: key parenting program components for disruptive child behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(2), 180-190.

The researchers concluded that parenting training programs in which natural or logical consequences had been taught were significantly more effective on average. But what do we mean by “natural” or “logical” consequences? And what are the advantages over some other common parenting methods?

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Azoulay, D. (1999). Encouragement and logical consequences versus rewards and punishment: A reexamination. Individual Psychology, 55(1), 91.

Dinkmeyer, D., & Dinkmeyer, D. (1976). Logical consequences: A key to the reduction of disciplinary problems. The Phi Delta Kappan, 57(10), 664-666.

Leijten, P., Gardner, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Van Aar, J., Hutchings, J., Schulz, S., … & Overbeek, G. (2019). Meta-analyses: key parenting program components for disruptive child behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(2), 180-190.

Robichaud, J. M., Lessard, J., Labelle, L., & Mageau, G. A. (2020). The role of logical consequences and autonomy support in children’s anticipated reactions of anger and empathy. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29, 1511-1524.

Robichaud, J. M., Mageau, G. A., & Soenens, B. (2020). The role of logical consequences in adolescents’ cognitive precursors of compliance and internalization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 192, 104777.

Psychologists (especially social psychologists) have been researching manipulation techniques for decades. It is becoming increasingly apparent that sometimes it only takes a single phrase to increase the likelihood that another person will comply with our request. The following techniques seem to be particularly effective:

1. “Evoking freedom” technique

2. “This is my only request” technique.

3. Legitimization of a paltry contribution technique.

4. “You will probably refuse…” technique

5. Foot-in-the-mouth technique

Since these manipulation techniques can be easily incorporated into everyday speech and many people do this automatically anyway, they are difficult for us to recognize. Nevertheless, as is often the case, the more familiar we are with these techniques, the better we can protect ourselves against them.

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Andrews, K. R., Carpenter, C. J., Shaw, A. S., & Boster, F. J. (2008). The legitimization of paltry favors effect: A review and meta-analysis. Communication Reports, 21(2), 59-69.

Bolkan, S., & Rains, S. A. (2017). The legitimization of paltry contributions as a compliance-gaining technique: A meta-analysis testing three explanations. Communication Research, 44(7), 976-996.

Carpenter, C. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the “but you are free” compliance-gaining technique. Communication Studies, 64(1), 6-17.

Guéguen, N. (2016). “You will probably refuse, but…”: When activating reactance in a single sentence increases compliance with a request. Polish Psychological Bulletin.

Dolinski, D., Grzyb, T., Olejnik, J., Prusakowski, S., & Urban, K. (2005). Let’s Dialogue About Penny: Effectiveness of Dialogue Involvement and Legitimizing Paltry Contribution Techniques 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1150-1170.

Fointiat, V. (2000). “Foot-in-the-Mouth” versus “Door-in-the-Face” requests. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(2), 264-266.

Grzyb, T., & Doliński, D. (2017). “This is my only request”–using the ‘Omega’strategy to boost the success of charity drives. European Review of Applied Psychology, 67(4), 181-185.

Howard, D. J. (1990). The influence of verbal responses to common greetings on compliance behavior: The foot‐in‐the‐mouth effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(14), 1185-1196.

Farley, S. D., Kelly, J., Singh, S., Thornton Jr, C., & Young, T. (2019). “Free to Say No”: Evoking freedom increased compliance in two field experiments. The Journal of social psychology, 159(4), 482-489.

_________

About: Social Psychological Influence Techniques

Social psychological influence techniques are behaviors aimed at influencing the opinions or actions of others. They are used in many areas of daily life, from sales promotion to political campaigning. Some of the most well-known social psychological influence techniques are the foot-in-the-door technique, the door-in-the-face technique, the low-ball technique, and the that’s-not-all technique.

The “foot-in-the-door” technique is based on the assumption that people are more willing to fulfill a larger request after they have already fulfilled a smaller request. A well-known study that examined this technique is that of Freedman and Fraser (1966). In this study, the researchers first asked for a small favor (e.g., to hang a small sign) before asking for a larger favor (e.g., huge sign in the front yard). The results showed that those who had initially performed the small favor were more willing to perform the larger favor as well.

The door-in-the-face technique is based on the assumption that people are more willing to fulfill a smaller request after refusing a larger request. A well-known study that examined this technique is that of Cialdini et al. (1975). In this study, researchers first asked for a very large favor (e.g., to participate in a study for a week) before asking for a smaller favor (e.g., to complete a questionnaire). The results showed that those who had initially refused the large favor were more willing to perform the smaller favor as well.

By now, almost everyone has understood: We pay for the free use of services like Facebook, Tiktok, Google and Co. with our personal data. But what can the big tech companies do with this data? In a groundbreaking study researchers at Stanford University were able to provide a (somewhat creepy) answer: it is easy to predict the most important personality traits (including the Big Five: openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism) using only Facebook likes (Youyou et al., 2015).

The results of this study show that Facebook Likes are a valuable source for predicting personality traits and that machine learning models are capable of predicting these traits with high accuracy (Kosinski, Stillwell, & Graepel, 2013). However, there are also ethical concerns about privacy and the possibility that this technology could be abused (keyword: Cambridge Analytica).

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802-5805.

Markovikj, D., Gievska, S., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2013). Mining facebook data for predictive personality modeling. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 23-26).

Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2017). Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(48), 12714-12719.

Matz, S., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Nave, G. (2017). Psychological framing as an effective approach to real-life persuasive communication. ACR North American Advances.

Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2018). Reply to Eckles et al.: Facebook’s optimization algorithms are highly unlikely to explain the effects of psychological targeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(23), E5256-E5257.

Matz, S., & Kosinski, M. (2019). Using consumers’ digital footprints for more persuasive mass communication. NIM Marketing Intelligence Review, 11(2), 18-23.

Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (2018). Reply to Sharp et al.: Psychological targeting produces robust effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(34), E7891-E7891.

Youyou, W., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(4), 1036-1040.

No matter if we are in the supermarket or shopping online: Every day we are manipulated by strategies from sales and price psychology. Extensive research has shown how we are seduced into buying by different price presentations. Not only the well-known nine prices play a central role, but we are also influenced by the color and the relative size of the price presentation. As is so often the case, those who know the marketing strategies can more easily protect themselves from them.

__________________

Studies (small sample only):

Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2005). Size does matter: The effects of magnitude representation congruency on price perceptions and purchase likelihood. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 64-76.

Felser, G. (2015). Werbe-und Konsumentenpsychologie. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.

Puccinelli, N. M., Chandrashekaran, R., Grewal, D., & Suri, R. (2013). Are men seduced by red? The effect of red versus black prices on price perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 89(2), 115-125.

Schindler, R. M., & Kibarian, T. M. (1996). Increased consumer sales response though use of 99-ending prices. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 187-199.

Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. (2005). Penny wise and pound foolish: the left-digit effect in price cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 54-64.

Thomas, M., Simon, D. H., & Kadiyali, V. (2007). Do consumers perceive precise prices to be lower than round prices? Evidence from laboratory and market data. Evidence from Laboratory and Market Data (September 2007). Johnson School at Cornell University Research Paper, (09-07).

Van Droogenbroeck, E., Van Hove, L., & Cordemans, S. (2018). Do red prices also work online?: An extension of Puccinelli et al.(2013). Color Research & Application, 43(1), 110-113.

Wu, C., & Cosguner, K. (2020). Profiting from the decoy effect: A case study of an online diamond retailer. Marketing Science, 39(5), 974-995.

Xiao, Q., Zeng, S., & Feldman, G. (2020). Revisiting the decoy effect: replication and extension of Ariely and Wallsten (1995) and Connolly, Reb, and Kausel (2013)‎. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 4(2), 164-198.

Yang, S. S., Kimes, S. E., & Sessarego, M. M. (2009). Menu price presentation influences on consumer purchase behavior in restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 157-160.

__________

Definition “psychology of pricing” – what is it? 

The psychology of pricing refers to the study of how people perceive and respond to different prices for goods and services. It involves understanding the psychological factors that influence people’s decisions to purchase or not purchase a product, as well as the ways in which prices can be used to influence people’s perceptions and behaviors.

One example of the psychology of pricing is the concept of “anchoring,” which refers to the tendency for people to rely on initial information as a reference point when making decisions. For example, if a person sees a product for sale at a high price, they may perceive it as being of higher quality or value, even if similar products are available at lower prices. This can lead people to pay more for a product than they otherwise might, simply because they are anchored to the initial high price.