How Mental Health Self-Disclosure Becomes Visible: Evidence from Eight Conditions on Reddit

Renkai Ma; Lingyao Li; Shanting Chen; Chen Chen; Fan Yang; Yuanyuan Lei

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.29010

How Mental Health Self-Disclosure Becomes Visible: Evidence from Eight Conditions on Reddit

Renkai Ma·Lingyao Li·Shanting Chen·Chen Chen·Fan Yang·Yuanyuan Lei

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

People share mental health diagnoses on social media, yet how such language becomes visible around their self-disclosure, and whether community engagement tracks it, remain unexamined across conditions. We analyze 89,605 Reddit posts from 739 users across eight conditions, removing each user's diagnosis disclosure and aligning their surrounding posts to that anchor. Within the pre-disclosure year, language-visible burden was highest in the month before disclosure for six conditions, earlier for post-traumatic stress disorder and furthest from it for borderline personality disorder, and remained visible afterward rather than resolving. The theme Seeking Clinical Explanations showed the largest early-to-late difference before disclosure in five conditions, yet engagement rarely tracked what users wrote: only 9 of 360 language--engagement correlations survived correction. Disclosure is therefore a waypoint in an unevenly visible process, and we offer implications for community practice and platform design where engagement metrics do not reflect clinical need.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC cs.CL cs.CY

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Renkai Ma, Lingyao Li, Shanting Chen, Chen Chen, Fan Yang, Yuanyuan Lei. 2026-08-29. How Mental Health Self-Disclosure Becomes Visible: Evidence from Eight Conditions on Reddit. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29010

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.CL subject cs.CY subject cs.HC subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

arXiv2026

Beyond Helpfulness: A Teaching-over-Solving Diagnostic for Measuring Educational Impact in LLM Tutors

Large language models are increasingly proposed as educational tutors, yet stronger task-solving ability does not necessarily imply stronger learning support. Motivated by recent calls to measure the social impact of NLP systems in practice, we study whether public LLM tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production. We propose a lightweight diagnostic based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance. Using public MathTutorBench leaderboard results, we show that these dimensions are only partially aligned: across eight publicly reported models, the correlation between solving and pedagogy composites is 0.421, and several models shift meaningfully in rank when evaluation moves from solving to pedagogy. We then analyze the public TutorBench sample and show that agency-relevant behaviors are explicitly encoded in benchmark rubrics, especially in active-learning settings that reward guiding questions, calibrated hints, and non-disclosive scaffolding. Together, these findings suggest that educational-impact evaluation should not treat task success as a sufficient proxy for learning support. We argue that public tutoring benchmarks can better support positive-impact evaluation by reporting solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented scores separately and by making disclosure-sensitive, student-agency-preserving criteria more explicit.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Effect of Emotional Context on Large Language Models' Endorsement of Premature Decisions: Comparing Emotional Vulnerability Across Six Commercial Models

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday decision-making advice, whether a model shifts the direction of its advice according to the user's emotional state has become an important safety problem. We test whether emotional expression increases a model's endorsement (encouragement to proceed) when a user, holding the same objective information, is overconfident about a premature decision (e.g., quitting a stable job on weak evidence). As a key control, we include a no-emotion multi-turn (neutral) condition that holds factual content and the number of conversational turns constant, isolating the effect of emotion from that of conversation length. We exposed six commercial models (top-tier and mid-tier models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google) to three scenarios (career change, business expansion, emigration) across three conditions (cold/neutral/distress) with six repetitions each, yielding 324 conversations, and measured endorsement strength (0-100) via an eight-item rubric-based automated scoring. Emotional expression significantly increased endorsement (neutral 18.6 to distress 31.5, +12.9 points; mixed-effects $β= +12.9$, $p < .001$; Cohen's d = 0.51), and this was not explained by conversation length (cold-neutral difference non-significant, $p = .083$). Critically, the vulnerability varied by individual model rather than by price tier: five of six models showed a significant emotion effect, including the top-tier flagships Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.5, while only Claude Opus showed no significant change. Results were reproduced with an independent non-Google judge model ($ρ= .89$) and agreed in rank with two human coders ($ρ= .70$). Through a controlled design that separates emotion from conversational context, we show that emotional context increases LLM sycophancy even in top-tier flagship models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Experts Disagree on How to Fight AI Disinformation, but Agree That Health and Politics Need Different Solutions

When 54 international experts assessed AI-generated disinformation threats, they revealed a surprising pattern: while video deepfakes received the highest average threat ratings in the political domain (M = 6.31/7), the pattern differed in the health domain, where AI-generated text received the highest average rating (M = 5.80). Experts also diverge on what to do: government regulation drew both the most "most effective" (30%) and the most "least effective" (15%) votes, though rating distributions were contested rather than polarized, indicating disagreement over priorities rather than over efficacy. These findings offer an initial expert map of an AI-disinformation landscape that is still rapidly forming.

cs.CY↗