Conversational agents have been studied as tools to scaffold planning and self-reflection for productivity and well-being. While prior work has demonstrated positive outcomes, we still lack a clear understanding of what drives these results and how users behave and communicate with agents that act as coaches rather than assistants. Such understanding is critical for designing interactions in which agents foster meaningful behavioral change. We conducted a 14-day longitudinal study with 12 participants using a proactive agent that initiated regular check-ins to support daily planning and reflection. Our findings reveal diverse interaction patterns: participants accepted or negotiated suggestions, developed shared mental models, reported progress, and at times resisted or disengaged. We also identified problematic aspects of the agent’s behavior, including rigidity, premature turn-taking, and overpromising. Our work contributes to understanding how people interact with a proactive, coach-like agent and offers design considerations for facilitating effective behavioral change.

As AI assistance becomes embedded in programming practice, researchers have increasingly examined how these systems help learners generate code and work more efficiently. However, these studies often position AI as a replacement for human collaboration and overlook the social and learning-oriented aspects that emerge in collaborative programming. Our work introduces human-human-AI (HHAI) triadic programming, where an AI agent serves as an additional collaborator rather than a substitute for a human partner. Through a within-subjects study with 20 participants, we show that triadic collaboration enhances collaborative learning and social presence compared to the dyadic human–AI (HAI) baseline. In the triadic HHAI conditions, participants relied significantly less on AI generated code in their work. This effect was strongest in the HHAI-shared condition, where participants had an increased sense of responsibility to understand AI suggestions before applying them. These findings demonstrate how triadic settings activate socially shared regulation of learning by making AI use visible and accountable to a human peer, suggesting that AI systems that augment rather than automate peer collaboration can better preserve the learning processes that collaborative programming relies on.

Autistic individuals sometimes disclose autism when asking LLMs for social advice, hoping for more personalized responses. However, they also recognize that these systems may reproduce stereotypes, raising uncertainty about the risks and benefits of disclosure. We conducted a mixed-methods study combining a large-scale LLM audit experiment with interviews involving 11 autistic participants. We developed a six-step pipeline operationalizing 12 documented autism stereotypes into decision-making scenarios framed as users requesting advice (e.g., “Should I do A or B?”). We generated 345,000 responses from six LLMs and measured how advice shifted when prompts disclosed autism versus when they did not. When autism was disclosed, LLMs disproportionately recommended avoiding stereotypically stressful situations, including social events, confrontations, new experiences, and romantic relationships. While some participants viewed this as affirming, others criticized it as infantilizing or undermining opportunities for growth. Our study illuminates how the intermingling of affirmation and stereotyping complicates the personalization of LLMs.1

Autistic individuals often experience negative self-talk (NST), leading to increased anxiety and depression. While therapy is recommended, it presents challenges for many autistic individuals. Meanwhile, a growing number are turning to large language models (LLMs) for mental health support. To understand how autistic individuals perceive AI’s role in coping with NST, we surveyed 200 autistic adults and interviewed practitioners. We also analyzed LLM responses to participants’ hypothetical prompts about their NST. Our findings show that participants view LLMs as useful for managing NST by identifying and reframing negative thoughts. Both participants and practitioners recognize AI’s potential to support therapy and emotional expression. Participants also expressed concerns about LLMs’ understanding of neurodivergent thought patterns, particularly due to the neurotypical bias of LLMs. Practitioners critiqued LLMs’ responses as overly wordy, vague, and overwhelming. This study contributes to the growing research on AI-assisted mental health support, with specific insights for supporting the autistic community.

Understanding causal language in informal discourse is a core yet underexplored challenge in NLP.Existing datasets largely focus on explicit causality in structured text, providing limited support for detecting implicit causal expressions, particularly those found in informal, user-generated social media posts.We introduce CausalTalk, a multi-level dataset of five years of Reddit posts (2020-2024) discussing public health related to the COVID-19 pandemic, among which 10, 120 posts are annotated across four causal tasks: (1) binary causal classification, (2) explicit vs. implicit causality, (3) cause-effect span extraction, and (4) causal gist generation.Annotations comprise both gold-standard labels created by domain experts and silver-standard labels generated by GPT-4o and verified by human annotators.CausalTalk bridges fine-grained causal detection and gistbased reasoning over informal text.It enables benchmarking across both discriminative and generative models, and provides a rich resource for studying causal reasoning in social media contexts 1 .

One challenge in technical interviews is the thinkaloud process, where candidates verbalize their thought processes while solving coding tasks. Despite its importance, opportunities for structured practice remain limited. Conversational AI offers potential assistance, but limited research explores user perceptions of its role in think-aloud practice. To address this gap, we conducted a study with 17 participants using an LLM-based technical interview practice tool. Participants valued AI’s role in simulation, feedback, and learning from generated examples. Key design recommendations include promoting social presence in conversational AI for technical interview simulation, providing feedback beyond verbal content analysis, and enabling crowdsourced think-aloud examples through humanAI collaboration. Beyond feature design, we examined broader considerations, including intersectional challenges and potential strategies to address them, how AI-driven interview preparation could promote equitable learning in computing careers, and the need to rethink AI’s role in interview practice by suggesting a research direction that integrates human-AI collaboration.

Online hate speech has become increasingly prevalent on social media, causing harm to individuals and society. While automated content moderation has received considerable attention, user-driven counterspeech remains a less explored yet promising approach. However, many people face difficulties in crafting effective responses. We introduce CounterQuill, a human-AI collaborative system that helps everyday users with writing empathetic counterspeech-not by generating automatic replies, but by educating them through reflection and response. CounterQuill follows a three-stage workflow grounded in computational thinking: (1) a learning session to build understanding of hate speech and counterspeech, (2) a brainstorming session to identify harmful patterns and ideate counterspeech ideas, and (3) a co-writing session that helps users refine their counter responses while preserving personal voice. Through a user study ($\mathbf{N} \boldsymbol{=} \mathbf{2 0}$), we found that CounterQuill helped participants develop the skills to brainstorm and draft counterspeech with confidence and control throughout the process. Our findings highlight how AI systems can scaffold complex communication tasks through structured, human-centered workflows that educate users on how to recognize, reflect on, and respond to online hate speech.

Despite the increasing use of large language models (LLMs) in everyday life among neurodivergent individuals, our knowledge of how they engage with and perceive LLMs remains limited. In this study, we investigate how neurodivergent individuals interact with LLMs by qualitatively analyzing topically related discussions from 61 neurodivergent communities on Reddit. Our findings reveal 20 specific LLM use cases across five core thematic areas of use among neurodivergent users: emotional well-being, mental health support, interpersonal communication, learning, and professional development and productivity. We also identified key challenges, including overly neurotypical LLM responses and the limitations of text-based interactions. In response to such challenges, some users actively seek advice by sharing input prompts and corresponding LLM responses. Others develop workarounds by experimenting and modifying prompts to be more neurodivergent-friendly. Despite these efforts, users have significant concerns around LLM use, including potential overreliance and fear of replacing human connections. Our analysis highlights the need to make LLMs more inclusive for neurodivergent users and implications around how LLM technologies can reinforce unintended consequences and behaviors.

Job interviews play a critical role in shaping one's career, yet practicing interview skills can be challenging, especially without access to human coaches or peers for feedback. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) present an opportunity to enhance the interview practice experience. Yet, little research has explored the effectiveness and user perceptions of such systems or the benefits and challenges of using LLMs for interview practice. Furthermore, while prior work and recent commercial tools have demonstrated the potential of AI to assist with interview practice, they often deliver one-way feedback, where users only receive information about their performance. By contrast, dialogic feedback , a concept developed in learning sciences, is a two-way interaction feedback process that allows users to further engage with and learn from the provided feedback through interactive dialogue. This paper introduces Conversate, a web-based application that supports reflective learning in job interview practice by leveraging large language models (LLMs) for interactive interview simulations and dialogic feedback. To start the interview session, the user provides the title of a job position (e.g., entry-level software engineer) in the system. Then, our system will initialize the LLM agent to start the interview simulation by asking the user an opening interview question and following up with questions carefully adapted to subsequent user responses. After the interview session, our back-end LLM framework will then analyze the user's responses and highlight areas for improvement. Users can then annotate the transcript by selecting specific sections and writing self-reflections. Finally, the user can interact with the system for dialogic feedback, conversing with the LLM agent to learn from and iteratively refine their answers based on the agent's guidance. To evaluate Conversate, we conducted a user study with 19 participants to understand their perceptions of using LLM-supported interview simulation and dialogic feedback. Our findings show that participants valued the adaptive follow-up questions from LLMs, as they enhanced the realism of interview simulations and encouraged deeper thinking. Participants also appreciated the AI-assisted annotation, as it reduced their cognitive burden and mitigated excessive self-criticism in their own evaluation of their interview performance. Moreover, participants found the LLM-supported dialogic feedback to be beneficial, as it promoted personalized and continuous learning, reduced feelings of judgment, and allowed them to express disagreement.

This study investigates how online counterspeech, defined as direct responses to harmful online content with the intention of dissuading the perpetrator from further engaging in such behavior, is influenced by the match between a target of the hate speech and a counterspeech writer's identity. Using a sample of 458 English-speaking adults who responded to online hate speech posts covering race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability status, our research reveals that the match between a hate post's topic and a counter-speaker's identity (topic-identity match, or TIM) shapes perceptions of hatefulness and experiences with counterspeech writing. Specifically, TIM significantly increases the perceived hatefulness of posts related to race and sexual orientation. TIM generally boosts counter-speakers' satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of their responses, and reduces the difficulty of crafting them, with an exception of gender-focused hate speech. In addition, counterspeech that displayed more empathy, was longer, had a more positive tone, and was associated with higher ratings of effectiveness and perceptions of hatefulness. Prior experience with, and openness to AI writing assistance tools like ChatGPT, correlate negatively with perceived difficulty in writing online counterspeech. Overall, this study contributes insights into linguistic and identity-related factors shaping counterspeech on social media. The findings inform the development of supportive technologies and moderation strategies for promoting effective responses to online hate.

Current research mainly explores the attributes and impact of online counterspeech, leaving a gap in understanding of who engages in online counterspeech or what motivates or deters users from participating. To investigate this, we surveyed 458 English-speaking US participants, analyzing key motivations and barriers underlying online counterspeech engagement. We presented each participant with three hate speech examples from a set of 900, spanning race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability and requested counterspeech responses. Subsequent questions assessed their satisfaction, perceived difficulty, and the effectiveness of their counterspeech. Our findings show that having been a target of online hate is a key driver of frequent online counterspeech engagement. People differ in their motivations and barriers toward engaging in online counterspeech across different demographic groups. Younger individuals, women, those with higher education levels, and regular witnesses to online hate are more reluctant to engage in online counterspeech due to concerns around public exposure, retaliation, and third-party harassment. Varying motivation and barriers in counterspeech engagement also shape how individuals view their own self-authored counterspeech and the difficulty experienced writing it. Additionally, our work explores people’s willingness to use AI technologies like ChatGPT for counterspeech writing. Through this work we introduce a multi-item scale for understanding counterspeech motivation and barriers and a more nuanced understanding of the factors shaping online counterspeech engagement.

In our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions and codes by systematically reviewing 115 papers, while leveraging the expertise of researchers in various disciplines. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the design of new writing assistants.

We introduce a multi-step reasoning framework using prompt-based LLMs to examine the relationship between social media language patterns and trends in national health outcomes. Grounded in fuzzy-trace theory, which emphasizes the importance of “gists” of causal coherence in effective health communication, we introduce Role-Based Incremental Coaching (RBIC), a prompt-based LLM framework, to identify gists at-scale. Using RBIC, we systematically extract gists from subreddit discussions opposing COVID-19 health measures (Study 1). We then track how these gists evolve across key events (Study 2) and assess their influence on online engagement (Study 3). Finally, we investigate how the volume of gists is associated with national health trends like vaccine uptake and hospitalizations (Study 4). Our work is the first to empirically link social media linguistic patterns to real-world public health trends, highlighting the potential of prompt-based LLMs in identifying critical online discussion patterns that can form the basis of public health communication strategies.

In this work, we examine the linguistic signature of online racial microaggressions (acts) and how it differs from that of personal narratives recalling experiences of such aggressions (recalls) by Black social media users. We manually curate and annotate a corpus of acts and recalls fromin-the-wild social media discussions, and verify labels with Black workshop participants. We leverage Natural Language Processing (NLP) and qualitative analysis on this data to classify (RQ1), interpret (RQ2), and characterize (RQ3) the language underlying acts and recalls of racial microaggressions in the context of racism in the U.S. Our findings show that neural language models (LMs) can classify acts and recalls with high accuracy (RQ1) with contextual words revealing themes that associate Blacks with objects that reify negative stereotypes (RQ2). Furthermore, overlapping linguistic signatures between acts and recalls serve functionally different purposes (RQ3), providing broader implications to the current challenges in content moderation systems on social media.

GIFs afford a high degree of personalization, as they are often created from popular movie and video clips with diverse and realistic characters, each expressing a nuanced emotional state through a combination of characters' own unique bodily gestures and distinctive visual backgrounds. These properties of high personalization and embodiment provide a unique window for exploring how individuals represent and express themselves on social media through the lens of the GIFs they use. In this study, we explore how Twitter users express their gender and racial identities through characters in GIFs. We conducted a behavioral study (n=398) to simulate a series of tweeting and GIF-picking scenarios. We annotated the gender and race identities of GIF characters, and we found that gender and race identities have significant impacts on users' GIF choices: men chose more gender-matching GIFs than women, and White participants chose more race-matching GIFs than Black participants. We also found that users' prior familiarity with the source of a GIF and perceptions about the composition of the audience (viz., having a matching identity) have significant effects on whether a user will choose race- and gender-matching GIFs. This work has implications for practitioners supporting personalized social identity construction and impression management mechanisms online.

With the growth of online news over the past decade, empirical studies on political discourse and news consumption have focused on the phenomenon of filter bubbles and echo chambers. Yet recently, scholars have revealed limited evidence around the impact of such phenomenon, leading some to argue that partisan segregation across news audiences can- not be fully explained by online news consumption alone and that the role of traditional legacy media may be as salient in polarizing public discourse around current events. In this work, we expand the scope of analysis to include both online and more traditional media by investigating the relationship between broadcast news media language and social media discourse. By analyzing a decade’s worth of closed captions (2.1 million speaker turns) from CNN and Fox News along with topically corresponding discourse from Twitter, we pro- vide a novel framework for measuring semantic polarization between America’s two major broadcast networks to demonstrate how semantic polarization between these outlets has evolved (Study 1), peaked (Study 2) and influenced partisan discussions on Twitter (Study 3) across the last decade. Our results demonstrate a sharp increase in polarization in how topically important keywords are discussed between the two channels, especially after 2016, with overall highest peaks occurring in 2020. The two stations discuss identical topics in drastically distinct contexts in 2020, to the extent that there is barely any linguistic overlap in how identical keywords are contextually discussed. Further, we demonstrate at-scale, how such partisan division in broadcast media language significantly shapes semantic polarity trends on Twitter (and vice-versa), empirically linking for the first time, how online discussions are influenced by televised media. We show how the language characterizing opposing media narratives about similar news events on TV can increase levels of partisan dis- course online. To this end, our work has implications for how media polarization on TV plays a significant role in impeding rather than supporting online democratic discourse.

Many social network sites (SNSs) have become available around the world and users’ online social networks increasingly include contacts from different cultures. However, there is lack of investigation into the concrete cultural differences in the effects of contextual factors and privacy concerns on users’ privacy decisions on social network sites (SNSs). The goal of this paper is to understand how contextual factors and privacy concerns cast different impact on privacy decisions, such as friend request decisions, information disclosure and perceived risk, in different countries. We performed a quantitative study through a large-scale online survey across the US, Korea and China to model the relationships between contextual factors, privacy concerns and privacy decisions. We find that the contextual influence and focus of privacy concerns vary between the individualistic and collectivistic countries in our sample. We suggest that multinational SNS service providers should consider different contextual factors and focus of privacy concerns in different countries and customise privacy designs and friend recommendation algorithms in SNSs in different countries.

In this work, we investigate whether and how the presence of political hashtags in social media news articles influences the way people discuss news content. Specifically, we examine how political hashtags in news posts act as a design characteristic that affects the quality of online discourse. We use a randomized control experiment to assess how the presence versus absence of political hashtags (particularly the most prevalently used #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter) in social media news posts shapes discourse across a general audience (n=3205). Key findings show differences in topical focus, emotional tone of discourse, and rhetorical styles between commenters who were shown news posts with political hashtags versus those shown news posts without the hashtags. Compared to the control group, those shown hashtagged news posts heavily focus on the politics of the hashtag, use more words associated with fear, anger, and disgust in their comments, and exhibit black-and-white rhetoric and less emotionally temperate expressions in their arguments.

Both hashtag activists and news organizations assume that trending political hashtags effectively capture the nowness of social issues that people care about [20]. In fact, news organizations with growing social media presence increasingly capitalize the use of political hashtags in article headlines and social media news post - a practice aimed to generate new readership through lightweight news consumption of content by linking a particular story to a broader topic [28]. However, response to political hashtags can be complicated as demonstrated with the events surrounding #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter. In fact, the semantic simplicity of political hashtags often belies the complexities around the question of who gets to participate [71], what intersectional identities are included or excluded from the hashtag [45], as well as how the meaning of the hashtag expands and drifts [10] depending on the context through which it is expressed. Overtime, reports show increasing backlash [70, 73, 74] and polarization [21, 52, 66, 67, 70] against key issues embodied by political hashtags. In this vein, we assume that political hashtags affect how people make sense of and engage with media content. However, we do not know how the presence of political hashtags -signaling that a news story is related to a current social issue - influences the assumptions potential readers make about the social content of an article. In this work we conducted a randomized control experiment to examine how the presence of political hashtags (particularly the most prevalently used #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter) in social media news posts shape reactions across a general audience (n=1979). Our findings show that compared to the control group, people shown news posts with political hashtags perceive the news topic as less socially important and are less motivated to know more about social issues related to the post. People also find the news more partisan and controversial when hashtags are included. In fact, negative perception associated with political hashtags (partisan bias & topic controversy) mediates people's motivation to further engage with the news content). High-intensity Facebook users and politically moderate participants perceive news with political hashtags as more partisan compared to posts excluding hashtags. There are also significant differences in discourse patterns between the hashtag and control groups around how politically moderate respondents engage with the news content in their comments.

Linguistic style and affect shape how users perceive and assess political content on social media. Using linguistic methods to compare political discourse on far-left, mainstream and alt-right news articles covering the #MeToo movement, we reveal rhetorical similarities and differences in commenting behavior across the political spectrum. We employed natural language processing techniques and qualitative methods on a corpus of approximately 30,000 Facebook comments from three politically distinct news publishers. Our findings show that commenting behavior reflects how social movements are framed and understood within a particular political orientation. Surprisingly, these data reveal that the structural patterns of discourse among commenters from the two alternative news sites are similar in terms of their relationship to those from the mainstream - exhibiting polarization, generalization, and othering of perspectives in political conversation. These data have implications for understanding the possibility for civil discourse in online venues and the role of commenting behavior in polarizing media sources in undermining such discourse.

In this paper, we examine stigma related to class identity online through an empirical examination of Elite University Class Confessions (EUCC). EUCC is an online space that includes a Facebook page and a surrounding sociotechnical ecosystem. It is a community of, for, and about low-income and first generation students at an elite university. By bringing in a community that learns and engages with users' socioeconomic struggles, EUCC engenders unique restorative properties for students experiencing class stigma. EUCC's restorative properties foster new ways of understanding one's stigmatized identity through meaning- making interactions in a networked sociotechnical system. We discuss how EUCC's design shapes the nature of user interactions around class stigma, and explore in depth how people experience stigma differently through the restorative properties of EUCC.