Young people prefer AI when they have questions about mental health
Young people are using AI therapists. But extensive use may come with a cost, a researcher believes.
Many young people are curious about things they find embarrassing and difficult to talk to others about. This may explain why so many now turn to AI for answers about mental health, the researcher thinks.(Photo: Shutterstock / NTB)
"We're seeing a clear global increase in the use of so-called AI therapists, especially among young people," says Marita Bjaaland Skjuve, researcher at SINTEF Digital.
She has a background in psychology and researches the relationship between humans and technology.
On platforms like Character AI, which are often used by a younger user group, therapist-like characters have had hundreds of millions of interactions, she says.
Marita Bjaaland Skjuve researches artificial intelligence at SINTEF.(Photo: SINTEF)
Can be embarrassing
Skjuve is not surprised by the development.
Annonse
"Adolescence can be confusing. Young people need someone to talk to, but it can be embarrassing or difficult to approach someone they trust. These services then become an easily accessible alternative," she says.
Norway faces a shortage of psychologists and, in many areas, school nurses as well. There is often a long wait time for healthcare in general.
This may be why more young people are turning to online support services, search engines, and social media to find information about mental health, Skjuve believes.
"At the same time, AI technology like ChatGPT has evolved into a strong conversational partner in recent years. The technology can offer immediate help and support to people who need it, which has contributed to this type of use becoming more common," she says.
Compared ChatGPT with ung.no
Skjuve has been involved in a research project that examined how young people in Norway use artificial intelligence for information about mental health.
Researchers asked 123 young people aged 16 to 20 to evaluate responses from ChatGPT and professionals at ung.no. The question was simple: Who gave the best answers?
ung.no is Norway's public information service for adolescents, providing articles, the opportunity to submit personal questions, and responses from professionals.
Used to immediate responses
Last year, ung.no answered around 104,000 questions from adolescents. The average response time was about two days.
"Young people can submit detailed questions describing their concerns and receive thorough replies from professionals. They can also read past questions and answers from others to gain insight into their own issues. But if you want an answer to your own question, it may take some time. This is not an immediate question-and-answer service," Skjuve explains.
In a world where young people are accustomed to immediate replies, this waiting period can feel long, Skjuve notes.
"At the same time, services like ung.no are follow strict ethical guidelines. They can provide advice, but not healthcare in a legal sense," she says.
Did not know who wrote the answers
Annonse
Researchers gathered real mental health questions and answers from ung.no into a database. They then recruited 123 Norwegian upper secondary school students.
Each participant was presented with two questions that young people had previously asked on ung.no, with two different answers to each question: one written by a professional and one generated by ChatGPT.
"ChatGPT received the questions without guidance or restrictions. We only removed wording that would reveal the answer came from AI. Likewise, we removed references to ung.no from the professional responses. The participants therefore did not know who had written which answer," explains Skjuve.
The students were then asked to evaluate the answers based on various criteria, such as how validating, relevant, and useful they found them. They also had to choose which answer they would recommend to a person in the same situation and explain why.
Most preferred ChatGPT
Both the professional responses and ChatGPT’s were rated highly overall, Skjuve says.
Even so, a majority preferred ChatGPT's answers responses – around 50 per cent. About 20 per cent preferred the professionals' answers, while around 30 per cent liked both equally.
"It's largely because they find that ChatGPT's responses are very well structured, easy to understand, and empathetic. The advice was perceived as concrete and practical, which made it easy to relate to in a real situation," the researcher explains.
Two follow-up studies
In the Norwegian study, researchers did not assess whether ChatGPT’s advice was medically correct or overly specific. They only examined how young people perceived the answers, according to Skjuve.
"We have conducted several follow-up studies that have not yet been published. In one of them, we asked around 30 experts to make the same assessment. None claimed ChatGPT’s responses were directly wrong, though some felt they might be a bit too oriented towards diagnoses," she says.
The researchers have also conducted a larger study with 440 participants, where one group knew who had written the responses and the other did not.
"We saw that when participants knew an answer was AI-generated, they were more likely to prefer the professional’s reply. When they didn’t know, they more often chose the AI answer," says Skjuve.
A support tool
Skjuve does not believe AI should replace services like ung.no.
"It can be used as a support tool, for example to improve language and structure, as long as a professional ensures the quality of the content," she says.
Still, the findings suggest that AI can provide mental health responses that young people find meaningful.
"It likely comes down to linguistic quality, structure, and normalisation. But AI is not necessarily equally strong when it comes to professional precision," she says.
Room to learn
Anne Holter Bentzrød is a senior health adviser at ung.no, which is run by the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs.
She says they can learn something from the results of this study. They noted that young people appreciated AI’s clear structure, understandable language, and empathetic tone.
"We also noticed that young people responded more positively to the answers once they knew they came from real people. We’ve carried that insight forward, and we clearly see the value of ensuring that the adolescents we work with receive responses from real people," she says.
Anne Holter Bentzrød works with ung.no at the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs.(Photo: Private)
Have taken action
Bentzrød also says that they have taken steps to reduce the response time on ung.no. Recently, it has been about one day.
"When adolescents submit questions to ung.no, they know they will have to wait a bit for a response. Getting quick answers can be helpful, but it isn’t necessarily a problem if they don’t receive a reply immediately. Simply writing down a difficult question can in itself have an effect," she says.
They also have procedures to ensure urgent questions are answered within a few hours, says Bentzrød.
"We also have systems that direct young people to helpful information, support services, and previously answered questions. These resources can be useful while they wait," she says.
May come with a cost
Marita Bjaaland Skjuve believes that extensive use of AI may come with a cost.
"Studies have shown that professionals may become less capable of handling tasks on their own. That's why good systems for critical use and quality assurance are essential," she says.
Several tech companies are now introducing age restrictions, but experience shows that these can be difficult to enforce effectively. There may therefore be a need for safe, dedicated AI services for young people, developed by organisations without commercial interests, she believes.
"I think this may become very important going forwards, so that adolescents receive support that is both accessible and responsible as technology continues to evolve," she says.
Skjuve et al. Unge og helsehjelp, ChatGPT vs. fagpersoner (Young people and health information, ChatGPT vs. health professionals), Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, vol. 27, 2025. DOI: 10.18261/tfv.27.4.2
