research article vs research journal

• SpringerLink shop

Types of journal articles

It is helpful to familiarise yourself with the different types of articles published by journals. Although it may appear there are a large number of types of articles published due to the wide variety of names they are published under, most articles published are one of the following types; Original Research, Review Articles, Short reports or Letters, Case Studies, Methodologies.

Original Research:

This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an  Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just  Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections.

Short reports or Letters:

These papers communicate brief reports of data from original research that editors believe will be interesting to many researchers, and that will likely stimulate further research in the field. As they are relatively short the format is useful for scientists with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full Original Research manuscript. These papers are also sometimes called Brief communications .

Review Articles:

Review Articles provide a comprehensive summary of research on a certain topic, and a perspective on the state of the field and where it is heading. They are often written by leaders in a particular discipline after invitation from the editors of a journal. Reviews are often widely read (for example, by researchers looking for a full introduction to a field) and highly cited. Reviews commonly cite approximately 100 primary research articles.

TIP: If you would like to write a Review but have not been invited by a journal, be sure to check the journal website as some journals to not consider unsolicited Reviews. If the website does not mention whether Reviews are commissioned it is wise to send a pre-submission enquiry letter to the journal editor to propose your Review manuscript before you spend time writing it.  

Case Studies:

These articles report specific instances of interesting phenomena. A goal of Case Studies is to make other researchers aware of the possibility that a specific phenomenon might occur. This type of study is often used in medicine to report the occurrence of previously unknown or emerging pathologies.

Methodologies or Methods

These articles present a new experimental method, test or procedure. The method described may either be completely new, or may offer a better version of an existing method. The article should describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available.

Back │ Next

• Insights blog

Different types of research articles

A guide for early career researchers.

In scholarly literature, there are many different kinds of articles published every year. Original research articles are often the first thing you think of when you hear the words ‘journal article’. In reality, research work often results in a whole mixture of different outputs and it’s not just the final research article that can be published.

Finding a home to publish supporting work in different formats can help you start publishing sooner, allowing you to build your publication record and research profile.

But before you do, it’s very important that you check the  instructions for authors  and the  aims and scope  of the journal(s) you’d like to submit to. These will tell you whether they accept the type of article you’re thinking of writing and what requirements they have around it.

Understanding the different kind of articles

There’s a huge variety of different types of articles – some unique to individual journals – so it’s important to explore your options carefully. While it would be impossible to cover every single article type here, below you’ll find a guide to the most common research articles and outputs you could consider submitting for publication.

Book review

Many academic journals publish book reviews, which aim to provide insight and opinion on recently published scholarly books. Writing book reviews is often a good way to begin academic writing. It can help you get your name known in your field and give you valuable experience of publishing before you write a full-length article.

If you’re keen to write a book review, a good place to start is looking for journals that publish or advertise the books they have available for review. Then it’s just a matter of putting yourself forward for one of them.

You can check whether a journal publishes book reviews by browsing previous issues or by seeing if a book review editor is listed on the editorial board. In addition, some journals publish other types of reviews, such as film, product, or exhibition reviews, so it’s worth bearing those in mind as options as well.

Get familiar with instructions for authors

Be prepared, speed up your submission, and make sure nothing is forgotten by understanding a journal’s individual requirements.

Publishing tips, direct to your inbox

Expert tips and guidance on getting published and maximizing the impact of your research. Register now for weekly insights direct to your inbox.

Case report

A medical case report – also sometimes called a clinical case study – is an original short report that provides details of a single patient case.

Case reports include detailed information on the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. They remain one of the cornerstones of medical progress and provide many new ideas in medicine.

Depending on the journal, a case report doesn’t necessarily need to describe an especially novel or unusual case as there is benefit from collecting details of many standard cases.

Take a look at  F1000Research’s guidance on case reports , to understand more about what’s required in them. And don’t forget that for all studies involving human participants, informed written consent to take part in the research must be obtained from the participants –  find out more about consent to publish.

Clinical study

In medicine, a clinical study report is a type of article that provides in-depth detail on the methods and results of a clinical trial. They’re typically similar in length and format to original research articles.

Most journals now require that you register protocols for clinical trials you’re involved with in a publicly accessible registry. A list of eligible registries can be found on the  WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) . Trials can also be registered at  clinicaltrials.gov  or the  EU Clinical Trials Register . Once registered, your trial will be assigned a clinical trial number (CTN).

Before you submit a clinical study, you’ll need to include clinical trial numbers and registration dates in the manuscript, usually in the abstract and methods sections.

Commentaries and letters to editors

Letters to editors, as well as ‘replies’ and ‘discussions’, are usually brief comments on topical issues of public and political interest (related to the research field of the journal), anecdotal material, or readers’ reactions to material published in the journal.

Commentaries are similar, though they may be slightly more in-depth, responding to articles recently published in the journal. There may be a ‘target article’ which various commentators are invited to respond to.

You’ll need to look through previous issues of any journal you’re interested in writing for and review the instructions for authors to see which types of these articles (if any) they accept.

Conference materials

Many of our medical journals  accept conference material supplements. These are open access peer-reviewed, permanent, and citable publications within the journal. Conference material supplements record research around a common thread, as presented at a workshop, congress, or conference, for the scientific record. They can include the following types of articles:

Poster extracts

Conference abstracts

Presentation extracts

Find out more about submitting conference materials.

Data notes  are a short peer-reviewed article type that concisely describe research data stored in a repository. Publishing a data note can help you to maximize the impact of your data and gain appropriate credit for your research.

Data notes promote the potential reuse of research data and include details of why and how the data were created. They do not include any analysis but they can be linked to a research article incorporating analysis of the published dataset, as well as the results and conclusions.

F1000Research  enables you to publish your data note rapidly and openly via an author-centric platform. There is also a growing range of options for publishing data notes in Taylor & Francis journals, including in  All Life  and  Big Earth Data .

Read our guide to data notes to find out more.

Letters or short reports

Letters or short reports (sometimes known as brief communications or rapid communications) are brief reports of data from original research.

Editors publish these reports where they believe the data will be interesting to many researchers and could stimulate further research in the field. There are even entire journals dedicated to publishing letters.

As they’re relatively short, the format is useful for researchers with results that are time sensitive (for example, those in highly competitive or quickly-changing disciplines). This format often has strict length limits, so some experimental details may not be published until the authors write a full original research article.

Brief reports  (previously called Research Notes) are a type of short report published by  F1000Research  – part of the Taylor & Francis Group. To find out more about the requirements for a brief report, take a look at  F1000Research’s guidance .

Method article

A method article is a medium length peer-reviewed, research-focused article type that aims to answer a specific question. It also describes an advancement or development of current methodological approaches and research procedures (akin to a research article), following the standard layout for research articles. This includes new study methods, substantive modifications to existing methods, or innovative applications of existing methods to new models or scientific questions. These should include adequate and appropriate validation to be considered, and any datasets associated with the paper must publish all experimental controls and make full datasets available.  

Posters and slides

With F1000Research, you can publish scholarly posters and slides covering basic scientific, translational, and clinical research within the life sciences and medicine. You can find out more about how to publish posters and slides  on the F1000Research website .

Registered report

A  Registered Report  consists of two different kinds of articles: a study protocol and an original research article.

This is because the review process for Registered Reports is divided into two stages. In Stage 1, reviewers assess study protocols before data is collected. In Stage 2, reviewers consider the full published study as an original research article, including results and interpretation.

Taking this approach, you can get an in-principle acceptance of your research article before you start collecting data. We’ve got  further guidance on Registered Reports here , and you can also  read F1000Research’s guidance on preparing a Registered Report .

Research article

Original research articles are the most common type of journal article. They’re detailed studies reporting new work and are classified as primary literature.

You may find them referred to as original articles, research articles, research, or even just articles, depending on the journal.

Typically, especially in STEM subjects, these articles will include Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion sections. However, you should always check the instructions for authors of your chosen journal to see whether it specifies how your article should be structured. If you’re planning to write an original research article, take a look at our guidance on  writing a journal article .

Review article

Review articles provide critical and constructive analysis of existing published literature in a field. They’re usually structured to provide a summary of existing literature, analysis, and comparison. Often, they identify specific gaps or problems and provide recommendations for future research.

Unlike original research articles, review articles are considered as secondary literature. This means that they generally don’t present new data from the author’s experimental work, but instead provide analysis or interpretation of a body of primary research on a specific topic. Secondary literature is an important part of the academic ecosystem because it can help explain new or different positions and ideas about primary research, identify gaps in research around a topic, or spot important trends that one individual research article may not.

There are 3 main types of review article

Literature review

Presents the current knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic.

Systematic review

Identifies, appraises and synthesizes all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making.

Meta-analysis

A quantitative, formal, epidemiological study design used to systematically assess the results of previous research to derive conclusions about that body of research. Typically, but not necessarily, a meta-analysis study is based on randomized, controlled clinical trials.

Take a look at our guide to  writing a review article  for more guidance on what’s required.

Software tool articles

A  software tool article  – published by  F1000Research  – describes the rationale for the development of a new software tool and details of the code used for its construction.

The article should provide examples of suitable input data sets and include an example of the output that can be expected from the tool and how this output should be interpreted. Software tool articles submitted to F1000Research should be written in open access programming languages. Take a look at  their guidance  for more details on what’s required of a software tool article.

Further resources

Ready to write your article, but not sure where to start?

For more guidance on how to prepare and write an article for a journal you can download the  Writing your paper eBook .

• UNO Criss Library

Social Work Research Guide

What is a research journal.

• Find Articles
• Find E-Books and Books

Reading an Academic Article

• Free Online Resources
• Reference and Writing
• Citation Help This link opens in a new window

Anatomy of a Scholarly Article

TIP: When possible, keep your research question(s) in mind when reading scholarly articles. It will help you to focus your reading.

Title : Generally are straightforward and describe what the article is about. Titles often include relevant key words.

Abstract : A summary of the author(s)'s research findings and tells what to expect when you read the full article. It is often a good idea to read the abstract first, in order to determine if you should even bother reading the whole article.

Discussion and Conclusion : Read these after the Abstract (even though they come at the end of the article). These sections can help you see if this article will meet your research needs. If you don’t think that it will, set it aside.

Introduction : Describes the topic or problem researched. The authors will present the thesis of their argument or the goal of their research.

Literature Review : May be included in the introduction or as its own separate section. Here you see where the author(s) enter the conversation on this topic. That is to say, what related research has come before, and how do they hope to advance the discussion with their current research?

Methods : This section explains how the study worked. In this section, you often learn who and how many participated in the study and what they were asked to do. You will need to think critically about the methods and whether or not they make sense given the research question.

Results : Here you will often find numbers and tables. If you aren't an expert at statistics this section may be difficult to grasp. However you should attempt to understand if the results seem reasonable given the methods.

Works Cited (also be called References or Bibliography ): This section comprises the author(s)’s sources. Always be sure to scroll through them. Good research usually cites many different kinds of sources (books, journal articles, etc.). As you read the Works Cited page, be sure to look for sources that look like they will help you to answer your own research question.

Adapted from http://library.hunter.cuny.edu/research-toolkit/how-do-i-read-stuff/anatomy-of-a-scholarly-article

A research journal is a periodical that contains articles written by experts in a particular field of study who report the results of research in that field. The articles are intended to be read by other experts or students of the field, and they are typically much more sophisticated and advanced than the articles found in general magazines. This guide offers some tips to help distinguish scholarly journals from other periodicals.

CHARACTERISTICS OF RESEARCH JOURNALS

PURPOSE : Research journals communicate the results of research in the field of study covered by the journal. Research articles reflect a systematic and thorough study of a single topic, often involving experiments or surveys. Research journals may also publish review articles and book reviews that summarize the current state of knowledge on a topic.

APPEARANCE : Research journals lack the slick advertising, classified ads, coupons, etc., found in popular magazines. Articles are often printed one column to a page, as in books, and there are often graphs, tables, or charts referring to specific points in the articles.

AUTHORITY : Research articles are written by the person(s) who did the research being reported. When more than two authors are listed for a single article, the first author listed is often the primary researcher who coordinated or supervised the work done by the other authors. The most highly‑regarded scholarly journals are typically those sponsored by professional associations, such as the American Psychological Association or the American Chemical Society.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY : Articles submitted to research journals are evaluated by an editorial board and other experts before they are accepted for publication. This evaluation, called peer review, is designed to ensure that the articles published are based on solid research that meets the normal standards of the field of study covered by the journal. Professors sometimes use the term "refereed" to describe peer-reviewed journals.

WRITING STYLE : Articles in research journals usually contain an advanced vocabulary, since the authors use the technical language or jargon of their field of study. The authors assume that the reader already possesses a basic understanding of the field of study.

REFERENCES : The authors of research articles always indicate the sources of their information. These references are usually listed at the end of an article, but they may appear in the form of footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography.

PERIODICALS THAT ARE NOT RESEARCH JOURNALS

POPULAR MAGAZINES : These are periodicals that one typically finds at grocery stores, airport newsstands, or bookstores at a shopping mall. Popular magazines are designed to appeal to a broad audience, and they usually contain relatively brief articles written in a readable, non‑technical language.

Examples include: Car and Driver , Cosmopolitan , Esquire , Essence , Gourmet , Life , People Weekly , Readers' Digest , Rolling Stone , Sports Illustrated , Vanity Fair , and Vogue .

NEWS MAGAZINES : These periodicals, which are usually issued weekly, provide information on topics of current interest, but their articles seldom have the depth or authority of scholarly articles.

Examples include: Newsweek , Time , U.S. News and World Report .

OPINION MAGAZINES : These periodicals contain articles aimed at an educated audience interested in keeping up with current events or ideas, especially those pertaining to topical issues. Very often their articles are written from a particular political, economic, or social point of view.

Examples include: Catholic World , Christianity Today , Commentary , Ms. , The Militant , Mother Jones , The Nation , National Review , The New Republic , The Progressive , and World Marxist Review .

TRADE MAGAZINES : People who need to keep up with developments in a particular industry or occupation read these magazines. Many trade magazines publish one or more special issues each year that focus on industry statistics, directory lists, or new product announcements.

Examples include: Beverage World , Progressive Grocer , Quick Frozen Foods International , Rubber World , Sales and Marketing Management , Skiing Trade News , and Stores .

Literature Reviews

• Literature Review Guide General information on how to organize and write a literature review.
• The Literature Review: A Few Tips On Conducting It Contains two sets of questions to help students review articles, and to review their own literature reviews.
• << Previous: Find E-Books and Books
• Next: Statistics >>
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 10:14 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unomaha.edu/social_work

• Richard G. Trefry Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article (or research study) and a review article?

• Course-Specific
• Textbooks & Course Materials
• Tutoring & Classroom Help
• Writing & Citing
• 44 Articles & Journals
• 5 Artificial Intelligence
• 11 Capstone/Thesis/Dissertation Research
• 37 Databases
• 56 Information Literacy
• 9 Interlibrary Loan
• 9 Need help getting started?
• 22 Technical Help

Answered By: Priscilla Coulter Last Updated: Jul 26, 2024     Views: 233602

A research paper is a primary source ...that is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors . The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors , and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

Research papers follow a particular format.  Look for:

• A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study.  This is important because it demonstrates that the authors are aware of existing studies, and are planning to contribute to this existing body of research in a meaningful way (that is, they're not just doing what others have already done).
• A methods section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data.  Statistical analyses are included.  This section is quite detailed, as it's important that other researchers be able to verify and/or replicate these methods.
• A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis.  Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.
• In the discussion , authors will explain their interpretation of their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.
• References or works cited are always included.  These are the articles and books that the authors drew upon to plan their study and to support their discussion.

You can use the library's databases  to search for research articles:

• A research article will nearly always be published in a peer-reviewed journal; click here for instructions on limiting your searches to peer-reviewed articles .  
• If you have a particular type of study in mind, you can include keywords to describe it in your search .  For instance, if you would like to see studies that used surveys to collect data, you can add "survey" to your topic in the database's search box. See this example search in our EBSCO databases: " bullying and survey ".   
• Several of our databases have special limiting options that allow you to select specific methodologies.  See, for instance, the " Methodology " box in ProQuest's PsycARTICLES Advanced Search (scroll down a bit to see it).  It includes options like "Empirical Study" and "Qualitative Study", among many others.  

A review article is a secondary source ...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own.  Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among exising research studies.  For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the existing literature on a topic.    If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!

You can use the library's article databases to find literature reviews as well!  Click here for tips.

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 7 No 1

Related Topics

• Articles & Journals
• Information Literacy

Need personalized help? Librarians are available 365 days/nights per year!  See our schedule.

Learn more about how librarians can help you succeed.    

Understanding Scientific Journals and Articles: How to approach reading journal articles

by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne E. Egger, Ph.D., Natalie H. Kuldell

Listen to this reading

Did you know that scientific literature goes all the way back to 600 BCE? Although scientific articles have changed some – for example, Isaac Newton wrote about the fun he had with prisms in a 1672 scientific article – the basics remain the same. This ensures that published research becomes part of the archive of scientific knowledge upon which other scientists can build.

Scientists make their research available to the community by publishing it in scientific journals.

In scientific papers, scientists explain the research that they are building on, their research methods, data and data analysis techniques, and their interpretation of the data.

Understanding how to read scientific papers is a critical skill for scientists and students of science.

We've all read the headlines at the supermarket checkout line: "Aliens Abduct New Jersey School Teacher" or "Quadruplets Born to 99-Year-Old Woman: Exclusive Photos Inside." Journals like the National Enquirer sell copies by publishing sensational headlines, and most readers believe only a fraction of what is printed. A person more interested in news than gossip could buy a publication like Time, Newsweek or Discover . These magazines publish information on current news and events, including recent scientific advances. These are not original reports of scientific research , however. In fact, most of these stories include phrases like, "A group of scientists recently published their findings on..." So where do scientists publish their findings?

Scientists publish their original research in scientific journals, which are fundamentally different from news magazines. The articles in scientific journals are not written by journalists – they are written by scientists. Scientific articles are not sensational stories intended to entertain the reader with an amazing discovery, nor are they news stories intended to summarize recent scientific events, nor even records of every successful and unsuccessful research venture. Instead, scientists write articles to describe their findings to the community in a transparent manner.

• Scientific journals vs. popular media

Within a scientific article, scientists present their research questions, the methods by which the question was approached, and the results they achieved using those methods. In addition, they present their analysis of the data and describe some of the interpretations and implications of their work. Because these articles report new work for the first time, they are called primary literature . In contrast, articles or news stories that review or report on scientific research already published elsewhere are referred to as secondary .

The articles in scientific journals are different from news articles in another way – they must undergo a process called peer review , in which other scientists (the professional peers of the authors) evaluate the quality and merit of research before recommending whether or not it should be published (see our Peer Review module). This is a much lengthier and more rigorous process than the editing and fact-checking that goes on at news organizations. The reason for this thorough evaluation by peers is that a scientific article is more than a snapshot of what is going on at a certain time in a scientist's research. Instead, it is a part of what is collectively called the scientific literature, a global archive of scientific knowledge. When published, each article expands the library of scientific literature available to all scientists and contributes to the overall knowledge base of the discipline of science.

Comprehension Checkpoint

• Scientific journals: Degrees of specialization

Figure 1: Nature : An example of a scientific journal.

There are thousands of scientific journals that publish research articles. These journals are diverse and can be distinguished according to their field of specialization. Among the most broadly targeted and competitive are journals like Cell , the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Nature , and Science that all publish a wide variety of research articles (see Figure 1 for an example). Cell focuses on all areas of biology, NEJM on medicine, and both Science and Nature publish articles in all areas of science. Scientists submit manuscripts for publication in these journals when they feel their work deserves the broadest possible audience.

Just below these journals in terms of their reach are the top-tier disciplinary journals like Analytical Chemistry, Applied Geochemistry, Neuron, Journal of Geophysical Research , and many others. These journals tend to publish broad-based research focused on specific disciplines, such as chemistry, geology, neurology, nuclear physics, etc.

Next in line are highly specialized journals, such as the American Journal of Potato Research, Grass and Forage Science, the Journal of Shellfish Research, Neuropeptides, Paleolimnology , and many more. While the research published in various journals does not differ in terms of the quality or the rigor of the science described, it does differ in its degree of specialization: These journals tend to be more specialized, and thus appeal to a more limited audience.

All of these journals play a critical role in the advancement of science and dissemination of information (see our Utilizing the Scientific Literature module for more information). However, to understand how science is disseminated through these journals, you must first understand how the articles themselves are formatted and what information they contain. While some details about format vary between journals and even between articles in the same journal, there are broad characteristics that all scientific journal articles share.

• The standard format of journal articles

In June of 2005, the journal Science published a research report on a sighting of the ivory-billed woodpecker, a bird long considered extinct in North America (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005). The work was of such significance and broad interest that it was displayed prominently on the cover (Figure 2) and highlighted by an editorial at the front of the journal (Kennedy, 2005). The authors were aware that their findings were likely to be controversial, and they worked especially hard to make their writing clear. Although the article has no headings within the text, it can easily be divided into sections:

Figure 2: A picture of the cover of Science from June 3, 2005.

Title and authors: The title of a scientific article should concisely and accurately summarize the research . Here, the title used is "Ivory-billed Woodpecker ( Campephilus principalis ) Persists in North America." While it is meant to capture attention, journals avoid using misleading or overly sensational titles (you can imagine that a tabloid might use the headline "Long-dead Giant Bird Attacks Canoeists!"). The names of all scientific contributors are listed as authors immediately after the title. You may be used to seeing one or maybe two authors for a book or newspaper article, but this article has seventeen authors! It's unlikely that all seventeen of those authors sat down in a room and wrote the manuscript together. Instead, the authorship reflects the distribution of the workload and responsibility for the research, in addition to the writing. By convention, the scientist who performed most of the work described in the article is listed first, and it is likely that the first author did most of the writing. Other authors had different contributions; for example, Gene Sparling is the person who originally spotted the bird in Arkansas and was subsequently contacted by the scientists at the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. In some cases, but not in the woodpecker article, the last author listed is the senior researcher on the project, or the scientist from whose lab the project originated. Increasingly, journals are requesting that authors detail their exact contributions to the research and writing associated with a particular study.

Abstract: The abstract is the first part of the article that appears right after the listing of authors in an article. In it, the authors briefly describe the research question, the general methods , and the major findings and implications of the work. Providing a summary like this at the beginning of an article serves two purposes: First, it gives readers a way to decide whether the article in question discusses research that interests them, and second, it is entered into literature databases as a means of providing more information to people doing scientific literature searches. For both purposes, it is important to have a short version of the full story. In this case, all of the critical information about the timing of the study, the type of data collected, and the potential interpretations of the findings is captured in four straightforward sentences as seen below:

The ivory-billed woodpecker ( Campephilus principalis ), long suspected to be extinct, has been rediscovered in the Big Woods region of eastern Arkansas. Visual encounters during 2004 and 2005, and analysis of a video clip from April 2004, confirm the existence of at least one male. Acoustic signatures consistent with Campephilus display drums also have been heard from the region. Extensive efforts to find birds away from the primary encounter site remain unsuccessful, but potential habitat for a thinly distributed source population is vast (over 220,000 hectares).

Introduction: The central research question and important background information are presented in the introduction. Because science is a process that builds on previous findings, relevant and established scientific knowledge is cited in this section and then listed in the References section at the end of the article. In many articles, a heading is used to set this and subsequent sections apart, but in the woodpecker article the introduction consists of the first three paragraphs, in which the history of the decline of the woodpecker and previous studies are cited. The introduction is intended to lead the reader to understand the authors' hypothesis and means of testing it. In addition, the introduction provides an opportunity for the authors to show that they are aware of the work that scientists have done before them and how their results fit in, explicitly building on existing knowledge.

Materials and methods: In this section, the authors describe the research methods they used (see The Practice of Science module for more information on these methods). All procedures, equipment, measurement parameters , etc. are described in detail sufficient for another researcher to evaluate and/or reproduce the research. In addition, authors explain the sources of error and procedures employed to reduce and measure the uncertainty in their data (see our Uncertainty, Error, and Confidence module). The detail given here allows other scientists to evaluate the quality of the data collected. This section varies dramatically depending on the type of research done. In an experimental study, the experimental set-up and procedure would be described in detail, including the variables , controls , and treatment . The woodpecker study used a descriptive research approach, and the materials and methods section is quite short, including the means by which the bird was initially spotted (on a kayaking trip) and later photographed and videotaped.

Results: The data collected during the research are presented in this section, both in written form and using tables, graphs, and figures (see our Using Graphs and Visual Data module). In addition, all statistical and data analysis techniques used are presented (see our Statistics in Science module). Importantly, the data should be presented separately from any interpretation by the authors. This separation of data from interpretation serves two purposes: First, it gives other scientists the opportunity to evaluate the quality of the actual data, and second, it allows others to develop their own interpretations of the findings based on their background knowledge and experience. In the woodpecker article, the data consist largely of photographs and videos (see Figure 3 for an example). The authors include both the raw data (the photograph) and their analysis (the measurement of the tree trunk and inferred length of the bird perched on the trunk). The sketch of the bird on the right-hand side of the photograph is also a form of analysis, in which the authors have simplified the photograph to highlight the features of interest. Keeping the raw data (in the form of a photograph) facilitated reanalysis by other scientists: In early 2006, a team of researchers led by the American ornithologist David Sibley reanalyzed the photograph in Figure 3 and came to the conclusion that the bird was not an ivory-billed woodpecker after all (Sibley et al, 2006).

Figure 3: An example of the data presented in the Ivory-billed woodpecker article (Fitzpatrick et al ., 2005, Figure 1).

Discussion and conclusions: In this section, authors present their interpretation of the data , often including a model or idea they feel best explains their results. They also present the strengths and significance of their work. Naturally, this is the most subjective section of a scientific research article as it presents interpretation as opposed to strictly methods and data, but it is not speculation by the authors. Instead, this is where the authors combine their experience, background knowledge, and creativity to explain the data and use the data as evidence in their interpretation (see our Data Analysis and Interpretation module). Often, the discussion section includes several possible explanations or interpretations of the data; the authors may then describe why they support one particular interpretation over the others. This is not just a process of hedging their bets – this how scientists say to their peers that they have done their homework and that there is more than one possible explanation. In the woodpecker article, for example, the authors go to great lengths to describe why they believe the bird they saw is an ivory-billed woodpecker rather than a variant of the more common pileated woodpecker, knowing that this is a likely potential rebuttal to their initial findings. A final component of the conclusions involves placing the current work back into a larger context by discussing the implications of the work. The authors of the woodpecker article do so by discussing the nature of the woodpecker habitat and how it might be better preserved.

In many articles, the results and discussion sections are combined, but regardless, the data are initially presented without interpretation .

References: Scientific progress requires building on existing knowledge, and previous findings are recognized by directly citing them in any new work. The citations are collected in one list, commonly called "References," although the precise format for each journal varies considerably. The reference list may seem like something you don't actually read, but in fact it can provide a wealth of information about whether the authors are citing the most recent work in their field or whether they are biased in their citations towards certain institutions or authors. In addition, the reference section provides readers of the article with more information about the particular research topic discussed. The reference list for the woodpecker article includes a wide variety of sources that includes books, other journal articles, and personal accounts of bird sightings.

Supporting material: Increasingly, journals make supporting material that does not fit into the article itself – like extensive data tables, detailed descriptions of methods , figures, and animations – available online. In this case, the video footage shot by the authors is available online, along with several other resources.

• Reading the primary literature

The format of a scientific article may seem overly structured compared to many other things you read, but it serves a purpose by providing an archive of scientific research in the primary literature that we can build on. Though isolated examples of that archive go as far back as 600 BCE (see the Babylonian tablets in our Description in Scientific Research module), the first consistently published scientific journal was the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , edited by Henry Oldenburg for the Royal Society beginning in 1666 (see our Scientific Institutions and Societies module). These early scientific writings include all of the components listed above, but the writing style is surprisingly different than a modern journal article. For example, Isaac Newton opened his 1672 article "New Theory About Light and Colours" with the following:

I shall without further ceremony acquaint you, that in the beginning of the Year 1666...I procured me a Triangular glass-Prisme, to try therewith the celebrated Phenomena of Colours . And in order thereto having darkened my chamber, and made a small hole in my window-shuts, to let in a convenient quantity of the Suns light, I placed my Prisme at his entrance, that it might be thereby refracted to the opposite wall. It was at first a very pleasing divertissement, to view the vivid and intense colours produced thereby; but after a while applying my self to consider them more circumspectly, I became surprised to see them in an oblong form; which, according to the received laws of Refraction, I expected should have been circular . (Newton, 1672)

Figure 4: Isaac Newton described the rainbow produced by a prism as a "pleasing divertissement."

Newton describes his materials and methods in the first few sentences ("... a small hole in my window-shuts"), describes his results ("an oblong form"), refers to the work that has come before him ("the received laws of Refraction"), and highlights how his results differ from his expectations. Today, however, Newton 's statement that the "colours" produced were a "very pleasing divertissement" would be out of place in a scientific article (Figure 4). Much more typically, modern scientific articles are written in an objective tone, typically without statements of personal opinion to avoid any appearance of bias in the interpretation of their results. Unfortunately, this tone often results in overuse of the passive voice, with statements like "a Triangular glass-Prisme was procured" instead of the wording Newton chose: "I procured me a Triangular glass-Prisme." The removal of the first person entirely from the articles reinforces the misconception that science is impersonal, boring, and void of creativity, lacking the enjoyment and surprise described by Newton. The tone can sometimes be misleading if the study involves many authors, making it unclear who did what work. The best scientific writers are able to both present their work in an objective tone and make their own contributions clear.

The scholarly vocabulary in scientific articles can be another obstacle to reading the primary literature. Materials and Methods sections often are highly technical in nature and can be confusing if you are not intimately familiar with the type of research being conducted. There is a reason for all of this vocabulary, however: An explicit, technical description of materials and methods provides a means for other scientists to evaluate the quality of the data presented and can often provide insight to scientists on how to replicate or extend the research described.

The tone and specialized vocabulary of the modern scientific article can make it hard to read, but understanding the purpose and requirements for each section can help you decipher the primary literature. Learning to read scientific articles is a skill, and like any other skill, it requires practice and experience to master. It is not, however, an impossible task.

Strange as it seems, the most efficient way to tackle a new article may be through a piecemeal approach, reading some but not all the sections and not necessarily in their order of appearance. For example, the abstract of an article will summarize its key points, but this section can often be dense and difficult to understand. Sometimes the end of the article may be a better place to start reading. In many cases, authors present a model that fits their data in this last section of the article. The discussion section may emphasize some themes or ideas that tie the story together, giving the reader some foundation for reading the article from the beginning. Even experienced scientists read articles this way – skimming the figures first, perhaps, or reading the discussion and then going back to the results. Often, it takes a scientist multiple readings to truly understand the authors' work and incorporate it into their personal knowledge base in order to build on that knowledge.

• Building knowledge and facilitating discussion

The process of science does not stop with the publication of the results of research in a scientific article. In fact, in some ways, publication is just the beginning. Scientific journals also provide a means for other scientists to respond to the work they publish; like many newspapers and magazines, most scientific journals publish letters from their readers.

Unlike the common "Letters to the Editor" of a newspaper, however, the letters in scientific journals are usually critical responses to the authors of a research study in which alternative interpretations are outlined. When such a letter is received by a journal editor, it is typically given to the original authors so that they can respond, and both the letter and response are published together. Nine months after the original publication of the woodpecker article, Science published a letter (called a "Comment") from David Sibley and three of his colleagues, who reinterpreted the Fitzpatrick team's data and concluded that the bird in question was a more common pileated woodpecker, not an ivory-billed woodpecker (Sibley et al., 2006). The team from the Cornell lab wrote a response supporting their initial conclusions, and Sibley's team followed that up with a response of their own in 2007 (Fitzpatrick et al., 2006; Sibley at al., 2007). As expected, the research has generated significant scientific controversy and, in addition, has captured the attention of the public, spreading the story of the controversy into the popular media.

For more information about this story see The Case of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker module.

Table of Contents

Activate glossary term highlighting to easily identify key terms within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on these terms to view their definitions.

Activate NGSS annotations to easily identify NGSS standards within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on them to view these standards.

Research Article vs. Research Paper

What's the difference.

A research article and a research paper are both scholarly documents that present the findings of a research study. However, there are some differences between the two. A research article is typically a shorter document that is published in a peer-reviewed journal. It focuses on a specific research question and provides a concise summary of the study's methodology, results, and conclusions. On the other hand, a research paper is usually a longer document that provides a more comprehensive analysis of a research topic. It often includes a literature review, detailed methodology, extensive data analysis, and a discussion of the implications of the findings. While both types of documents contribute to the scientific knowledge base, research papers tend to be more in-depth and provide a more thorough exploration of the research topic.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Research articles and research papers are both essential components of academic and scientific discourse. They serve as vehicles for sharing knowledge, presenting findings, and contributing to the advancement of various fields of study. While the terms "research article" and "research paper" are often used interchangeably, there are subtle differences in their attributes and purposes. In this article, we will explore and compare the key characteristics of research articles and research papers.

Definition and Purpose

A research article is a concise and focused piece of scholarly writing that typically appears in academic journals. It presents original research, experiments, or studies conducted by the author(s) and aims to communicate the findings to the scientific community. Research articles often follow a specific structure, including an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.

On the other hand, a research paper is a broader term that encompasses various types of academic writing, including research articles. While research papers can also be published in journals, they can take other forms such as conference papers, dissertations, or theses. Research papers provide a more comprehensive exploration of a particular topic, often including a literature review, theoretical framework, and in-depth analysis of the research question.

Length and Depth

Research articles are typically shorter in length compared to research papers. They are usually limited to a specific word count, often ranging from 3000 to 8000 words, depending on the journal's guidelines. Due to their concise nature, research articles focus on presenting the core findings and their implications without delving extensively into background information or theoretical frameworks.

On the other hand, research papers tend to be longer and more comprehensive. They can range from 5000 to 20,000 words or more, depending on the scope of the research and the requirements of the academic institution or conference. Research papers provide a deeper analysis of the topic, including an extensive literature review, theoretical framework, and detailed methodology section.

Structure and Organization

Research articles follow a standardized structure to ensure clarity and consistency across different publications. They typically begin with an abstract, which provides a concise summary of the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions. The introduction section provides background information, states the research problem, and outlines the objectives of the study. The methodology section describes the research design, data collection methods, and statistical analysis techniques used. The results section presents the findings, often accompanied by tables, figures, or graphs. The discussion section interprets the results, compares them with previous studies, and discusses their implications. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the main findings and suggests future research directions.

Research papers, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure depending on the specific requirements of the academic institution or conference. While they may include similar sections as research articles, such as an abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion, research papers can also incorporate additional sections such as a literature review, theoretical framework, or appendices. The structure of a research paper is often determined by the depth and complexity of the research conducted.

Publication and Audience

Research articles are primarily published in academic journals, which serve as platforms for disseminating new knowledge within specific disciplines. These journals often have a rigorous peer-review process, where experts in the field evaluate the quality and validity of the research before publication. Research articles are targeted towards a specialized audience of researchers, scholars, and professionals in the respective field.

Research papers, on the other hand, can be published in various formats and venues. They can be presented at conferences, published as chapters in books, or submitted as dissertations or theses. While research papers can also undergo peer-review, they may have a broader audience, including researchers, students, and professionals interested in the topic. The publication of research papers allows for a wider dissemination of knowledge beyond the confines of academic journals.

In conclusion, research articles and research papers are both vital components of academic and scientific discourse. While research articles are concise and focused pieces of scholarly writing that present original research findings, research papers provide a more comprehensive exploration of a particular topic. Research articles follow a standardized structure and are primarily published in academic journals, targeting a specialized audience. On the other hand, research papers have a more flexible structure and can be published in various formats, allowing for a wider dissemination of knowledge. Understanding the attributes and purposes of research articles and research papers is crucial for researchers, scholars, and students alike, as it enables effective communication and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in various fields.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• Become Involved |
• Give to the Library |
• Staff Directory |
• UNF Library
• Thomas G. Carpenter Library

Article Types: What's the Difference Between Newspapers, Magazines, and Journals?

• Journal Articles
• Definitions
• Choosing What's Best

Journal Article Characteristics

• Magazine Articles
• Trade Magazine/Journal Articles
• Newspaper Articles
• Newsletter Articles

PMLA -- Publications of the Modern Language Association (an example of an academic journal)

Analyzing a Journal Article

Authors : Authors of journal articles are usually affiliated with universities, research institutions, or professional associations. Author degrees are usually specified with the author names, as are the affiliations.

Abstract : The article text is usually preceded with an abstract. The abstract will provide an overview of what the article discusses or reveals and frequently is useful in identifying articles that report the results of scientific studies. Use of Professional Terminology and Language: The language used in journal articles is specific to the subject matter being covered by the journal. For example, an article written for a psychological journal is written in an academic rather than popular style and will make heavy use of psychological terms.

In Text References : Journal articles normally will be profusely documented with sources that have provided information to the article authors and/or that provide further related information. Documentation of sources can be handled by in-text parenthetical references (MLA, APA, Chicago sciences styles), by the use of footnotes (Chicago humanities style), or by the use of endnotes (Turabian style). Individual journals will specify their own requirements for documentation.

Bibliography : Because journal articles use numerous sources as documentation, these sources are often referenced in an alphabetically or numerically arranged bibliography located at the end of the article. Format of the bibliography will vary depending on the documentation style used in the article.

Charts, Graphs, Tables, Statistical Data : Articles that result from research studies will often include statistical data gathered during the course of the studies. These data are often presented in charts and tables.

Length of Article : Journal articles, in general, tend to be fairly lengthy, often consisting of a dozen or more pages. Some journals also publish book reviews. These are typically brief and should not be confused with the full-length research articles that the journal focuses on.

Use of volume and issue numbering : Journals normally make use of volume and issue numbering to help identify individual issues in their series. Normally a volume will encompass an entire year's worth of a journal's issues. For example, a journal that is published four times yearly (quarterly) will have four issues in its yearly volume. Issues may be identified solely with numbers or with both numbers and date designations. For example, a quarterly journal will typically number its issues 1 through 4, but it might also assign season designations to the individual numbers, such as Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. A monthly journal will have twelve issues in a yearly volume and might use the month names along with the issue numbers (issue 1, January; issue 2, February; and so on). Some magazines, trade publications, and newspapers might also make use of volume and issue numbering, so this isn't always the best indicator.

Subject Focus : Journals typically gather and publish research that focuses on a very specific field of inquiry, like criminology, or southern history, or statistics.

Overall Appearance : Journals are typically heavy on text and light on illustration. Journal covers tend toward the plain with an emphasis on highlighting key research articles that appear within a particular issue.

• << Previous: Choosing What's Best
• Next: Magazine Articles >>
• Last Updated: Aug 16, 2024 10:00 AM
• URL: https://libguides.unf.edu/articletypes

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How do research papers differ from research articles? [duplicate]

What is the difference between a research paper and a research article? Frequently these two terms are considered in the same category. So, what features distinguish these two terms?

• publications
• terminology

• I always thought paper to be a kind of slang :) –  Alchimista Commented Mar 24, 2019 at 12:12

2 Answers 2

Research article refers mainly to research published in a journal, whereas research paper refers to a research report whether it is a published one or not.

I don't think you will find a general definition that is universally applicable. But a research article could, in some cases, be a work that covers a number of papers, or the work of many people, and that attempts to bring ideas together, rather than to present fresh research itself.

A research paper, probably is more specific, presenting the work of some particular author(s) on a particular project.

Thus a research paper, presents an advancement in a field, whereas an article can be more general, not tied to a specific project, but generalizing a bit to give context to other work and bring it together.

But others can have different definitions, and this is just a personal observation. Your usage may vary. And I notice from other comments made here, that there are other views. Some will use the terms interchangeably, of course.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged publications terminology .

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Unreachable statement wen upgrading APEX class version
• Is It Possible to Assign Meaningful Amplitudes to Properties in Quantum Mechanics?
• ambobus? (a morphologically peculiar adjective with a peculiar syntax here)
• Dial “M” for murder
• Someone said 24-hour time for 0215 can be 零二么五小時 --- Why would 么 be used instead of 幺? Havent these 2 characters been different for nearly 70 years?
• Physical basis of "forced harmonics" on a violin
• Who became an oligarch after the collapse of the USSR
• What is the meaning of "Exit, pursued by a bear"?
• Is there a way to say "wink wink" or "nudge nudge" in German?
• How to read data from Philips P2000C over its serial port to a modern computer?
• How did Jason Bourne know the garbage man isn't CIA?
• Bottom bracket: What to do about rust in cup + blemish on spindle?
• Function to find the most common numeric ordered pairings (value, count)
• Simple JSON parser in lisp
• Is Hilbert's epsilon calculus a conservative extension of intuitionist logic?
• Were there mistakes in converting Dijkstra's Algol-60 compiler to Pascal?
• Is there a law against biohacking your pet?
• Using illustrations and comics in dissertations
• The complement of a properly embedded annulus in a handlebody is a handlebody
• Can police offer an “immune interview”?
• QGIS selecting multiple features per each feature, based on attribute value of each feature
• Symbol between two columns in a table
• Can I use "Member, IEEE" as my affiliation for publishing papers?
• Word to classify what powers a god is associated with?

Maxwell Library | Bridgewater State University

Today's Hours: 

• Maxwell Library
• Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines
• Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

Scholarly Journals and Popular Magazines: Differences in Research, Review, and Opinion Articles

• Where Do I Start?
• How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles?
• How Do I Compare Periodical Types?
• Where Can I find More Information?

Research Articles, Reviews, and Opinion Pieces

Scholarly or research articles are written for experts in their fields. They are often peer-reviewed or reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication. They often have terminology or jargon that is field specific. They are generally lengthy articles. Social science and science scholarly articles have similar structures as do arts and humanities scholarly articles. Not all items in a scholarly journal are peer reviewed. For example, an editorial opinion items can be published in a scholarly journal but the article itself is not scholarly. Scholarly journals may include book reviews or other content that have not been peer reviewed.

Empirical Study: (Original or Primary) based on observation, experimentation, or study. Clinical trials, clinical case studies, and most meta-analyses are empirical studies.

Review Article: (Secondary Sources) Article that summarizes the research in a particular subject, area, or topic. They often include a summary, an literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Clinical case study (Primary or Original sources): These articles provide real cases from medical or clinical practice. They often include symptoms and diagnosis.

Clinical trials ( Health Research): Th ese articles are often based on large groups of people. They often include methods and control studies. They tend to be lengthy articles.

Opinion Piece:  An opinion piece often includes personal thoughts, beliefs, or feelings or a judgement or conclusion based on facts. The goal may be to persuade or influence the reader that their position on this topic is the best.

Book review: Recent review of books in the field. They may be several pages but tend to be fairly short. 

Social Science and Science Research Articles

The majority of social science and physical science articles include

• Journal Title and Author
• Abstract 
• Introduction with a hypothesis or thesis
• Literature Review
• Methods/Methodology
• Results/Findings

Arts and Humanities Research Articles

In the Arts and Humanities, scholarly articles tend to be less formatted than in the social sciences and sciences. In the humanities, scholars are not conducting the same kinds of research experiments, but they are still using evidence to draw logical conclusions.  Common sections of these articles include:

• an Introduction
• Discussion/Conclusion
• works cited/References/Bibliography

Research versus Review Articles

• 6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers
• INFOGRAPHIC: 5 Differences between a research paper and a review paper
• Michigan State University. Empirical vs Review Articles
• UC Merced Library. Empirical & Review Articles
• << Previous: Where Do I Start?
• Next: How Do I Find Peer-Reviewed Articles? >>
• Last Updated: Jan 24, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://library.bridgew.edu/scholarly

Phone: 508.531.1392 Text: 508.425.4096 Email: [email protected]

Feedback/Comments

Privacy Policy

Website Accessibility

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

• Georgia State University Library
• Help and Answers

Q. What's a scholarly journal, academic journal, or peer-reviewed journal?

• 22 About the Library
• 19 Borrowing Services
• 22 Business
• 17 Catalog (GIL-Find)
• 12 Citations
• 16 Computers, Wi-Fi & Software
• 27 Databases & GALILEO
• 15 Faculty & Graduate Students
• 6 iCollege & Online Students
• 7 Interlibrary Loan & GIL Express
• 6 Logging In & Passwords
• 8 Policies, Fines & Fees
• 9 Print, Copy & Scan
• 36 Research Help & Services
• 7 Reserves, Textbooks & OER
• 25 Spaces and Locations
• 15 Video & Film

Answered By: Mary Ann Cullen Last Updated: Jul 29, 2020     Views: 22092

"Scholarly Journal" and "Academic Journal" are two words for the same thing. Scholarly journals publish articles—usually articles about research—written by experts (scholars) in the field of study.

Usually, articles in these publications go through a "peer-review" process, which means other experts (peers) on the topic of the article weigh in on the quality of the article and the research it presents as well as the article's importance in their field of study. ( This video explains more ). Many professors will require you to use scholarly sources because they are more credible than articles published in popular magazines or on most websites.

Many databases label articles as being published in either a scholarly journal or a popular magazine . What's the difference?

For more help,  ask a librarian.

updated 6/30/2020 kas

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 22 No 6

Comments (0)

Related topics.

• Research Help & Services

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Research Tips and Tools

Articles, Books and . . . ? Understanding the Many Types of Information Found in Libraries

• Reference Sources

Academic Journals

Magazines and trade journals, conference papers, technical reports, anthologies.

• Documents and Reports
• Non-Text Content
• Archival Materials

Because of their short length, articles often exclude background info and explanations, so they're usually the last stop in your research process, after you've narrowed down your topic and need to find very specific information.

The main thing to remember about articles is that they're almost always published in some larger work , like a journal, a newspaper, or an anthology. It's those "article containers" that define the types of articles, how you use them, and how you find them.

Articles are also the main reason we have so many databases . The Library Catalog lists everything we own, but only at the level of whole books and journals. It will tell you we have the New York Times, and for what dates, but it doesn't know what articles are in it. Search in UC Library Search using the "Articles, books, and more" scope will search all the databases we subscribe to and some we don't. If you find something we do not own, you can request it on Interlibrary Loan.

Physical Media

While newer journals and magazines are usually online, many older issues are still only available in paper. In addition, many of our online subscriptions explicitly don't include the latest material, specifically to encourage sales of print subscriptions. Older newspapers are usually transferred to microfilm.

Scholarly Sources

The terms academic or scholarly journal are usually synonymous with peer-reviewed , but check the journal's publishing policies to be sure. Trade journals, magazines, and newspapers are rarely peer-reviewed.

Primary or Secondary Sources

In the social sciences and humanities, articles are usually secondary sources; the exceptions are articles reporting original research findings from field studies. Primary source articles are more common in the physical and life sciences, where many articles are reporting primary research results from experiments, case studies, and clinical trials.

Clues that you're reading an academic article

• Footnotes or endnotes
• Bilbliography or list of references

Articles in academic (peer-reviewed) journals are the primary forum for scholarly communication, where scholars introduce and debate new ideas and research. They're usually not written for laymen, and assume familiarity with other recent work in the field. Journal articles also tend to be narrowly focused, concentrating on analysis of one or two creative works or studies, though they may also contain review articles or literature reviews which summarize recent published work in a field.

In addition to regular articles, academic journals often include book reviews (of scholarly books ) and letters from readers commenting on recent articles.

Clues that you're reading a non -academic article

• Decorative photos
• Advertisements

Unlike scholarly journals, magazines are written for a mainstream audience and are not peer-reviewed. A handful of academic journals (like Science and Nature ) blur the line between these two categories; they publish peer-reviewed articles, but combine them with news, opinions, and full-color photos in a magazine-style presentation.

Trade journals are targeted toward a specific profession or industry. Despite the name, they are usually not peer-reviewed. However, they sometimes represent a gray area between popular magazines and scholarly journals. When in doubt, ask your professor or TA whether a specific source is acceptable.

Newspapers as Primary Sources

Though usually written by journalists who were not direct witnesses to events, newspapers and news broadcasts may include quotes or interviews from people who were. In the absence of first-person accounts, contemporary news reports may be the closest thing to a primary source available.

Of all the content types listed here, newspapers are the fastest to publish. Use newspaper articles to find information about recent events and contemporary reports of/reactions to historic events.

• News by UCLA Library Last Updated Aug 6, 2024 8885 views this year

Reviews are a type of article that can appear in any of the categories above. The type of publication will usually determine the type of review. Newspapers and magazines review movies, plays, general interest books, and consumer products. Academic journals review scholarly books.

Note that a review is not the same as scholarly analysis and criticism! Book reviews, even in scholarly journals, are usually not peer-reviewed.

Conference papers aren't always published and can be tricky to find . Recent conference papers are often online, along with the PowerPoint files or other materials used in the actual presentation. However, access may be limited to conference participants and/or members of the academic organization which sponsored the conference.

In paper formats, all of the papers from a certain conference may be re-printed in the conference proceedings . Search for Proceedings of the [name of conference] to find what's available, or ask for help from a librarian. But be aware that published proceedings may only include abstracts or even just the name of the presenter and the title of the presentation. This is especially true of poster presentations , which really are large graphic posters (which don't translate well to either printed books or computer monitors).

As the name implies, most technical reports are about research in the physical sciences or engineering. However, there are also technical reports produced in the life and social sciences,

Like conference papers , some technical reports are eventually transformed into academic journal articles , but they may also be released after a journal article to provide supplementary data that didn't fit within the article. Also like conference papers, technical reports can be hard to find , especially older reports which may only be available in microfiche . Ask for help from a librarian!

Anthologies are a cross-over example. They're books that contain articles (chapters). Anthologies may be collections of articles by a single author, or collections of articles on a theme from different authors chosen by an editor. Many anthologies reprint articles already published elsewhere, but some contain original works.

Anthologies are rarely peer-reviewed, but they still may be considered scholarly works, depending on the reputation of the authors and editors. Use the same criteria listed for scholarly books .

Of course, reprints of articles originally published in peer-reviewed journals retain their "scholarly" status. (Note that most style manuals have special rules for citing reprinted works.)

• << Previous: Books
• Next: Documents and Reports >>
• Last Updated: May 16, 2024 10:30 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/content-types

• About The Journalist’s Resource
• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

White papers, working papers, preprints, journal articles: What’s the difference?

In this updated piece, we explain the most common types of research papers journalists will encounter, noting their strengths and weaknesses.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource February 25, 2022

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/media/working-papers-research-articles/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

This tip sheet, originally published in May 2018, has been updated to include preprint research, a type of research featured often in news coverage of the coronavirus pandemic.

Journalists rely most often on four types of research in their work. White papers, working papers, preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles.

How are they different? And which is best?

Below, we explain each, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. As always, we urge journalists to use care in selecting any research to ground their coverage and fact-check claims.

Peer-reviewed article

Peer-reviewed research — the kind that appears in academic journals and that we highlight here at The Journalist’s Resource — has undergone a detailed critique by scholars with expertise in the field. While peer-reviewed research is generally the most reliable, journalists should keep in mind that publication in a prestigious journal is no guarantee of quality and that no single university or research organization always does the best research on a given topic.

It is safe to assume, however, that articles published in top-tier journals have been reviewed and given a stamp of approval by a number of accomplished scholars. For journalists who are uncertain, we’ve put together a list of 13 questions  to ask to gauge the quality of a research article.

Keep in mind that not everything that appears in a scholarly journal has been peer reviewed. Journals publish various types of content, including book reviews, editorials, letters to the editor and, sometimes, even poetry.

Working paper

This broad category describes research papers that have not been peer reviewed or published in a journal. Working papers can be in various stages of completion. One might be ready for publication in a prestigious journal while another requires significant editing and other changes that could actually alter its main findings. Sometimes, working paper findings are so preliminary, authors will advise against citing their work .

Even so, working papers are a great way for journalists to gain access to new research quickly. The peer-review and publication process can take months to a year or longer, which means that by the time studies get published, their findings are sometimes not as useful or the data are old.

In choosing working papers, journalists should communicate with scholars about the progress of their research and how confident they are in their findings. It’s a good idea to seek corroboration from peer-reviewed research and to ask other researchers for help assessing a study.

A preprint is similar to a working paper in that it has not been vetted through a formal peer-review process. However, preprints tend to be more complete . Also, preprints submitted to public servers such as the Social Science Research Network and the health sciences server medRxiv get a cursory screening before they’re published online for public view.

Preprints, like academic journal articles, are assigned a Digital Object Identifier , or DOI, and become a permanent part of the scientific record.

White paper

A white paper is a report, often compiled by government agencies, businesses and nonprofit organizations, that outlines an issue and often explores possible solutions to a problem. For example, in November 2021, the federal Office of Community Oriented Policing Services released a white paper looking at factors that help or hinder law enforcement recruitment of Black Americans. Earlier in the year, the Advanced Technology Academic Research Center published a white paper on the American Rescue Plan ‘s widespread implications for government agencies.

In the business world, white papers also are used for marketing purposes — to describe a new product or approach, for instance, or diagnose a problem.

While a white paper can help journalists get up to speed quickly on an issue, it’s important to note some white papers advocate a specific position or policy change. Some rely on incomplete research or research that has not been peer reviewed.

Looking for more guidance on writing about research? Check out our tip sheets on covering biomedical research preprints amid the coronavirus and what journalists should know about peer review .

The Journalist’s Resource would like to thank Matthew Baum , the Marvin Kalb professor of global communications and professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, for his help preparing this tip sheet.

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

International Journal of Research (IJR)

IJR Journal is Multidisciplinary, high impact and indexed journal for research publication. IJR is a monthly journal for research publication.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESEARCH PAPER AND JOURNAL ARTICLE

Difference between research paper and journal article.

Research Paper

Argumentative Research Paper

Analytical research paper, journal article, the differences, research paper:, journal article:.

• Share on Tumblr

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

NFS 4021 Contemporary Topics in Nutrition: Research Articles vs Review Articles

• Research Articles vs Review Articles
• Citation Help

Agriculture Support Librarian

Research Articles and Review Articles Defined Review

"A  research article  is a  primary source ...that is, it  reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors . The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors, and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

A  review article  is a  secondary source ...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own.  Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among existing research studies.   For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the existing literature on a topic.    If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!"

From  https://apus.libanswers.com/faq/2324 , "What's the difference between a research and a review article?"

• Example of a RESEARCH Article Lin CL, Huang LC, Chang YT, Chen RY, Yang SH. Effectiveness of Health Coaching in Diabetes Control and Lifestyle Improvement: A Randomized-Controlled Trial. Nutrients. 2021 Oct 29;13(11):3878.
• Example of a REVIEW Article Ojo O, Ojo OO, Adebowale F, Wang XH. The Effect of Dietary Glycaemic Index on Glycaemia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2018 Mar 19;10(3):373.

Difference between Reviews and Research Articles

Research Article Break Down Review

Research articles follow a particular format.  Look for:

• A brief  introduction  will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study.
• A  methods  section, where authors describe how they collected and analyzed data.  Statistical analysis are included.  
• A  results  section describes the outcomes of the data analysis.  Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.
• In the  discussion , authors will explain their interpretation of their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.
• References  or  works cited  are always included.  These are the articles and books that the authors drew upon to plan their study and to support their discussion.
• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Databases >>
• Last Updated: Mar 1, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.lsu.edu/NFS4021

Provide Website Feedback Accessibility Statement

• Library Research Strategies
• The research process
• Defining your topic and crafting your research question
• Identifying search terms from your question
• Broaden or narrow your search
• Find background information
• Search across multiple article databases
• Search individual article databases
• When you know in advance which publication you are looking for
• Interlibrary loan
• Search for books and ebooks
• Locating books and ebooks after you search
• Types of sources

Distinguishing between different types of journal articles

• Components of a scholarly article, and things to consider when reading one
• Critically evaluating articles & other sources
• Literature reviews (opens a new guide) This link opens in a new window
• Annotated bibliographies
• Writing tools
• Citing sources (opens a new guide) This link opens in a new window
• Understanding & Avoiding Plagiarism (opens a new guide) This link opens in a new window

Ask a Librarian

Visit a librarian at the  Reference Desk  on the first floor of Ablah Library or contact a  Subject Librarian  to make an appointment.  See the full schedule  of library hours for the main library (Ablah) and for the Chemistry and Music branch libraries. Ablah Library hours are also available on an automated phone line: 316-978-3581.

Circulation Desk (Ablah Library)  316-978-3582 Reference Desk (Ablah Library)  316-978-3584 Music Library  316-978-3029 Chemistry Library  316-978-3764 Interlibrary Loan  316-978-3167

Email  a librarian with your question.

When writing a paper or conducting academic research, you’ll come across many different types of sources, including periodical articles. Periodical articles can be comprised of news accounts, opinion, commentary, scholarly analysis, and/or reports of research findings. There are three main types of periodicals that you will encounter: scholarly/academic, trade, and popular.  The chart below will help you identify which type of periodical your article comes from.

Text and chart adapted from the WSU University Libraries' How to Distinguish Between Types of Periodicals  and Types of Periodicals guides

What makes information peer-reviewed vs. scholarly vs. non-scholarly? Which type of source should I use?

• What makes information peer-reviewed vs. scholarly vs. non-scholarly?
• Which type of source should I use?

There is a nuanced distinction between peer-review and scholarship, which typically doesn't matter when evaluating sources for possible citation in your own work.  Peer-review is a process through which editors of a journal have other experts in the field evaluate articles submitted to the journal for possible publication.  Different journals have different ways of defining an expert in the field.  Scholarly works, by contrast have an editorial process, but this process does not involve expert peer-reviewers.  Rather, one or more editors, who are themselves often highly decorated scholars in a field, evaluate submissions for possible publication.  This editorial process can be more economically driven than a peer-review process, with a greater emphasis on marketing and selling the published material, but as a general rule this distinction is trivial with regard to evaluating information for possible citation in your own work.

What is perhaps a more salient way of thinking about the peer-review / scholarship distinction is to recognize that while peer-reviewed information is typically highly authoritative, and is generally considered "good" information, the absence of a peer-review process doesn't automatically make information "bad."  More specifically, the only thing the absence of a peer-review process means is that information published in this manner is not peer-reviewed.  Nothing more.  Information that falls into this category is sometimes referred to as "non-scholarly" information -- but again, that doesn't mean this information is somehow necessarily problematic.

Where does that leave you in terms of deciding what type of information to use in producing your own work?  That is a highly individual decision that you must make.  The Which type of source should I use?  tab in this box offers further guidance on answering this question, though it is important to be aware that many WSU instructors will only consider peer-reviewed sources to be acceptable in the coursework you turn in .  You can ask your instructor for his or her thoughts on the types of sources s/he will accept in student work.

Image:  Martin Grater. (2017, Nov. 1). Deep Thought. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/152721954@N05/24304490568/. Used under the Creative Commons License.

Your topic and research question or thesis statement will guide you on which resources are best.  Sources can be defined as primary, secondary and tertiary levels away from an event or original idea. Researchers may want to start with tertiary or secondary source for background information. Learning more about a topic will help most researchers make better use of primary sources.

While articles from scholarly journals are often the most prominent of the sources you will consider incorporating into your coursework, they are not the only sources available to you.  Which sources are most appropriate to your research is a direct consequence of they type of research question you decide to address.  In other words, while most university-level papers will require you to reference scholarly sources, not all will.  A student in an English course writing a paper analyzing Bob Dylan's lyrics, for example, may find an interview with Dylan published in Rolling Stone magazine a useful source to cite alongside other scholarly works of literary criticism.

The WSU University Libraries' What Sources Should I Use? handout, as well as the other sub-tabs under the  Evaluating information  section of this guide (which is indeed the section you are currently viewing) offer further guidance on understanding and identifying scholarly resources, and comparing them against different criteria to evaluate if they will be of value to your research.  How many non-scholarly works (if any) you are at liberty to cite alongside scholarly ones is often a question to ask of your professor.  Some may not want you to cite any, whereas others may be ok with some non-scholarly works cited alongside scholarly ones.

Image:  Brett Woods. (2006, Jan. 6). Deep Thoughts. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/brettanicus/87653641/. Used under the Creative Commons License.

• << Previous: Types of sources
• Next: Components of a scholarly article, and things to consider when reading one >>
• Last Updated: Jul 8, 2024 8:07 AM
• URL: https://libraries.wichita.edu/library-research-strategies

• Privacy Policy

Home » Review Article vs Research Article

Review Article vs Research Article

Table of Contents

Review articles and Research Articles are two different types of scholarly publications that serve distinct purposes in the academic literature.

Research Articles

A Research Article is a primary source that presents original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis. These articles typically follow a standard format that includes an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Research articles often include detailed descriptions of the research design, data collection and analysis procedures, and the results of statistical tests. These articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet rigorous scientific standards before publication.

Review Articles

A Review Article is a secondary source that summarizes and analyzes existing research on a particular topic or research question. These articles provide an overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic, including a critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of previous research. Review articles often include a meta-analysis of the existing literature, which involves combining and analyzing data from multiple studies to draw more general conclusions about the research question or topic. Review articles are also typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.

Difference Between Review Article and Research Article

Here are some key differences between review articles and research articles:

In summary, research articles and review articles serve different purposes in the academic literature. Research articles present original research findings based on a specific research question or hypothesis, while review articles summarize and analyze existing research on a particular topic or research question. Both types of articles are typically peer-reviewed to ensure that they meet high standards of scientific rigor and accuracy.

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Exploratory Vs Explanatory Research

Basic Vs Applied Research

Correlational Research Vs Experimental Research

Research Hypothesis Vs Null Hypothesis

Longitudinal Vs Cross-Sectional Research

Clinical Research Vs Lab Research

Journal Article vs Research Paper: Difference and Comparison

Sharing is caring!

A journal article presents original research findings in a concise format, focusing on a specific topic within a broader field. It undergoes peer review before publication, ensuring quality and validity. On the other hand, a research paper is a comprehensive document that may include multiple experiments, analyses, and discussions, aimed at contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Key Takeaways A journal article is a shorter scholarly writing published in a specific academic journal. A research paper is a more extended, comprehensive academic writing presenting original research. Journal articles are more focused and present specific findings, while research papers are broader and present a more comprehensive study.

Journal Article vs Research Paper

A journal article is a piece of published work that presents the research findings and may include analysis, remark, or discussion. A research paper is a detailed account of the research that may be published or unpublished and includes an introduction, literature review, methods, results, and conclusion.

Comparison Table

What is Journal Article?

A journal article is a scholarly publication that presents the findings of original research, analysis, or review within a particular academic field. These articles serve as fundamental units of scholarly communication, disseminating new knowledge, theories, and insights to the academic community and beyond. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

Content and Structure

1 Abstract: A journal article begins with an abstract, a concise summary of the study’s objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. The abstract provides readers with a quick overview of the article’s content and findings.

Similar Reads

• A Journal vs An Article: Difference and Comparison
• Wax Paper vs Baking Paper: Difference and Comparison
• Parchment Paper vs Wax Paper: Difference and Comparison
• Research Method vs Research Methodology: Difference and Comparison
• Marketing Research vs Market Research: Difference and Comparison

2 Introduction: Following the abstract, the introduction sets the context for the study by reviewing relevant literature, identifying gaps or controversies in existing knowledge, and stating the research objectives or hypotheses.

3 Methods: The methods section outlines the procedures, materials, and techniques used to conduct the study. It should provide sufficient detail to enable replication of the experiment or analysis by other researchers.

4 Results: This section presents the findings of the study, using tables, figures, or graphs to illustrate data. Authors describe the results objectively, without interpretation or speculation.

5 Discussion: In the discussion section, authors interpret the results in light of the study’s objectives and existing literature. They may address the implications of their findings, suggest future research directions, and discuss limitations or potential sources of bias.

6 Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and highlights their significance. It may also reiterate the study’s contribution to the field and offer final reflections or recommendations.

Peer Review Process:

1 Submission: Authors submit their articles to scholarly journals for publication consideration, adhering to the journal’s guidelines and formatting requirements.

2 Peer Review: Upon submission, the journal’s editor assigns the manuscript to peer reviewers—experts in the field—who evaluate the article’s quality, originality, methodology, and significance. Peer review helps ensure the rigor and credibility of the research.

3 Revision: Based on the reviewers’ feedback, authors may revise their article to address any concerns or criticisms raised. This iterative process of revision and reevaluation continues until the article meets the journal’s standards for publication.

4 Acceptance and Publication: If the article meets the journal’s criteria, it is accepted for publication and undergoes final editing and formatting. Once published, the article becomes part of the journal’s archive and is accessible to readers worldwide.

What is Research Paper?

A research paper is a comprehensive document that presents the findings, analysis, and interpretations of original research conducted by the author(s) within a specific academic discipline. These papers serve as a means for scholars to contribute new knowledge, theories, and insights to their respective fields. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

1. Content and Structure

1 Introduction: The introduction of a research paper provides background information on the topic, reviews relevant literature, and outlines the research objectives or hypotheses. It establishes the context for the study and justifies its significance.

2 Methods: The methods section describes the procedures, materials, and techniques employed in the research. It should provide sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate the study and verify its results.

3 Results: This section presents the empirical findings of the research, using tables, figures, or graphs to illustrate data. Authors report their observations or measurements objectively, without interpretation or speculation.

4 Discussion: In the discussion section, authors interpret the results in light of the research questions or hypotheses, comparing them to previous studies and addressing their implications. They may also explore alternative explanations, limitations of the study, and avenues for future research.

5 Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the research and highlights their significance. It may reiterate the study’s contribution to the field, offer final reflections, and suggest directions for further inquiry.

Characteristics and Scope

1 Original Research: Unlike review papers or essays, research papers are based on original research conducted by the authors. They contribute new data, insights, or interpretations to the academic discourse.

2 Rigorous Methodology: Research papers adhere to rigorous scientific or scholarly methodologies, employing systematic approaches to data collection, analysis, and interpretation. They prioritize objectivity, validity, and reliability in their findings.

3 Length and Complexity: Research papers vary in length and complexity, depending on the scope of the study and the requirements of the target publication venue. They may range from concise reports of preliminary findings to comprehensive analyses of multi-year research projects.

4 Contribution to Knowledge: Research papers aim to advance knowledge within their respective fields by addressing research gaps, testing hypotheses, or generating new theories. They contribute to the cumulative growth of scholarship through the dissemination of original research findings.

Main Differences Between Journal Article and Research Paper

• Journal articles focus on a specific aspect or finding within a broader topic.
• Research papers provide a comprehensive analysis of a research project, including multiple experiments, analyses, and discussions.
• Journal articles are concise, containing essential findings, methods, and interpretations in a limited space.
• Research papers tend to be longer and more detailed, offering exhaustive exploration of the research topic, methodology, results, and implications.
• Journal articles undergo peer review by experts in the field before publication, ensuring quality and validity.
• Research papers may or may not undergo formal peer review, depending on the publication venue or academic requirements.
• Journal articles present findings objectively, without extensive interpretation or speculation.
• Research papers include in-depth interpretation of results, discussion of implications, and exploration of potential limitations or biases.
• Journal articles contribute to the scholarly conversation by presenting new findings, analyses, or reviews within a specific topic area.
• Research papers advance knowledge within a field by offering comprehensive analyses, testing hypotheses, or generating new theories through original research.

• https://gssrr.org/index.php/gssrr/How-to-Publish-Research-Paper
• https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/types-of-journal-manuscripts/1356
• https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/research_papers/index.html

I’ve put so much effort writing this blog post to provide value to you. It’ll be very helpful for me, if you consider sharing it on social media or with your friends/family. SHARING IS ♥️

Want to save this article for later? Click the heart in the bottom right corner to save to your own articles box!

By Emma Smith

Emma Smith holds an MA degree in English from Irvine Valley College. She has been a Journalist since 2002, writing articles on the English language, Sports, and Law. Read more about me on her bio page .

Related Post

Arithmetic progression vs arithmetic sequence: difference and comparison, arithmetic mean vs geometric sequence: difference and comparison, discipline vs punishment: difference and comparison, 5 ways to change your ip address: quick and effective methods, how to recover your old myspace photos: a quick guide, microsoft office 2021 product activation key [free], how to search for a word on a web page: a quick guide for all browsers.

"How Do I?" @JWULibrary

Sample Question

• JWU-Providence Library

Q. What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

• 35 about the library
• 29 articles & journals
• 1 Borrowing
• 8 citing sources
• 17 company & industry
• 11 computers
• 1 copyright compliance
• 5 countries & travel
• 2 course registration
• 50 databases
• 3 education
• 2 Interlibrary loan
• 5 job search
• 6 libguides
• 9 market research
• 25 my library account
• 12 requests
• 26 research basics
• 21 research topics
• 2 study rooms
• 16 technology
• 7 textbooks
• 42 university
• 3 video tutorial
• 1 writing_help

Answered By: Sarah Naomi Campbell Last Updated: Sep 07, 2018     Views: 215889

Watch this short video to learn about types of scholarly articles, including research articles and literature reviews!

Not in the mood for a video? Read on!

What's the difference between a research article and a review article?

Research articles , sometimes referred to as empirical  or primary sources , report on original research. They will typically include sections such as an introduction, methods, results, and discussion.

Here is a more detailed explanation of research articles .

Review articles , sometimes called literature reviews  or secondary sources , synthesize or analyze research already conducted in primary sources. They generally summarize the current state of research on a given topic.

Here is a more detailed explanation of review articles .

The video above was created by the Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries .

The defintions, and the linked detailed explanations, are paraphrased from the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , 6th ed .

The linked explanations are provided by the Mohawk Valley Community College Libraries .

Links & Files

• How do I find empirical articles in the library databases?
• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 63 No 19

Comments (0)

Related topics.

• about the library
• articles & journals
• citing sources
• company & industry
• copyright compliance
• countries & travel
• course registration
• Interlibrary loan
• market research
• my library account
• research basics
• research topics
• study rooms
• video tutorial
• writing_help

Downcity Library:

111 Dorrance Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903

401-598-1121

Harborside Library:

321 Harborside Boulevard Providence, RI 02905

401-598-1466

• Location and Directions
• Off-Campus Access
• Staff Directory
• Student Employment
• Pay Bills and Fines
• Chat with a Librarian
• Course Reserves
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Study Rooms
• Research Appointment
• Culinary Museum

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About Interacting with Computers
• About the BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT
• About Interaction
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Research highlights:, 1. toward a social chatbot to improve well-being, 2. can chatbots stimulate intimate self-disclosure, 3. perceived anonymity, 4. fear of judgment, 5. trust in the interaction partner, 6. self-disclosure and emotional well-being, 7. control variables, 10. discussion, data availability, a. appendix a.

• < Previous

Digital Confessions: The Willingness to Disclose Intimate Information to a Chatbot and its Impact on Emotional Well-Being

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Emmelyn A J Croes, Marjolijn L Antheunis, Chris van der Lee, Jan M S de Wit, Digital Confessions: The Willingness to Disclose Intimate Information to a Chatbot and its Impact on Emotional Well-Being, Interacting with Computers , Volume 36, Issue 5, September 2024, Pages 279–292, https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwae016

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Chatbots have several features that may stimulate self-disclosure, such as accessibility, anonymity, convenience and their perceived non-judgmental nature. The aim of this study is to investigate if people disclose (more) intimate information to a chatbot, compared to a human, and to what extent this enhances their emotional well-being through feelings of relief. An experiment with a 2 (human vs. chatbot) by 2 (low empathetic vs. high empathetic) design was conducted ( N  = 286). Results showed that there was no difference in the self-reported intimacy of self-disclosure between the human and chatbot conditions. Furthermore, people perceived less fear of judgment in the chatbot condition, but more trust in the human interactant compared to the chatbot interactant. Perceived anonymity was the only variable to directly impact self-disclosure intimacy. The finding that humans disclose equally intimate information to chatbots and humans is in line with the CASA paradigm, which states that people can react in a social manner to both computers and humans.

• There is no difference in intimate self-disclosure between a human and a chatbot interaction partner

• People experience less fear of judgment when talking to a chatbot

• People have more trust in a human interaction partner

• When people feel more anonymous, they self-disclose more intimately

The use of chatbots—conversational programs designed to show humanlike behavior by mimicking text- or voice-based conversations (e.g. Abdul-Kader and Woods, 2015 )—in different domains has increased exponentially over the past years. A recent development is the rise of social chatbots used for therapeutic purposes, also called mental health chatbots. Examples of these are Woebot, Tess, Wysa and Replika. The primary goal of such mental health chatbots is to be a virtual companion to its users and to monitor the user’s mood, by guiding them in disclosing their emotions and needs ( D'alfonso et al. , 2017 ). Woebot, e.g. was developed at Stanford University to help people suffering from depression or anxiety by monitoring the user’s mood and making use of cognitive behavioral therapy. The number of chatbots created to improve people’s emotional well-being is increasing, which illustrates the need in society for such chatbots. Therefore, it is important to better understand the social and emotional processes while interacting with these social chatbots.

One of the crucial factors in improving one’s well-being is people’s willingness to disclose personal information (e.g., Pennebaker, 1995 ; Sloan, 2010 ), so-called self-disclosure ( Joinson, 2001 ). By disclosing personal information, people are able to receive adequate help from family members, friends or professionals (e.g., Colognori et al., 2012 ). However, disclosing personal information can be perceived as risky and stigmatizing, especially when it concerns intimate or very personal information, which can hinder individuals from stepping forward to seek help from professionals or family and friends to disclose their inner feelings (e.g., Vogel and Wester, 2003 ; Eisenberg et al., 2009 ). Chatbots have several features that may stimulate self-disclosure and help-seeking by people in need, such as 24/7 accessibility, anonymity, convenience and their perceived non-judgmental nature ( Skjuve and Brandtzæg, 2018 ). One study shows that self-disclosure to a chatbot can be equally beneficial as self-disclosing to a human ( Ho et al., 2018 ). Another study shows that humans reciprocate the self-disclosure of a dialog system ( Ravichander and Black, 2018 ).

Self-disclosure can also benefit individuals by decreasing their stress symptoms and increasing positive affect (e.g., Kahn et al. , 2001 ). However, in order to further improve well-being, it is important for the interaction partner to react in an empathetic manner to the person’s disclosure of information ( Shenk and Fruzzetti, 2011 ; Reis et al. , 2017 ). It is known that disclosers need to believe that their conversation partner understands them before the positive impact of feeling understood, and hence the relief, can take place ( Reis et al., 2017 ). Research consistently shows that interpersonal processes such as empathy and warmth are essential factors to improve well-being ( Lambert and Barley, 2001 ). However, a chatbot is a computer program that cannot demonstrate true empathy as it does not have the capacity to understand human emotions and inner feelings ( Bickmore and Picard, 2005 ). Therefore, the chatbot’s responses can be perceived as inauthentic and hence not truly empathetic. In contrast, research shows that as long as a virtual agent appears to be empathetic and is accurate in the feedback it gives, it can achieve similar effects compared to a human who displays true empathy ( Klein et al. , 2002 ).

In sum, research shows that there is potential in the use of social chatbots to improve the user’s well-being. Moreover, studies highlight the importance of self-disclosure in improving well-being. Although there are studies on self-disclosure in human-chatbot communication and its beneficial effects (e.g. Ho et al. , 2018 ), what is currently lacking is a comparison of the (beneficial) effects of self-disclosure when interacting with a human, compared to a chatbot, and what underlying processes may enhance relief (and whether these differ in human–human and human–chatbot communication). Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate if people disclose (more) intimate information to a chatbot (compared to a human) and to what extent this enhances their emotional well-being by means of relief and what underlying processes explain this effect.

Social chatbots have become popular in the last few years. The primary goal of such chatbots is to be a virtual companion to its users and to monitor the user’s mood, by guiding them in disclosing their emotions and needs ( D'alfonso et al. , 2017 ). Woebot, e.g. aims to help people who are suffering from depression or anxiety as it helps to monitor the user’s mood ( https://woebothealth.com ). Tess is another example of a popular social chatbot. According to her developers, Tess coaches its users through difficult times with the aim to build resilience via social chats similar to interacting with a friend or a coach ( https://x2ai.com ). Another popular chatbot is Wysa, which anonymously helps users with their anxiety and feelings of isolation. The chatbot Wysa is free, but if users also want to talk to a real counselor, they have to pay a monthly fee. According to the website, Wysa has helped over 2.5 million people and in 2020 the bot won the Orcha best App in Health & Care ( https://wysa.com ). In the users’ reviews, you see anecdotal evidence of the positive impact these apps have on their well-being.

Based on the popularity of these social chatbots and on the anecdotal evidence from their users, it seems that many users find these chatbots helpful. Chatbots can provide very efficient, familiar and easy one-on-one interactions with their users ( Vaidyam et al. , 2021 ). Furthermore, these interactions are low threshold and are often perceived as enjoyable ( Følstad and Brandtzaeg, 2020 ). Interacting with social chatbots is becoming more and more common and can provide a solution for several issues such as understaffing and waiting lists, as they are cost-efficient, adaptable and scalable (i.e. they are able to provide personalized advice to many people at the same time). These chatbots also have certain attractive features, such as continuous accessibility, convenience and their perceived non-judgmental nature.

However, the functionality of the social chatbots that are currently available is generally limited. Chatbots such as Wysa are more focused on tasking people with assignments rather than engaging in conversation ( Fitzpatrick et al. , 2017 ). Through conversation, it is possible to build a trusting bond ( Lambert and Barley, 2001 ), which in turn could enhance willingness to disclose ( Corritore et al. , 2003 ), and build an emotional connection between a user and a chatbot ( Savin-Baden et al. , 2013 ). Furthermore, scientific evidence on the use and impact of those chatbots is scarce. Previous studies, for instance, had a small sample size, and used the Wizard of Oz method (i.e. a method where participants are told that they will interact with a chatbot, when in actuality they will interact with a human interlocutor) to investigate differences in the perception of humans vs. chatbots (e.g. Bell et al. , 2019 ; Ho et al., 2018 ). While this method is effective, it is not suitable to gauge the current conversational capabilities of chatbots and contrast them with humans. Therefore, research on the possibilities and impossibilities of the use of chatbots to improve people’s well-being is needed.

To study the potential impact of social chatbots on emotional well-being, it is first necessary to determine if humans are willing to disclose their inner feelings to a chatbot. Self-disclosure is a necessary step in improving well-being. Specifically, disclosing one’s inner (hidden) feelings, secrets, memories and immediate experiences can enhance relief and, in turn, improve one’s mood ( Farber, 2006 ). The willingness to disclose depends on several factors such as the anticipated utility (i.e. the perceived value of the outcome to the individual for disclosing), but also the anticipated risks (i.e. the perceived risks of self-disclosing; Vogel and Wester, 2003 ). The person disclosing the information might be fearful that information is shared with others or they might feel ashamed and be afraid that the recipient is being judgmental or critical ( Farber, 2006 ).

Based on Derlega and Grzelak’s (1979) functional theory of self-disclosure, self-disclosure is a strategic behavior that individuals use to achieve their personal goals. The authors identified five goals that people may achieve: self-expression (venting negative emotions), self-clarification (clarifying one’s own identity and opinions), social validation (gaining social support and acceptance), relationship development (development and/or maintenance of personal relationships) and social control (using information to gain control). Following this functional theory, Omarzu (2000) designed a disclosure decision model, to explain which factors affect disclosure decision-making (see Fig. 1 ). This model proposes that people pursue strategic goals when self-disclosing and disclose different types of information depending on various media functions and situational cues. For example, a relational development goal is more accessible in a romantic setting (situational cue) compared to an office setting ( Bazarova and Choi, 2014 ). Furthermore, the disclosure decision model poses that subjective risk influences self-disclosure intimacy in particular. Subjective risk refers to the potential risks anticipated by the discloser, such as social rejection ( Omarzu, 2000 ). According to this model, as subjective risk increases, self-disclosure intimacy decreases.

The disclosure decision model.

Although according to the functional theory of self-disclosure situational cues are believed to activate individual disclosure goals, the disclosure decision model does not account for the underlying mechanisms that underlie the activation process ( Omarzu, 2000 ). Based on earlier research on self-disclosure in (online) interpersonal communication (e.g. Antheunis et al. , 2012 ; Joinson, 2001 ) and human–chatbot interactions (e.g. Ho et al. , 2018 ; Croes and Antheunis, 2021 ), we have identified three possible underlying mechanisms that may play a role in the activation of self-disclosure to a chatbot, namely perceived anonymity, fear of judgment of the interaction partner and trust in the interaction partner.

A first underlying mechanism in the elicitation of self-disclosure is anonymity. Feelings of anonymity stimulate self-disclosure (see a meta-analysis of Clark-Gordon et al. , 2019 ). As people feel more anonymous, their public self-awareness decreases, which reduces identifiability or accountability concerns ( Scott, 1998 ), which in turn results in feelings of disinhibition and can result in more intimate self-disclosure (e.g. Antheunis et al. , 2007 ; Clark-Gordon et al. , 2019 ; Joinson, 2001 ). This process is oftentimes associated with the stranger on the train phenomenon in which people disclose their inner feelings to unknown travel companions on a train ( Antheunis et al. , 2007 ).

Due to the potentials risks, such as stigmatization, associated with disclosing very personal/intimate information with others ( Link et al. , 1991 ), people can be hesitant to disclose personal information (e.g. Lucas et al. , 2017 ). The fear of being stigmatized can act as a barrier to disclosing one’s inner feelings, thoughts and symptoms ( Lucas et al. , 2017 ). Feeling more anonymous can reduce that barrier.

It is likely that individuals feel more anonymous when interacting with a chatbot compared to a human. Hence, they might feel more disinhibited and dare to disclose more intimate information than they would to a human. For example, research on reporting sensitive information shows that assessment by virtual agents, as they afford anonymity, increases the level of (honest) reporting, such as on suicide ( Greist et al. , 1973 ) and posttraumatic stress disorder ( Lucas et al. , 2017 ). Furthermore, since a chatbot is an artificial being, people view it as good at keeping secrets, as it cannot share the information with others ( Skjuve and Brandtzæg, 2018 ). Thus, the artificial nature of a chatbot and its lack of feelings means that people are likely to feel more anonymous which means people are more likely to open up to a chatbot, compared to another human. Therefore, we pose the following hypothesis:

H1: (i) Individuals feel more anonymous when interacting with a chatbot, compared to a human interlocutor, which in turn leads to (ii) more intimate self-disclosure to a chatbot compared to a human interlocutor.

Another underlying mechanism in the elicitation of self-disclosure is a lack of fear of judgment, which also closely relates to perceived anonymity. Humans sometimes avoid disclosing intimate information to other humans out of a fear of negative evaluation (e.g. disapproval, social rejection, stigma, embarrassment), even more so when it is information that might reflect poorly on the self (e.g. Afifi and Guerrero, 2000 ; Lane and Wegner, 1995 ). Hence, the fear of negative evaluations hinders humans to disclose intimate information to other humans.

Chatbots might be perceived as non-judgmental as they do not think or form judgments on their own ( Lucas et al. , 2014 ). Therefore, individuals might feel more at ease to disclose personal information to a chatbot compared to another human without being judged or embarrassing their interaction partner ( Skjuve and Brandtzæg, 2018 ). This can be beneficial when disclosing potential stigmatizing information, or very intimate information. There is some empirical evidence pointing in that direction. Weisband and Kiesler (1996) found in a meta-analysis that computer administered assessment methods result in more personal self-disclosure than non-computerized methods (i.e. with a human). More recently, using virtual human interviewers, Lucas et al. (2014) showed that virtual humans (avatars) increase the willingness to disclose in situations in which the fear of a negative evaluation is more prominent. Comparable results were found by Kang and Gratch (2010) but only for socially anxious people. When disclosing intimate information to another person, individuals can be afraid of the other person’s moral judgments. This can lead to them abstaining from self-disclosing information that violates certain morals ( Mou and Xu, 2017 ).

This does not appear to be the case when talking to a chatbot, where fear of judgment may decrease or disappear altogether due to a chatbot’s inability to think or form opinions. For this reason, we expect the following:

H2: (i) Individuals experience less fear of judgment when interacting with a chatbot, compared to a human interlocutor, which in turn leads to (ii) more intimate self-disclosure to a chatbot compared to a human interlocutor.

The third underlying mechanism in the effect of conversation partner on self-disclosure is trust in the interaction partner (the object of trust), which is formed through elements as honesty and psychological safety ( Tillmann-Healy, 2003 ). When someone trusts the interaction partner, they will feel more at ease to self-disclose ( Burgoon and Hale, 1984 ; Lee and Choi, 2017 ). There is currently no consensus in the literature if humans trust a human interaction partner more than a chatbot interaction partner. On the one hand, human–chatbot communication is likely to foster a sense of trust because of the artificial nature of the object of trust (i.e. the chatbot) and hence confidential nature of the interaction. As mentioned above, because of the artificial nature of chatbots, they are believed to be good at keeping secrets. This inherently suggests that artificial interaction partners, like chatbots, can be trusted more, compared to a human interaction partner ( Skjuve and Brandtzæg, 2018 ). More specifically, when disclosing intimate information to a chatbot, people can trust that this information will not be passed on to others. Thus, the characteristic of the chatbot—confidentiality and artificiality—signals trustworthiness, which fosters trust in the chatbot as an interaction partner.

However, on the other hand, there are several reasons to believe that humans will trust a human interaction partner more compared to a chatbot. A first issue that is at stake is that of moral agency. Corritore et al. (2003) discuss in their work the approach to define the relationship between the trustor (e.g. the human user) and technologies as an object of trust (e.g. the chatbot as the interaction partner). According to philosophers, technologies cannot be seen as moral agents, which can be defined as objects that have intentions and free will ( Solomon and Flores, 2001 ). Technologies do not have intentionality nor free will, and hence cannot be trustworthy. Contrary to this perspective is that technologies can be seen as social actors. Corritore et al. (2003) stated that in order to be trusted technologies do not have to be moral agents, it is enough to be a social actor (see work of Reeves and Nass (1996) and Nass et al. (1995 , 1996 )).

A second issue is that humans have concerns related to privacy and security of their personal data in a chatbot interaction. In interactions with a chatbot this data is frequently stored automatically as it is used to improve the chatbot’s communication, and this can hinder feelings of trust ( Følstad et al. , 2018 ). Users can perceive a risk that the information on the computer will not be stored well and hence their data can be accessed by ill-intentioned people. This risk perception might even be stronger when having a personal interaction with the chatbot instead of a more functional interaction (e.g. customer service). Since the argumentation of trust in chatbot as an interaction partner (vs. a human) is conflicting, we cannot formulate a hypothesis. In its place, we pose a research question:

RQ1: (i) Do individuals trust a chatbot more than a human interlocutor, and does this in turn lead to (ii) more intimate self-disclosure to a chatbot compared to a human interlocutor?

In this study, we first want to investigate if humans are willing to disclose their inner feelings to a chatbot. Based on the underlying processes (i.e. perceived anonymity, fear of judgment, trust in interaction partner) that potentially take place when humans interact with a chatbot versus a human, we might expect that humans are willing to self-disclose to a chatbot interaction partner, however it is not clear if they will disclose more intimate information to a chatbot compared to human interaction partner. Therefore, we formulate a research question:

RQ2: (i) Are people willing to disclose intimate personal information to a chatbot and (ii) do they disclose more intimate personal information to a chatbot or to a human?

A second step to investigate is if the self-disclosed intimate information to a chatbot also enhances the discloser’s emotional well-being, by means of relief. Self-disclosure can benefit individuals by decreasing their stress symptoms and increasing positive affect (e.g. Kahn et al. , 2001 ). This can be explained by the cognitive processing of writing about personal matters ( Pennebaker, 1993 , 1995 ), also referred to as therapeutic writing or expressive writing paradigm. If people disclose about emotional experiences (e.g. loss, a shameful secret) the negative affect will be reduced as by writing it down one turns the negative emotions and feelings (the affect) into something cognitive instead and they will reevaluate the event and/or the emotion. The transition from affect to cognition can reduce the intensity of the emotion ( Lieberman et al. , 2007 ) and hence give some relief.

In line with the positive intrapersonal effect of self-disclosure explained by the expressive writing paradigm, there is also a catharsis effect defined for a positive inter personal effect of self-disclosure. Relief might be experienced after disclosing intimate information, mostly when the information elicits strong emotions, like shame, fear or worries. In 1935, Freud, 1935 referred to this as the catharsis effect of self-disclosure: ‘Disclosure of distress directly reduces such negative affect through a catharsis effect.’ ( Derlaga, & Berg, 1987 , p. 233). Because the discloser is openly expressing negative emotions, these emotions are depleted more quickly instead of letting them aggravate. Ample research has found that self-disclosure can improve a person’s emotional state by diminishing negative affect and stress, and growing feelings of relief (e.g., Omarzu, 2000 ; Farber et al. , 2004 ; Pennebaker and Chung, 2007 ; Ho et al. , 2018 ). Therefore, we expect that:

H3: Self-disclosure intimacy will enhance perceived relief.

This positive effect of self-disclosure on relief can be strengthened if the interaction partner responds in an empathetic manner ( Shenk and Fruzzetti, 2011 ; Reis et al. , 2017 ). If the interaction partner shows that they understand the discloser, a sense of belonging and acceptance is created and areas of the brain are activated that are associated with connectivity and reward ( Reis et al. , 2017 ). Reis and colleagues ( Reis and Shaver, 1988 ; Reis et al. , 2017 ) clearly state that feeling understood, exceeds just recognizing the disclosed information. Feeling understood is established when disclosers really get the impression that the interaction partner understands them. A chatbot, however, is a computer program that cannot demonstrate true empathy as it does not have the capacity to understand human emotions and inner feelings ( Bickmore and Picard, 2005 ). The chatbot’s responses can therefore be perceived as inauthentic and hence not truly empathetic. In contrast, research shows that as long as a virtual agent appears to be empathetic and is accurate in the feedback it gives, it can achieve similar effects compared to a human who displays true empathy ( Klein et al. , 2002 ; Ho et al. , 2018 ). Although another study shows that the most reduction of stress and worries was in the human condition, empathetic responses of both humans and a chatbots do contribute to reduction of stress and worries ( Meng and Dai, 2021 ). Thus, we expect a moderating effect on the self-disclosure intimacy effect on relief if the interaction partners respond in an empathetic manner. Our final hypothesis reads:

H4: The effect of self-disclosure intimacy on perceived relief is contingent upon the perceived empathy of the interaction partner.

Our proposed hypotheses may also be impacted by age, gender and/or alcohol use. Although we do not formulate hypotheses about the potential effects of these variables, they may have an influence on the dependent variables in our study. Specifically, research shows that younger people (18–25 years old) may feel less inhibited to self-disclose due to lower levels of privacy concerns and higher levels of trust, compared to older people, which may be because of their comfort with using technology ( Lappeman et al., 2023 ). Additionally, gender has been found to impact self-disclosure, with women often disclosing more (intimately) than men (e.g. Dindia and Allen, 1992 ). Finally, we included alcohol use as a control variable because alcohol consumption can impact self-disclosure as it makes people more disinhibited (e.g. Caudill et al. , 1987 ; Lyvers et al. , 2020 ).

8.1. Sample and design

A total of 286 (60% female, 40% male) visitors of a large three-day music festival between 16 and 61 years of age ( M  = 26.23; SD = 7.20) participated in our experiment. The sample is rather skewed for level of education, as the majority was higher educated. Participants were asked for their highest level of education (current or completed) and almost half of the participants were (former) university students (47.9%), (former) applied university students (31.8%), (former) high school students (10.1%) and (former) intermediate vocational education students (8%).

For this study, we adopted a 2 (human versus chatbot) by 2 (non-empathetic versus empathetic) between subject experimental design. In our analyses, we recoded the four conditions so that we only directly compared the human vs. chatbot conditions. Therefore, we did not directly compare the empathic vs. non-empathic conditions. We included this condition in our design to ensure more variation in terms of empathy. Instead, we include the self-report measurement of empathy as a moderator (see H4), as this gives a clearer overview of how empathic participants felt their interaction partner actually came across. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. In all the conditions, they had a one-on-one interaction and were asked to confess something to either a human confederate or a chatbot. We used the chat function of the Discord platform in all conditions (see Fig. 2 for details). As the task of the human confederate was intensive, we trained six confederates, which were allocated to 3-hour time slots during the 3 days of data collection (see Appendix A for more detailed confederate instructions and the questions that were asked in all conditions). For the experiment, a chatbot was developed which was used in the chatbot condition. The chatbot is a modular and open-source chatbot (for details, see AUTHORS and url [ANONYMIZED]).

Screenshot of a (simulated) conversation between chatbot (PRIESTESS) and user (Biechthok 1) on the Discord platform that was used for this study.

In both the chatbot and the human condition, the same procedure was followed, using a script with predefined questions and answers (see Appendix A for the questions). For the human condition, an extra interface was created to help with the conversation flow, and answer content (see Fig. 3 ). At the start of the conversation, the chatbot/confederate asks icebreaker questions (e.g., W hat do you think of [name of the festival] thus far? Which artists have you seen? ). The chatbot interprets users’ answers to these icebreaker questions using predefined lexicons and Dutch sentiment analysis tool Pattern ( De Smedt and Daelemans, 2012 ). This means that every message being sent to the chatbot is scanned for words that may convey the direct answer to the question, or may convey a positive or negative sentiment. The chatbot then uses this information to pick the best answer from a list of preprogrammed answers. Furthermore, the chatbot tries to respond to the users’ self-disclosed personal information in the empathetic condition in an empathetic manner. This is done using LIWC ( Pennebaker et al ., 2015 ), a program that uncovers underlying topics in text. More specifically, LIWC scans answers for words that provides information about the topic which the answer was focused on (e.g. family, work, food). This information is then used to pick the most appropriate answer from a list of preprogrammed answers.

Screenshot of the chat interface that confederates could use as support for their interactions.

8.2. Procedure

This procedure was reviewed and approved by the university Research Ethics and Data Management Committee (REDC # 2019192). This experiment was conducted at a large, annual 3-day music and performing arts festival with over 50 000 visitors in August 2019, resulting in data from a naturalistic setting. The festival’s program consists of a broad variety of music acts, ranging from dance (e.g. Paul Kalkbrenner) to hardcore punk (e.g. Turnstile) and from popular music for the young (e.g. Billie Eilish) and the elderly (e.g. Giorgo Moroder). Hence, the visitors of the festival are pretty heterogenous. While the festival’s main focus is on live music, the festival also offers cinema, theatre, cabaret, literature and the possibility to take part in various scientific experiments at what is called ‘Lowlands Science’. The teaser for our study was Digital Confessions, in which we asked people via posters if they wanted to confess a secret digitally. The visitors that were interested in participating could do so voluntarily.

The visitors of the festival that wanted to participate in our study were thoroughly briefed after which they gave consent. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions, and they were clearly told beforehand whether they were going to confess to a chatbot or a human, depending on the assigned condition. Next, they were led to a cubicle in which they were seated in front of a laptop (see Fig. 4 for the study setup). One of the researchers then typed ‘start’ in the chat window, which started the interaction. After this cue was entered, either the chatbot or the confederate in the human condition started the interaction by asking some introductory questions about the festival and the bands they have seen to increase the depth of the interaction ( Berger and Calabrese, 1975 ). This part of the conversation was scripted and both the human and the chatbot followed the same script.

Set up of the confessional booths.

After these chitchat questions about the festival and bands, participants were asked to confess/tell their secret. The response of the chatbot or human confederate depended on the condition they were in. In the non-empathetic condition, they responded with ‘Thank you for sharing your secret. Is there anything else you want to say?’ after which the participants were thanked for their participation. In the empathetic condition, the conversation partner (human or chatbot) responded empathetically—either automatically (in the chatbot condition, using LIWC) or manually (in the human condition, choosing from several options from a script) on the disclosed topic and also asked, ‘how do you feel after disclosing your secret?’ After ending the chat, participants were sent the link of the questionnaire. When the participants finished the questionnaire, they were tested on their alcohol level with a breath analyzer device. And after that, they were debriefed (i.e. they were told about the exact topic of study) and thanked for their participation.

8.3. Self-report measurement

8.3.1. fear of judgment.

To measure fear of judgment, we used four items of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale ( Leary, 1983 ) that were slightly adapted to the situation of this experiment. The items were introduced by ‘During the conversation….’ followed by ‘…I worried what kind of impression I made on her,’ ‘…I worried what she was thinking about me,’ ‘…I worried what she was thinking of me,’ and ‘…I was afraid she was judging me.’ The response categories for each of the items ranged from 1 ( completely disagree ) to 5 ( completely agree ). The four items formed a one-dimensional scale (explained variance 86%), with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .94 ( M  = 2.22, SD  = 1.04).

8.3.2. Trust in interaction partner

To measure trust, we used four items from the Individualized Trust Scale (ITS) of Wheeless and Grotz (1977) . The items were on a five-point semantic differential scale. The items were introduced by ‘My conversation partner was…’ followed by: Unreliable—Reliable, Untrustworthy—Trustworthy, Insincere—Sincere, Malevolent—Benevolent . These four items formed a one-dimensional scale (explained variance 58%) with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .75 ( M  = 3.51, SD  = 0.80).

8.3.3. Perceived anonymity

To measure perceived anonymity a four-item scale was constructed based on Rains (2007) , Qian and Scott (2007) , and Hite et al. (2014) . Participants were asked to indicate their feelings of anonymity during the conversation. The items were: ‘During the conversation I felt I was anonymous,’ ‘During the conversation I felt I was unrecognizable,’ ‘During the conversation I felt I could not be identified,’ and ‘During the conversation I felt I could share more about myself because she did not know me.’ The items loaded on a one-dimensional scale (explained variance 64%), with a Cronbach’s alpha of .81 ( M  = 3.31, SD = 0.95).

8.3.4. Perceived self-disclosure intimacy

The perceived level of intimacy of the participant’s self-disclosure was measured by four bipolar items based on the work of Rubin and Shenker (1978) and Lin and Utz (2017) . Participants were asked to rate the disclosed secret on a five-point scale. The items were ‘Not at all intimate – Very intimate,’ ‘Very impersonal – Very personal,’ ‘Trivial – Important,’ and ‘Not confidential at all – Very confidential.’ The items formed a one-dimensional scale (explained variance 67%), with a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 ( M  = 3.27, SD = 1.00).

8.3.5. Perceived empathy

The perceived empathy was measured by four items based on Stiff et al. (1988) . The items were ‘The interaction partner said the right thing to make me feel better,’ ‘The interaction partner responded appropriately to my feelings and emotions,’ ‘The interaction partner came across as empathetic,’ and ‘The interaction partner said the right thing at the right time.’ The response categories ranged from 1 ( completely disagree ) to 5 ( completely agree ). All items loaded on a one-dimensional scale (explained variance 68%) with a good Cronbach’s alpha of .843 ( M  = 2.87, SD = 0.84).

8.3.6. Relief

The measurement of relief was based on a measurement used by Ho et al. (2018) , which the addition of one extra item. Thus, the final scale consisted of three items, which were ‘I feel more optimistic now that I have confessed my secret,’ ‘I feel better now that I have confessed my secret,’ and ‘I feel relieved now that I have confessed my secret’ (extra item). The response categories for each of the items ranged from 1 ( completely disagree ) to 5 ( completely agree ). The items formed a one-dimensional scale (explained variance 85%), with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91 ( M  = 2.65, SD = 0.95).

8.3.7. Alcohol use

To measure if and how much alcohol participants had consumed, we did an alcohol test after the experiment. The participants had to blow in a breathalyzer, measuring the alcohol in their breath. Out of 286 participants, 178 did not consume any alcohol. For those who did have alcohol, the alcohol ranged from 0.05 to 2.07 per mile.

8.4. Content analysis: self-disclosure intimacy

The conversations in all four conditions were logged and saved, and the confessions were coded for intimacy of self-disclosure by two judges. The average length of the confessions was 32.89 words (SD = 41.65). All 286 confessions were divided evenly among the two judges who received extensive training with a codebook, which was discussed among the judges and contained examples as illustrations. After receiving these instructions, both judges coded the same 64 confessions (20%). The remaining confessions were divided evenly among both judges after intercoder reliability was deemed sufficient. For self-disclosure and intimacy of self-disclosure, Kappa was calculated as a measure for intercoder reliability, with the benchmark by Landis and Koch (1977) to determine strength of agreement.

First, self-disclosure was coded by assigning each confession to either a self-disclosure (1) or no confession (i.e. other) (2). Self-disclosure was operationalized as a confession revealing personal information about the self, telling something about the person, describing the person in some way or referring to the person’s experiences, thoughts or feelings ( Antheunis et al. , 2012 ; Tidwell and Walther, 2002 ). An example of a self-disclosure in the current study is ‘I had a really good date last week’. Confessions that could not be coded as a self-disclosure were coded as ‘other’. These were so-called ‘empty confessions’, such as ‘I do not really have anything to confess’ or ‘I don’t know what to confess’. These ‘confessions’ were excluded from further analyses. Intercoder reliability was perfect for self-disclosure ( κ  = 1).

Next, the judges coded the degree of intimacy of each disclosure, also known as the depth ( Tidwell and Walther, 2002 ). Altman and Taylor’s (1973) classification scheme was used to rate each disclosure as either low (i), medium (ii) or high (iii) in intimacy. This classification scheme consists of three layers. The first layer is the peripheral layer, which is concerned with biographical information such as age, gender, height and other basic information. An example is ‘My girlfriend and I are living together’. The second layer is the intermediate layer, which is concerned with opinions, attitudes and values, e.g. ‘I really dislike my roommate’. The final layer is the core layer, which consists of personal beliefs, fears, emotions and things people are ashamed of ( Antheunis et al., 2012 ; Tidwell and Walther, 2002 ). An example is ‘I am afraid that I am no longer in love with my boyfriend’. Intercoder reliability for intimacy of self-disclosure was perfect ( κ  = 1).

To test the first two hypotheses and RQ1–RQ2, a mediation analysis was performed using a PROCESS analysis (model 4). All analyses were conducted twice: with the self-report measure of self-disclosure intimacy and with the coded variable of self-disclosure intimacy. We used bootstrapping to test the mediated effects for significance based on 10 000 bootstrap samples, accompanied by 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (BCa CI’s). In the analyses the categorical condition variable was recoded into a dummy variable (i.e. 0 = chatbot, and 1 = human).

H1 proposed that (i) individuals feel more anonymous when interacting with a chatbot, compared to a human interlocutor, which in turn leads to (ii) more intimate self-disclosure to a chatbot compared to a human interlocutor. The results for the self-report data showed that the condition variable did not significantly impact perceived anonymity ( b  = −0.18, SE = 0.11, P  = .114). Next, the analysis revealed a significant effect of perceived anonymity on self-reported self-disclosure intimacy, b  = 0.28, SE = 0.06, P  < .001. This showed that perceived anonymity enhanced perceived intimate self-disclosure. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that anonymity did not significantly mediate the effect of condition on self-reported self-disclosure intimacy, b  = 0.05, SE = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [−.12, .01]). For the coded data, the findings showed that the condition did not significantly impact perceived anonymity, b  = −0.18, SE = 0.11, P  = .122 and coded self-disclosure intimacy, b  = 0.06, SE = 0.06, P  = .305. Moreover, anonymity was not a significant mediator either, b  = −0.01, SE = 0.01, 95% BCa CI [−.05, .01]. Thus, for self-reported self-disclosure intimacy, hypothesis 1a was rejected and 1b was supported. For the coded data the entire first hypothesis was rejected. The means are shown in Table 1 .

Means and standard deviations for all variables.

Note. Standard deviations appear in brackets below means.

The results of the mediation analysis are visualized in Figs 5 and 6 .

Observed model (part 1; mediation) explaining the effects for self-reported self-disclosure intimacy.

Observed model (part 1; mediation) explaining the effects for coded self-disclosure intimacy.

H2 posed that (i) individuals experience less fear of judgment when interacting with a chatbot, compared to a human interlocutor, which in turn leads to (ii) more intimate self-disclosure to a chatbot compared to a human interlocutor. The analysis for the self-report data showed that condition significantly impacted fear of judgment, b  = 0.38, SE = 0.12, P  = .002. People experienced more fear of judgment with a human interlocutor, compared to a chatbot. Fear of judgment did not significantly impact self-disclosure intimacy, b  = 0.07, SE = 0.06, P  = .194. Moreover, fear of judgment did not significantly mediate the effect of condition on self-disclosure intimacy, b  = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% BCa CI [−.02, .08]. For the coded data, the findings also showed that the condition significantly impacted fear of judgment, b  = 0.38, SE = 0.12, P  = .002. Furthermore, fear of judgment did not significantly impact self-disclosure intimacy, b  = 0.00, SE = 0.05, P  = .971 and was not a significant mediator either, b  = 0.00, SE = 0.02, 95% BCa CI [−.04, .04]. Therefore, for both the self-reported and the coded data, hypothesis 2 was only partially supported.

RQ1 asked whether (i) individuals trust a chatbot more than a human interlocutor, and whether this leads to (ii) more intimate self-disclosure to a chatbot compared to a human interlocutor. The results showed that the condition significantly impacted perceived trust for the self-report data ( b  = 0.42, SE = 0.09, P  < .001). Individuals trusted the human interaction partner more than the chatbot. Trust did not significantly impact self-reported self-disclosure intimacy ( b  = 0.13, SE = 0.08, P  = .085) and was not a significant mediator either ( b  = 0.06, SE = 0.04, 95% BCa CI [−.01, .14]). Furthermore, for the coded data, the condition was also found to significantly impact trust, b  = 0.43, SE = 0.09, P  < .001. Trust did not significantly impact the coded self-disclosure variable, b  = −0.07, SE = 0.05, P  = .359 and was not a significant mediator for this variable either, b  = −0.03, SE = 0.03, 95% BCa CI [−.10, .03].

To test H3 and H4, a moderation analysis was performed using PROCESS (model 1), where self-disclosure intimacy was entered as a predictor to relief, and perceived empathy was entered as the moderator. The analysis for the self-report data showed that self-disclosure intimacy did not significantly impact relief, b  = 0.20, SE = 0.17, P  = .233. The interaction effect between self-disclosure intimacy and empathy was not significant either, b  = −0.00, SE = 0.06, P  = .983. Regarding the coded data, the analysis showed that the coded self-disclosure intimacy variable did not significantly impact relief, b  = −0.12, SE = 0.23, P  = .587. The interaction effect between self-disclosure intimacy and empathy was not significant either, b  = 0.06, SE = 0.08, P  = .404. Thus, for both the self-reported perceived self-disclosure and the coded self-disclosure variable, H3 and H4 were not supported. The results are visualized in Figs 7 and 8 .

Observed model (part 2; moderated mediation) explaining perceived empathy as a moderator in the self-disclosure—relief effect for self-reported self-disclosure intimacy.

Observed model (part 2; moderated mediation) explaining perceived empathy as a moderator in the self-disclosure—relief effect for coded self-disclosure intimacy.

Regarding RQ2, we analyzed the direct effect of condition on self-disclosure intimacy. The results showed that this effect was not significant for the self-report data, b  = 0.03, SE = 0.12, P  = .794. These findings suggest that people do disclose intimate information, but the disclosed information is equally intimate when disclosed to the chatbot, compared to the human interlocutor. However, for the coded data, we did find a significant effect, b  = 0.35, SE = 0.11, P  = .002. Specifically, the results showed that people disclosed more intimate information to a human interlocutor ( M  = 2.34; SD = 0.82) compared to a chatbot ( M  = 2.04; SD = 0.91).

9.1. Control variables

We also controlled our analyses for gender and the age of the participants, as well as alcohol use. Here, we only mention the significant effects. The analysis with the self-report data showed that age significantly impacted trust (RQ1), b  = −0.01, SE = 0.01, P  = .026. This shows that as age increases, trust in the interaction partner decreases. Alcohol use also significantly impacted trust, b  = −0.37, SE = 0.14, P  = .009; the higher the participants’ alcohol use, the less they trusted their interaction partner. Furthermore, with the addition of the variable alcohol use, there was a significant mediating effect of condition on intimate self-disclosure via trust (RQ1), b  = 0.07, SE = 0.04, 95% BCa CI [.00, .15].

For the coded data, we found similar results. Specifically, we found that age significantly impacted trust (RQ1), b  = −0.01, SE = 0.01, P  = .028. This shows that as age increased, trust in the interaction partner decreased. Alcohol use also significantly impacted trust, b  = −0.36, SE = 0.14, P  = .009; the higher the participants’ alcohol use, the less they trusted their interaction partner. Furthermore, for the self-report data the results showed that age significantly impacted intimate self-disclosure (RQ2), b  = 0.02, SE = 0.01, P  = .027. Specifically, as age increased, people disclosed more intimate information.

In this study, we examined whether people are willing to disclose intimate information to a chatbot and whether they disclose more intimate information to a chatbot, compared to another human. In line with our first hypothesis, we found that perceived anonymity enhances perceived intimate self-disclosure (H1b). We only found this effect for the self-report data and not for the coded data. Previous research also showed that perceived anonymity stimulates self-disclosure, as people feel more disinhibited (e.g. Antheunis et al. , 2007 ; Joinson, 2001 ). However, our findings also show that people feel equally anonymous when communicating with a human via CMC as when communicating to a chatbot. This can be explained by the fact that the number of cues were exactly the same in both conditions. The only difference was that the participants knew they were talking to either a human or a bot, but the interaction interface was exactly the same.

Furthermore, these findings add to Derlega and Grzelak’s (1979) functional theory of self-disclosure and Omarzu’s (2000) disclosure decision model, which propose that situational cues activate individual disclosure goals. Specifically, in this study, participants confessed a secret in a private, confessional setting, on a laptop in a text-based conversational interface. These situational cues, which were the same in both the human and chatbot conditions, may have activated specific individual goals (i.e. self-expression, relief of distress) and enhanced self-disclosure through perceived anonymity, irrespective of the conversation partner. Neither the functional theory of self-disclosure or the disclosure decision model take into account underlying mechanisms that may explain how self-disclosure is activated and our findings show that perceived anonymity may play an important role in the activation process. This may, however, depend on which self-disclosure goal is activated in a particular setting.

Second, in line with our expectations, we found that the participants in our study perceived the chatbot as less judgmental compared to the human interlocutor, which means they experienced less fear of negative evaluation when making their confession. Although our study confirms that people perceive a chatbot as non-judgmental, this did not enhance intimate self-disclosure. It may be that fear of judgment is only a determinant among people who are socially anxious and are more inhibited to self-disclose. Specifically, Kang and Gratch (2010) found that socially anxious people, who experience more fear of judgment, disclose greater intimate information about themselves when talking to a virtual human. Thus, it may be that for the sample in the present study, which was a general sample of people who voluntarily participated in the experiment and hence were already willing to tell a secret, fear of judgment was not a significant predictor of self-disclosure intimacy.

Regarding trust, previous research showed conflicting findings. Although there is evidence that trust enhances self-disclosure (e.g., Burgoon and Hale, 1984 ; Lee and Choi, 2017 ), there is no consensus in the argumentation in the literature if humans trust another human interaction partner more compared to a chatbot. Our findings showed that individuals trusted the human interaction partner more than the chatbot, for which there are several reasons. First, from a philosophical standpoint, technologies cannot be viewed as moral agents and hence objects of trust, because they do not have free will or intentionality ( Solomon and Flores, 2001 ), even when they act as social actors. Second, there may be privacy and security concerns when talking to a chatbot that inhibit trust ( Følstad et al. , 2018 ). When interacting with a chatbot, personal data, including the content of the interactions, are often stored and used to improve the chatbot, which can impede trust, especially with social chatbots, as conversations can be quite personal. Our results underscore the potential negative impact of privacy and security concerns in chatbot communication.

When controlling our analyses for alcohol use, we found that the more alcohol individuals consumed, the less they trusted their interaction partner. Research confirms that that consuming alcohol can make people more disinhibited, which can enhance self-disclosure (e.g., Caudill et al. , 1987 ; Fillmore, 2007 ; Lyvers et al. , 2020 ). However, since alcohol use was only included as a control variable in the present study, future research should dive further into the impact this variable has on self-disclosure intimacy and other relevant variables. Furthermore, with the inclusion of this control variable, we found a positive, mediation effect: when talking to another human, people felt more trust, which increased intimate self-disclosure. This can be explained by the level of suspicion. People might be more suspicious toward new technologies (e.g. chatbots) than toward humans.

Finally, based on previous research we expected that self-disclosure intimacy would enhance positive affect and decrease feelings of stress ( Kahn et al. , 2001 ). Disclosing intimate, emotional experiences by writing (or typing) it down can reduce emotional intensity by allowing individuals to reevaluate the experience or emotion, which can provide relief ( Lieberman et al. , 2007 ). Specifically, when one openly expresses negative emotions, these emotions dwindle more quickly which can enhance feelings of relief (e.g. Farber et al. , 2004 ). Our findings do not corroborate previous research; in this study self-disclosure intimacy did not enhance relief. Furthermore, this experienced relief was not contingent upon the perceived empathy of the interaction partner, which is also what we expected (H4). This may be explained by the fact that the confessions in the present study were overwhelmingly positive; 189 out of the 286 confessions were positive, 82 were negative, and 14 were coded as being neutral. Previous research shows that especially sharing disclosures that evoke negative emotion relieves stress ( Bazarova and Choi, 2014 ). In contrast, positive disclosures are found to enhance a feeling of connection between two people ( Utz, 2015 ). Since the majority of the disclosures in the present study were positive, this may explain why self-disclosure did not enhance relief.

10.1. Theoretical and practical implications

Our study has several implications for future theory and research. First, our study has implications for research on humans’ social behavior with chatbots, as we not only investigated the willingness to self-disclose toward a chatbot (a computer) versus a human, but we also considered relevant underlying mechanisms in the process of self-disclosure (i.e. anonymity, trust in the interaction partner, fear of judgment). Humans disclose (equally) intimate information to chatbots versus humans, at least according to their own perceptions. This is in line with the CASA paradigm ( Nass and Moon, 2000 ), stating that people can react in a social manner to computers the same way they do to humans. The underlying processes are not straightforward, nor comparable to the underlying mechanisms that play a role in self-disclosure to humans. We find that an important feature of human-chatbot communication is that humans experience less fear of judgment, compared to in interactions with another human. However, humans trust a chatbot less compared to a human interaction partner. Future research should further investigate if that is because the lack of moral agency, because of privacy concerns, or if there are other reasons.

Second, this study extends Derlega and Grzelak’s (1979) functional theory of self-disclosure and Omarzu’s (2000) disclosure decision model, which propose that self-disclosure is a strategic behavior people use to achieve personal goals. Specifically, the theory posits that the default goal most people have for self-disclosure, is social approval: people want to be liked by others. As a result, the content of people’s disclosures is generally socially acceptable and approved by the recipient ( Omarzu, 2000 ). The theory has been criticized for not accounting for underlying mechanisms that may account for the activation of those personal goals. The present research not only tests this theory in a unique, confessional setting, where other goals besides social approval are likely salient (e.g. relief of distress), but also shows that perceived anonymity may play an important role in explaining why people self-disclose in this particular setting. Specifically, previous research shows that when people feel anonymous, this reduces identifiability or accountability concerns ( Scott, 1998 ) and results in feelings of disinhibition ( Clark-Gordon et al., 2019 ). In line with previous research and the findings of the current study, the functional theory of self-disclosure can be extended to include perceived anonymity as an underlying mechanism in the activation of (intimate) self-disclosure.

This study also has implications for practice, in particular regarding the effectiveness of social chatbots in improving well-being. This study showed some first potential for using chatbot applications in improving mental well-being, which could potentially facilitate the mental healthcare sector, which currently deals with understaffing, long waiting lists and increasing costs. This also partly explains the popularity of social chatbots like Woebot and Wysa, which can help people who are anxious and/or depressed. The results of our study shed some light on the potential of these chatbots as a solution to shortages in the mental healthcare sector, as this study indicated that people are willing to disclose intimate information to the chatbot, which is a first requirement for successful therapy. Also, another important plus is that people experience less fear of judgment with the chatbot, which is important when sharing intimate topics, or topics people feel ashamed of. These aspects, combined with other advantages, such as 24/7 availability, low costs, show some potential for implementing such interventions in healthcare. However, to actually implement a successful chatbot intervention more requirements should be met, amongst which empathy is crucial. An empathetic response of the therapist can enhance the patient’s well-being. Our findings showed that there was no moderating effect of empathy on the self-disclosure—relief effect, but the perceived empathy was still the highest in the human condition, which is in line with Meng and Dai (2021) . Future research should develop and test chatbots that are able to respond in an empathic and adequate manner.

10.2. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Although our study has shed light on some first steps in investigating people’s willingness to disclose intimate information to a social chatbot, we recognize some limitations. First, the contrast between our conditions (talking to chatbot vs. human via text-based CMC) might not be large enough to find clear differences in the underlying mechanisms for eliciting self-disclosure. For example, we did not find a difference in perceived anonymity between the conditions. It is known that communicating with another human via text-based CMC enhances perceptions of anonymity compared to face-to-face communication (see Clark-Gordon et al. , 2019 ). In order to be sure if the anonymity feature of chatbot communication does (not) exist, future research should compare face-to-face with chatbot communication.

Second, we measured the impact of self-disclosure on emotional state via relief. This was done by means of a confession task in the experiment. We thought that confessions are oftentimes secrets that can weigh heavily on the discloser’s shoulders, which enhance relief after confessing. However, we noticed that ample of the secrets shared were positive in nature, which usually does not evoke relief. Due to this focus on relief instead of also on other positive emotional effects, we cannot be conclusive about that part of our study. Future research should further investigate this in several regards. Not only should a broader measurement on emotional state be included, but research should also be done on the capability of the chatbot to respond in an appropriate empathetic manner.

Finally, it should be noted that the study was administered through a laptop. This is in contrast with most of the common social chatbot applications (e.g., Woebot, Tess, Wysa and Replika) that are predominantly developed for and accessed through a smartphone. While the effect of the medium used to access a chatbot is currently an understudied topic, some evidence seems to suggest that the impact of medium is potentially large on constructs such as user experience and behavioral intention (in favor of smartphones compared to other devices; Persons et al. , 2021 ). These results suggest that the levels of disclosure that were found in this study may be enhanced when a smartphone device is used.

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to Emmelyn Croes, [email protected] .

Abdul-Kader , S. A. and Woods , J. ( 2015 ) Survey on chatbot design techniques in speech conversation systems . Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. , 6 , 72 – 80 .

Google Scholar

Afifi , W. A. and Guerrero , L. K. ( 2000 ) Motivations underlying topic avoidance in close relationships. In Petronio , S. (ed.), Balancing the Secrets of Private Disclosures , pp. 165 – 180 . Erlbaum , Mahwah, NJ .

Google Preview

Altman , I. and Taylor , D. A. ( 1973 ) Social Penetration. The Development of Interpersonal Relationships . Holt, Rinehart and Winston , New York .

Antheunis , M. L. , Valkenburg , P. M. and Peter , J. ( 2007 ) Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: an experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses . CyberPsychol. Behav. , 10 , 831 – 836 . https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9945 .

Antheunis , M. L. , Schouten , A. P. , Valkenburg , P. M. and Peter , J. ( 2012 ) Interactive uncertainty reduction strategies and verbal affection in computer-mediated communication . Commun. Res. , 39 , 757 – 780 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211410420 .

Bazarova , N. N. and Choi , Y. H. ( 2014 ) Self-disclosure in social media: extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites . J. Commun. , 64 , 635 – 657 . https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12106 .

Bell , S. , Wood , C. and Sarkar , A. ( 2019 ) Perceptions of chatbots in therapy. In Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts , pp. 1 – 6 . ACM , USA .

Berger , C. R. and Calabrese , R. J. ( 1975 ) Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication . Hum. Commun. Res. , 1 , 99 – 112 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x .

Bickmore , T. W. and Picard , R. W. ( 2005 ) Establishing and maintaining long-term human computer relationships . ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. , 12 , 293 – 327 . https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067867 .

Burgoon , J. K. and Hale , J. L. ( 1984 ) The fundamental topoi of relational communication . Commun. Monogr. , 51 , 193 – 214 . https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390195 .

Caudill , B. D. , Wilson , G. T. and Abrams , D. B. ( 1987 ) Alcohol and self-disclosure: analyses of interpersonal behavior in male and female social drinkers . J. Stud. Alcohol , 48 , 401 – 409 . https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.1987.48.401 .

Clark-Gordon , C. V. , Bowman , N. D. , Goodboy , A. K. and Wright , A. ( 2019 ) Anonymity and online self-disclosure: a meta-analysis . Commun. Rep. , 32 , 98 – 111 . doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2019.1607516 .

Colognori , D. , Esseling , P. , Stewart , C. , Reiss , P. , Lu , F. , Case , B. and Warner , C. M. ( 2012 ) Self-disclosure and mental health service use in socially anxious adolescents . Sch. Ment. Heal. , 4 , 219 – 230 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-012-9082-0 .

Corritore , C. L. , Kracher , B. and Wiedenbeck , S. ( 2003 ) On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model . Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. , 58 , 737 – 758 . doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00041-7 .

Croes , E. A. and Antheunis , M. L. ( 2021 ) Can we be friends with Mitsuku? A longitudinal study on the process of relationship formation between humans and a social chatbot . J. Soc. Pers. Relat. , 38 , 279 – 300 . doi.org/10.1177/0265407520959463 .

D'alfonso , S. , Santesteban-Echarri , O. , Rice , S. , Wadley , G. and Alvarez-Jimenez , M. ( 2017 ) Artificial intelligence-assisted online social therapy for youth mental health . Front. Psychol. , 8 , 796 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00796 .

Derlega , V. J. and Berg , J. H. (eds) ( 1987 ) Self-Disclosure: Theory, Research, and Therapy . Springer US , Boston, MA .

Derlega , V. J. and Grzelak , J. ( 1979 ). Appropriateness of self-disclosure. In Chelune, G. J. (ed.) Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships , pp. 151 – 176 . Jossey-Bass .

De Smedt , T. and Daelemans , W. ( 2012 ). Pattern for python . The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 13 , 2063 - 2067 .

Dindia , K. and Allen , M. ( 1992 ) Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta analysis . Psychol. Bull. , 112 , 106 – 124 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.106 .

Eisenberg , D. , Downs , M. F. , Golberstein , E. and Zivin , K. ( 2009 ) Stigma and help seeking for mental health among college students . Med. Care Res. Rev. , 66 , 522 – 541 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558709335173 .

Farber , B. A. ( 2006 ) Self-Disclosure in Psychotherapy . The Guilford Press , New York .

Farber , B. A. , Berano , K. C. and Capobianco , J. A. ( 2004 ) Clients' perceptions of the process and consequences of self-disclosure in psychotherapy . J. Couns. Psychol. , 51 , 340 – 346 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.3.340 .

Fillmore , M. Τ. ( 2007 ) Acute alcohol-induced impairment of cognitive functions: past and present findings . Int. J. Disabil. Hum. Dev. , 6 , 115 – 126 . doi.org/10.1515/IJDHD.2007.6.2.115 .

Fitzpatrick , K. K. , Darcy , A. and Vierhile , M. ( 2017 ) Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial . JMIR Mental Health , e19 , e7785. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7785 .

Følstad , A. and Brandtzaeg , P. B. ( 2020 ) Users' experiences with chatbots: findings from a questionnaire study . Qual. User Exp. , 5 , 3 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-020-00033-2 .

Følstad , A. , Nordheim , C. B. and Bjørkli , C. A. ( 2018 ) What Makes Users Trust a Chatbot for Customer Service? An Exploratory Interview Study. In Bodrunova, S. (ed.) Internet Science. INSCI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol 11193 . Springer , Cham . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01437-7_16 .

Freud , S. ( 1935 ) A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis . Washington Square Press , New York .

Greist , J. H. , Laughren , T. P. , Gustafson , D. H. , Stauss , F. F. , Rowse , G. L. and Chiles , J. A. ( 1973 ) A computer interview for suicide-risk prediction . Am. J. Psychiatry , 130 , 1327 – 1332 . doi.org/10.1176/ajp.130.12.1327 .

Hite , D. M. , Voelker , T. and Robertson , A. ( 2014 ) Measuring perceived anonymity: the development of a context independent instrument . J. Methods Meas. Soc. Sci. , 5 , 22 – 39 . https://doi.org/10.2458/jmm.v5i1.18305 .

Ho , A. , Hancock , J. and Miner , A. S. ( 2018 ) Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot . J. Commun. , 68 , 712 – 733 . doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy026 .

Joinson , A. N. ( 2001 ) Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self awareness and visual anonymity . Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. , 31 , 177 – 192 . https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.36 .

Kahn , J. H. , Achter , J. A. and Shambaugh , E. J. ( 2001 ) Client distress disclosure, characteristics at intake, and outcome in brief counseling . J. Couns. Psychol. , 48 , 203 – 211 . doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.2.203 .

Kang , S. H. and Gratch , J. ( 2010 ) Virtual humans elicit socially anxious interactants' verbal self-disclosure . Comput. Anim. Virt. Worlds , 21 , 473 – 482 . https://doi.org/10.1002/cav.345 .

Klein , J. , Moon , Y. and Picard , R. W. ( 2002 ) This computer responds to user frustration, theory, design, and results . Interact. Comput. , 14 , 119 – 140 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(01)00053-4 .

Lambert , M. J. and Barley , D. E. ( 2001 ) Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome . Psychother. Theory Res. Pract. Train. , 38 , 357 – 361 . doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.38.4.357 .

Landis , J. R. and Koch , G. G. ( 1977 ) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers . Biometrics , 33 , 363 – 374 . https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786 .

Lane , J. D. and Wegner , D. M. ( 1995 ) The cognitive consequences of secrecy . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. , 69 , 237 – 253 . doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.237 .

Lappeman , J. , Marlie , S. , Johnson , T. and Poggenpoel , S. ( 2023 ) Trust and digital privacy: willingness to disclose personal information to banking chatbot services . J. Financ. Serv. Mark. , 28 , 337 – 357 . https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-022-00154-z .

Leary , M. R. ( 1983 ) A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. , 9 , 371 – 375 . doi.org/10.1177/0146167283093007 .

Lee , S. and Choi , J. ( 2017 ) Enhancing user experience with conversational agent for movie recommendation: effects of self-disclosure and reciprocity . Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. , 103 , 95 – 105 . doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.02.005 .

Lieberman , M. D. , Eisenberger , N. I. , Crockett , M. J. , Tom , S. M. , Pfeifer , J. H. and Way , B. M. ( 2007 ) Putting feelings into words: affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli . Psychol. Sci. , 18 , 421 – 428 . doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x .

Lin , R. and Utz , S. ( 2017 ) Self-disclosure on SNS: do disclosure intimacy and narrativity influence interpersonal closeness and social attraction?   Comput. Hum. Behav. , 70 , 426 – 436 . doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.012 .

Link , B. G. , Mirotznik , J. and Cullen , F. T. ( 1991 ) The effectiveness of stigma coping orientations: can negative consequences of mental illness labeling be avoided?   J. Health Soc. Behav. , 32 , 302 – 320 . doi.org/10.2307/2136810 .

Lucas , G. M. , Gratch , J. , King , A. and Morency , L. P. ( 2014 ) It’s only a computer: virtual humans increase willingness to disclose . Comput. Hum. Behav. , 37 , 94 – 100 . doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.043 .

Lucas , G. M. , Rizzo , A. , Gratch , J. , Scherer , S. J. and Morency , L. P. ( 2017 ) Reporting mental health symptoms: breaking down barriers to care with virtual human interviewers . Front. Robot. AI , 4 , 51 . doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00051 .

Lyvers , M. , Cutinho , D. and Thorberg , F. A. ( 2020 ) Alexithymia, impulsivity, disordered social media use, mood and alcohol use in relation to facebook self-disclosure . Comput. Hum. Behav. , 103 , 174 – 180 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.004 .

Meng , J. and Dai , Y. ( 2021 ) Emotional support from AI chatbots: should a supportive partner self-disclose or not?   J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. , 26 , 207 – 222 . https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab005 .

Mou , Y. and Xu , K. ( 2017 ) The media inequality: comparing the initial human-human and human-AI social interactions . Comput. Hum. Behav. , 72 , 432 – 440 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.067 .

Nass , C. and Moon , Y. ( 2000 ) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers . J. Soc. Issues , 56 , 81 – 103 . https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153 .

Nass , C. , Moon , Y. , Fogg , B. J. , Reeves , B. and Dryer , D. C. ( 1995 ) Can computer personalities be human personalities?   Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. , 43 , 223 – 239 . doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1042 .

Nass , C. , Fogg , B. J. and Moon , Y. ( 1996 ) Can computers be teammates?   Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. , 45 , 669 – 678 . doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0073 .

Omarzu , J. ( 2000 ) A disclosure decision model: determining how and when individuals will self-disclose . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. , 4 , 174 – 185 . doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_05 .

Pennebaker , J. W. ( 1993 ) Putting stress into words: health, linguistic, and therapeutic implications . Behav. Res. Ther. , 31 , 539 – 548 . doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(93)90105-4 .

Pennebaker , J. W. ( 1995 ) Emotion, Disclosure, & Health . American Psychological Association , Washington, DC .

Pennebaker , J.W. , Boyd , R.L. , Jordan , K. and Blackburn , K. ( 2015 ). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015 . University of Texas at Austin , Austin, TX .

Pennebaker , J. W. and Chung , C. K. ( 2007 ) Expressive writing, emotional upheavals, and health. In Friedman , H. S. , Silver , R. C. (eds) Foundations of Health Psychology , pp. 263 – 284 . Oxford University Press , New York, NY .

Persons , B. , Jain , P. , Chagnon , C. and Djamasbi , S. ( 2021 ) Designing the Empathetic Research IoT Network (ERIN) Chatbot for Mental Health Resources In Nah, F. FH., Siau, K. (eds) Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol 12783. HCI in Business, Government and Organizations , pp. 619 – 629 . Springer , Cham . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77750-0_41 .

Qian , H. and Scott , C. R. ( 2007 ) Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs . J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. , 12 , 1428 – 1451 . doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00380.x .

Rains , S. A. ( 2007 ) The impact of anonymity on perceptions of source credibility and influence in computer-mediated group communication: a test of two competing hypotheses . Commun. Res. , 34 , 100 – 125 . doi.org/10.1177/0093650206296084 .

Ravichander , A. and Black , A. W. ( 2018 ) An empirical study of self-disclosure in spoken dialogue systems. In Komatani, K, Litman, D., Yu, K., Parangelis, A., Cayedon, L. and Nakano, M. (eds) Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue , pp. 253 – 263 . Association for Computational Linguistics , Melbourne, Australia .

Reeves , B. and Nass , C. I. ( 1996 ) The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places . Cambridge University Press , New York, NY .

Reis , H. T. and Shaver , P. ( 1988 ) Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck , S. W. (ed.), Handbook of personal relationships , pp. 367 – 389 . John Wiley and Sons , Chichester, UK .

Reis , H. T. , Lemay , E. P. , Jr. and Finkenauer , C. ( 2017 ) Toward understanding understanding: the importance of feeling understood in relationships . Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass , 11 , e12308. doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12308 .

Rubin , Z. and Shenker , S. ( 1978 ) Friendship, proximity, and self-disclosure . J. Pers. , 46 , 1 – 22 . doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1978.tb00599.x .

Savin-Baden , M. , Tombs , G. , Burden , D. and Wood , C. ( 2013 ) ‘It’s almost like talking to a person’: student disclosure to pedagogical agents in sensitive settings . Int. J. Mobile Blended Learn. , 5 , 78 – 93 . https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2013040105 .

Scott , C. R. ( 1998 ) To reveal or not to reveal: a theoretical model of anonymous communication . Commun. Theory , 8 , 381 – 407 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00226 .

Shenk , C. E. and Fruzzetti , A. E. ( 2011 ) The impact of validating and invalidating responses on emotional reactivity . J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. , 30 , 163 – 183 . doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011.30.2.163 .

Skjuve , M. B. and Brandtzæg , P. B. ( 2018 ) Chatbots as a new user interface for providing health information to young people. In Andersson , Y. , Dahlquist , U. , Ohlsson , J. (eds) Youth and News in a Digital Media Environment – Nordic-Baltic Perspectives , pp. 59 – 66 . Sintef , Norway .

Sloan , D. M. ( 2010 ) Self-disclosure and psychological well-being. In Maddux , J. E. , Tangney , J. P. (eds) Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology , pp. 212 – 225 . The Guilford Press , New York, USA .

Solomon , R. C. and Flores , F. ( 2001 ) Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life . Oxford University Press , New York .

Stiff , J. B. , Dillard , J. P. , Somera , L. , Kim , H. and Sleight , C. ( 1988 ) Empathy, communication, and prosocial behavior . Commun. Monogr. , 55 , 198 – 213 . https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376166 .

Tidwell , L. C. and Walther , J. B. ( 2002 ) Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time . Hum. Commun. Res. , 28 , 317 – 348 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x .

Tillmann-Healy , L. M. ( 2003 ) Friendship as method . Qual. Inq. , 9 , 729 – 749 . doi.org/10.1177/1077800403254894 .

Utz , S. ( 2015 ) The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection . Comput. Hum. Behav. , 45 , 1 – 10 . doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.076 .

Vaidyam , A. N. , Linggonegoro , D. and Torous , J. ( 2021 ) Changes to the psychiatric Chatbot landscape: a systematic review of conversational agents in serious mental illness: Changements du paysage psychiatrique des chatbots: Une revue systématique des agents conversationnels dans la maladie mentale sérieuse . Can. J. Psychiatr. , 66 , 339 – 348 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743720966429 .

Vogel , D. L. and Wester , S. R. ( 2003 ) To seek help of not to seek help: the risk of self- disclosure . J. Couns. Psychol. , 50 , 351 – 361 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.3.351 .

Weisband , S. and Kiesler , S. ( 1996 ) Self-disclosure on computer forms: Meta-analysis and implications. In Tauber, M. J. (ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pp. 3 – 10 . Association for Computing Machinery , New York, USA

Wheeless , L. R. and Grotz , J. ( 1977 ) The measurement of trust and its relationship to self- disclosure . Hum. Commun. Res. , 3 , 250 – 257 . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00523.x .

Questions asked in all conditions.

Good morning/good afternoon. I am a female priest, and I am on the other side of the [music festival name] site. My name is Maria. What is your name?

So, <name>, can you tell me where you are from?

Have you been to [music festival name] before?

How are you liking [music festival name] this year?

Which artists have you seen at [music festival name] this year?

Hey < name>, I enjoyed getting to know you better. But, of course, you came here to share a secret. Do you have a secret you’d like to share with me?

Can you like to tell more about how you feel about the secret?*.

Is there anything else you want to share about your secret?

Thank you for sharing your secret! That’s it. Glad you wanted to participate in our study. You will soon receive a questionnaire from one of the researchers.

* Note. This question was only asked in the ‘high perceived understanding’ conditions.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1873-7951
• Copyright © 2024 British Computer Society
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.