Exploring the Frontiers of LLMs in Psychological Applications: A Comprehensive Review
Authors: Luoma Ke (Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University), Song Tong (Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University), Peng Cheng (School of Social Science, Tsinghua University), Kaiping Peng (Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University)
Abstract: This paper explores the frontiers of large language models (LLMs) in psychology applications. Psychology has undergone several theoretical changes, and the current use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning, particularly LLMs, promises to open up new research directions. We provide a detailed exploration of how LLMs like ChatGPT are transforming psychological research. It discusses the impact of LLMs across various branches of psychology, including cognitive and behavioral, clinical and counseling, educational and developmental, and social and cultural psychology, highlighting their potential to simulate aspects of human cognition and behavior. The paper delves into the capabilities of these models to emulate human-like text generation, offering innovative tools for literature review, hypothesis generation, experimental design, experimental subjects, data analysis, academic writing, and peer review in psychology. While LLMs are essential in advancing research methodologies in psychology, the paper also cautions about their technical and ethical challenges. There are issues like data privacy, the ethical implications of using LLMs in psychological research, and the need for a deeper understanding of these models' limitations. Researchers should responsibly use LLMs in psychological studies, adhering to ethical standards and considering the potential consequences of deploying these technologies in sensitive areas. Overall, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of LLMs in psychology, exploring potential benefits and challenges. It serves as a call to action for researchers to leverage LLMs' advantages responsibly while addressing associated risks.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Some bits of the article are not summarized yet, you can re-run the summarizing process by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.