Figure 2. Distressed young people reported greater emotional engagement and behavioral change than their non-distressed peers. Trust and self-efficacy pointed the same way but did not survive correction. Mean Likert response (1–5) ±1 SE by PHQ-4 group (Distressed ≥6\\geq 6, n=63n=63; below threshold <6<6, n=95n=95). Emotional Engagement and Behavioral Change survive FDR correction; Trust and Self-Efficacy point the same way but are only marginal. Dependency Concern is omitted from this panel as it showed no association (d=−0.15d=-0.15, n.s.).A line chart titled ``How does psychological distress relate to young people's use of ChatGPT?'' comparing two groups of participants across four measures on the horizontal axis, in this order: Trust, Emotional Engagement, Self-Efficacy, and Behavioral Change. The vertical axis is the mean Likert response from 1 to 5, shown from about 2.75 to 4.25, with error bars of plus or minus one standard error. A red line marks distressed youth (PHQ-4 of 6 or above, $n = 63$) and a grey line marks non-distressed youth (below 6, $n = 95$); the gap between them is shaded. The red line sits above the grey line at every measure. Trust is about 4.06 for distressed versus 3.83 for non-distressed; Emotional Engagement about 3.31 versus 2.84; Self-Efficacy about 4.16 versus 3.95; Behavioral Change about 3.89 versus 3.54. Both lines dip at Emotional Engagement, which is the lowest point for either group, and the gap between the groups is widest there. Asterisks marking FDR-significance appear above Emotional Engagement and Behavioral Change only. $N = 158$.### 4.1. RQ1: How does psychological distress relate to young people’s use of ChatGPT? 出处: Right Words, Wrong Moment: A Clinician-Grounded Analysis of Distress in 19,930 Conversations between Young People and ChatGPT（arXiv）
