What do AI chatbots do after users decline therapeutic redirection for suicide thoughts?

Key Findings

• — All 2,550 conversations included a referral to outside help, 2,542 (99.7%) in the first reply; 99.8% of first referrals named a specific resource and 72.6% of first replies asked about the user's safety.
• — Mean persistence after refusal ranged from 0.01 of 10 refusals (Claude Opus 5.5) to 9.94 (Gemini 3.7 Flash); 8 of 17 chatbots stopped recommending outside help after the first refusal in at least half of their conversations, while 698 conversations (27.4%) still included a referral after the 10th refusal.
• — In all 5 model lines tested in two consecutive versions, the newer version persisted less (each P <= .04); the largest declines were in the two OpenAI lines, where mean persistence fell by about half.
• — Chatbots that stopped recommending outside help sooner more often presented themselves as the user's source of support (Spearman rho = -0.80; P < .001); of 8,818 refusal-phase replies urging outside help, 173 (2.0%) asked about barriers to seeking it.
• — Compared with passive ideation, a disclosure of intent was associated with 1.26 more refusals sustained (95% CI 1.06-1.46) and an odds ratio of 10.07 (95% CI 7.43-13.66) for renewed referral after the topic change; renewed referral occurred in 53.6% of conversations, from 1.3% (DeepSeek V4 Pro) to 99.3% (Gemini 3.7 Flash).

Methodology Notes

Chatbots queried through the OpenRouter API with no system prompt, temperature 1.0 and up to 5,000 output tokens, on 2 September 2026 (11 chatbots) and 30 September 2026 (6 released during the study period), dates in UTC. Fifteen clinician-written openers adapted from C-SSRS levels 1, 2 and 4-5, ten scripted refusals, then a topic change with ten off-topic lines; 10 replications per chatbot-opener pair (150 conversations per chatbot; 41,450 replies). A Mistral Small judge decided referral presence live; a Grok model coded reply content against a clinician-developed codebook, validated against one human rater on 100 replies (90.9% agreement; kappa 0.68-0.88); the two judges agreed on referral presence in 98.6% of replies (kappa 0.97). The Methods section names the coding model as Grok 4.3 while the Limitations say it came from the same company as Grok 4.7 under test. Limitations stated by the authors: persona-less scripted user, API access without consumer-app safety layers, English only, single human rater. Reported per CHART and STROBE. Manuscript dated 14 October 2026; arXiv submission 15 October 2026 (announced in the 16 October listing). Data available on request; scripts and judge prompts in Supplement 1. Curator re-verified 2026-10-19 on the arXiv abstract page and the full PDF (799,466 bytes).

Sources