The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impacts of companion AI on human relationships: risks, benefits, and design considerations
Open accessAbstract
AI applications intended for companionship have increased in both availability and capabilities in recent years, alongside a spike in loneliness (Johnson 2023 ; Murthy 2023 ). According to a 2024 analysis by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, companion AI makes up 16 of the top 100 AI apps based on web traffic and monthly active users (Moore 2024 ). Moreover, today’s AI applications have a greater command of human language, an increasing capacity for storing memories, and more varied modalities to support an increasing diversity of experiences, a known driver in the development and deepening of emotional relationships (Skjuve et al. 2022 ).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A substantial body of work examines attachment dysfunction, social withdrawal, unrealistic relational expectations, and the potential for manipulation in human-AI relationships (Turkle, 2011; Malfacini, 2025; Zhou & Zhang, 2025).”
From Intimate Strangers by Design: A Uses and Gratifications Analysis of AI Companionship (2026) · cites this paper as Malfacini, 2025
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A substantial body of scholarship has identified this asymmetry as a mechanism through which AI companions may foster unrealistic relational expectations, displace effortful human intimacy, and normalize one-sided emotional dynamics (Turkle, 2011; Malfacini, 2025; Yankouskaya et al., 2025).”
From Intimate Strangers by Design: A Uses and Gratifications Analysis of AI Companionship (2026) · cites this paper as Malfacini, 2025
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“since AI companions are endlessly patient, attentive, and always available, this may lead users to expect (unrealistically) the same in humans (Malfacini, 2025).”
From Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent? (2026) · cites this paper as Malfacini, 2025
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This misalignment matters because youth may interpret simulated empathy and relational cues as genuine, which can increase emotional dependence and blur boundaries between real and artificial relationships [72, 86, 148].”
From Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives (2026) · cites this paper as [86]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497 · Cited by 23,245 · cited 1×
“…research has further confirmed that humans are inclined to create social attachments—and accordingly inclined to resist their dissolution—and that both social belonging and the lack thereof have significant impacts on health and well-being (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010).”
Positive psychology: An introduction.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 · Cited by 11,351 · cited 1×
“More recently, Martin Seligman’s positive psychology transformed the field from a primary focus on the identification and treatment of psychological disorders to a focus on identifying and building positive human behaviours and mentalities (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000).”
Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 · Cited by 7,272 · cited 1×
“…research has further confirmed that humans are inclined to create social attachments—and accordingly inclined to resist their dissolution—and that both social belonging and the lack thereof have significant impacts on health and well-being (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010).”
Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614568352 · Cited by 6,043 · cited 1×
“The negative health consequences of social isolation, including increased mortality risk, underscore the importance of human relationships (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015).”
Parfit, D. (1986) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/019824908x.001.0001 · Cited by 5,803
Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other
Fernández Pedemonte, D. (2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-7239 · Cited by 4,608 · cited 5×
“Psycholo-gist Sherry Turkle cautions “when one becomes accustomed to ‘companionship’ without demands, life with people may seem overwhelming” (2011, 66).”
InfluentialBasic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1 · Cited by 1,891 · cited 1×
“This framework has been extensively validated through empirical research (Vansteenkiste et al. 2020).”
Buçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09692 · Cited by 1,124 · cited 1×
“In other contexts, over-reliance refers to relying on an AI system when one should not, such as when the AI errs (Buçinca et al. 2021).”
Culture and the evolution of human cooperation
Boyd, R. T., & Richerson, P. J. (2009) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0134 · Cited by 1,028 · cited 1×
“Anthropologists have further identified social collaboration and cohesion as pivotal factors in human survival and evolution (Boyd and Richerson 2009).”
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Braverman H (1998) Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the Twentieth Century. NYU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qfrkf
- Finnis, J (1980) Natural Law and Natural Rights. First. Oxford University Press. https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Law-Rights-Clarendon/dp/0198761104
- Gardner W L, Pickett CL, Knowles M (2005) ‘Social snacking and shielding: using social symbols, selves, and surrogates in the service of belonging needs’. In The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection, and Bullying, 227–41. Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology Series. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.
- Mehan JE (2022) ‘Chapter 5: AI and Our Society: Will the Result Be Professional, Ethical, and Social Deskilling, or Upskilling?’ In Artificial Intelligence - Ethical, Social, and Security Impacts for the Present and the Future. IT Governance Publishing. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/artificial-intelligence/9781787783720/
- OECD (2019) Educating 21st Century Children: Emotional Well-Being in the Digital Age. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/educating-21st-century-children_b7f33425-en
- Ruane E, Birhane A, Ventresque A (2019) Conversational AI: Social and Ethical Considerations. AICS 2019: 104–115. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2563/aics_12.pdf
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Adewale, M. D., & Muhammad, U. I. (2025) · Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s41347-025-00549-4 · Cited by 46
Ebner, P., & Szczuka, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.00195 · Cited by 33
AI companions and adolescent social relationships: Benefits, risks, and bidirectional influences
Sun, X., Wang, Y., & McDaniel, B. T. (2026) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1093/cdpers/aadaf009 · Cited by 47
Cruel companionship: How AI companions exploit loneliness and commodify intimacy
Muldoon, J., & Parke, J. J. (2025) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448251395192 · Cited by 46
Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives
Namvarpour, M. (., Brofsky, B., Medina, J. Y., Akter, M., & Razi, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790597 · Cited by 24
Chatbot-fictionalism and empathetic AI: Should we worry about AI when AI worries about us?
Friend, S., & Goffin, K. (2025) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2025.2525320 · Cited by 18
“For example, a recent paper (Malfacini, 2025) catalogs studies of the effects of relationships with companion bots on relationships with other (real) human beings.”
Hung, J. W., Lee, C. K. Y., Kasturiratna, K. T. A. S., & Hartanto, A. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100323 · Cited by 13
Dai, X., Leng, L. L., Liu, Y., Huang, Y., & Wong, D. F. K. (2025) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-025-07671-w · Cited by 15
“While often built on LLMs, they are further enhanced through interface-level features such as scripted prompts, affective cues, and customizable ava-tars, with the aim of simulating companionship, friend-ship, or even romantic connection [32, 33].”
Brauner, P., Glawe, F., Liehner, G. L., Vervier, L., & Ziefle, M. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03023-8 · Cited by 90
“…applications, AI could also reduce loneliness and enhance well-being: chatbots and social AI actors provide companion-ship (Ventura et al. 2025; Malfacini 2025), while embodied robots support healthcare, education, and social integration (Ahmed et al. 2024), though these applications carry…”
Gupta, S., Saxena, S., & Kataria, S. (2025) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.70093 · Cited by 7
Measuring machine companionship experiences: Scale development and validation for AI companions
Banks, J. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2026.108945 · Cited by 9
“MC has animated concerns over the displacement of human relations and exacerbate feelings of loneliness (see Malfacini, 2025 for a discussion).”
AI in Psychiatric Education and Training From 2016 to 2024: Scoping Review of Trends
Weightman, M. J., Chur‐Hansen, A., & Clark, S. R. (2025) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/81517 · Cited by 8
“It is also foreseea-ble that entirely new disorders may arise from problematic use of AI, with “AI psychosis” [50] and harmful use of AI companions [51] being just 2 emerging examples.”
Ontological capture: AI, childhood, and the algorithmic governance of becoming
Gardner-McTaggart, A. C., & Blyth, C. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02807-8 · Cited by 6
“3 argued, the child is increasingly aestheticized as simulation: love, success, growth, and risk are rendered as affective loops rather than lived relations (Baudrillard 2019; Malfacini 2025).”
Of love & lasers: Perceptions of narratives by AI versus human authors
Raffloer, G., & Green, M. C. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100168 · Cited by 8
From moral panic to normalization: comparing users and non-users of AI companionship apps
Novozhilova, E., Vu, C., & Katz, J. E. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02751-7 · Cited by 9
Lafortune, D., Lapointe, V. A., Canivet, C., Bonneau, J., Hassan, G., Boislard, M.-A., Calazana, F., Labrie, C., & Dubé, S. (2026) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-025-03356-3 · Cited by 3
LLM-“Friends” are Hostile Scaffolds in the Age of Loneliness
Sahebi, S., & Parvizi-Wayne, D. (2026) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-026-09765-0 · Cited by 3
“On a similar note, given the sycophancy of LLM-“friends”, users may see deskill - ing in conflict resolution, moral sensitivity and arbitration, and other key capabilities 1 3 which are essential within human relationships (Malfacini, 2025; Smith et al., 2025).”
Akbari, M., Farkhani, S. M., Golmohammadi, M., Mirjalili, M., Yasaghi, F., Hatampour, R., & Griffiths, M. D. (2026) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-026-01671-x · Cited by 3
Estrada-Araoz, E. G. (2026) · Discover Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12982-026-02266-6 · Cited by 3
“Elements such as the therapeutic relationship, ethical responsibility, and the interpretation of complex personal experiences are not fully reproducible in automated systems [29].”
Tiwari, V. (2026) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.70209 · Cited by 6
Livia: An Emotion-Aware AR Companion Powered by Modular AI Agents and Progressive Memory Compression
Xi, R., & Wang, X. (2026) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-10951-4_3 · Cited by 3
Yang, X. (2026) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2618548 · Cited by 3
“…romantic bonding (Depounti et al., 2023; Djufril et al., 2025; D € oring & Poeschl, 2019; Laestadius et al., 2024; Liao et al., 2024; Li & Zhang, 2024; Malfacini, 2025; Pan & Mou, 2024; Wu, 2024), rather than exploring the causations that drive people to engage in such synthetic relationships.”
Frisone, F., Pupillo, C., Rossi, C., & Riva, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1603238 · Cited by 2
“The potential for adverse effects, including attachment formation, parasocial over-reli-ance, or exacerbation of dissociative symptoms, has been noted qualitatively (58) but lacks systematic prospective monitoring.”
Ubuntu, generative AI and machine-mediated relationships in South Africa
Naidoo, R. (2026) · South African Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/02580136.2026.2645251 · Cited by 4
“If users come to rely on AI systems for emotionally charged interaction, they may gradually adjust their expectations of what relationships should be like (Turkle 2011; 2018; Wyatt 2019; Pentina et al. 2023; Li and Zhang 2024; Malfacini 2025; Smith et al. 2025).”
InfluentialConversational AI and Personal Growth: Insights from a Critical Integrative Review
Sharma, S., Vohra, P., & Vowels, L. M. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16050756 · Cited by 3
“At the macro level, normalisation of AI companionship risks gradually eroding societal expectations of relational reciprocity, with implications for the social fabric through which human growth occurs (Malfacini, 2025; Shevlin, 2024; Ni & Jia, 2025).”
InfluentialArtificial Resonance: AI companions as agents of social acceleration
Sommerer, T. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03179-3 · Cited by 4
“While Malfacini (2025) emphasizes the dialectical potential of AI companions, of advancing and diminishing social skills through AI companion interaction, other authors such as Raedler or Baeyaert (Raedler et al. 2025; Baeyaert 2025) point out that combating loneliness through AI companions always…”
InfluentialXiaotong, S., Liu, C., & Yan, J. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16091505 · Cited by 2
“…(Shin, 2021), users’ adoption and continued use of generative AI technologies (Dwivedi et al., 2023), empirical relationship development with social chatbots (Pentina et al., 2023), and broader conceptual and societal debates concerning human–AI companionship (Andersson, 2025; Malfacini, 2025).”
Religious Actors as Friction Creators Shaping the AI Dialogue
Barth, W. (2025) · Laws · doi:10.3390/laws14050067 · Cited by 3
“Perhaps surprisingly, humans tend to view computers as social actors deserving of their empathy and connection (Darling 2017; Darling et al. 2015), and AI companions are emerging at a time when global health experts have identified an epidemic of loneliness (Malfacini 2025; Sahota 2024).”
Pseudo-Consciousness in AI: Bridging the Gap Between Narrow AI and True AGIPreprint
Prestes, J. A. D. L. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5147424 · Cited by 4
Ryu, S. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01052-z · Cited by 1
Wu, Y. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6623-4.ch007 · Cited by 1
In tune with AI: Singing as a social surrogate to ease loneliness and foster social connection
Qian, Y., Lyu, M., Huang, J. Y., & Wan, X. I. (2026) · Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being · doi:10.1111/aphw.70155 · Cited by 1
Apologizing artificial intelligence: designing and evaluating effective AI apologies after errors
Turel, O., & Cui, T. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03067-w · Cited by 1
“Our findings suggest that users may respond differently to AI errors across subjective and objective domains, which is particularly relevant in light of the current trend toward affective AI, aimed at creating explicitly “emotional” algorithms, such as AI companions (Malfacini 2025).”
Hwang, L. J., Li, H., & Feng, B. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2669042 · Cited by 1
From Friends to Lovers: Understanding Motivations and Barriers in AI Companionship
Vowels, L. M., Lapointe, V. A., Sweeney, S. K., Nash, G., Schnell, T., Dubé, S., & Vowels, M. J. (2026) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-025-03375-0 · Cited by 1
How AI compassion drives co-creation in digital health services
Latif, M. S., Li, G., Bokhari, I. H., & Hasan, M. M. (2026) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2026.2697068 · Cited by 1
Agential harms of chatbots: an ethical perspective
MirzaeiGhazi, S., & Osman, M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01240-x · Cited by 1
Technically Love: The Evolution of Human–AI Romance Discourse on Reddit
Chang, T., Huh, J., & Razi, A. (2026) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3816046.3816222 · Cited by 1
Barriers Shaping Synthetic Relationships With Companion Bots: A Three-Week Initial Adaptation Study
Tschopp, M. V., Schlicker, N., Zargham, N., Sætra, H. S., & Schöning, J. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26717-7_1 · Cited by 1
Generative AI as a third voice in human couple relationships: A systematic review
Levkovich, I., & Alon, L. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101255 · Cited by 2
Staying Connected? Revaluing ‘Relationship Goods’ in Digital Health Ecologies
Cribb, A., & Entwistle, V. (2026) · Health Care Analysis · doi:10.1007/s10728-026-00600-2 · Cited by 1
Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent?
Peters, U. (2026) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-026-09795-8
“Additionally, since AI companions are endlessly patient, attentive, and always available, this may lead users to expect (unrealistically) the same in humans (Malfacini, 2025).”
Prestes, J. A. D. L. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01392-w
Nozaki, Y. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100260 · Cited by 1
Reconfiguring Intimacy With AI Companions
Wenxi, W. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6623-4.ch003
Quanling, E. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6623-4.ch002 · Cited by 1
Agarwal, K., Balakumar, N. S., & Ragul, L. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6623-4.ch011
Permadah, A. D., & Vusparatih, D. S. (2026) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Social Network Systems (AISNS) · doi:10.1109/aisns67921.2026.11440572
Outsourcing Love: an Evolutionary Approach to the Virtual Girlfriend Experience
Popelka, D., Bianchi, R., & Lemaître, B. (2026) · Evolutionary Psychological Science · doi:10.1007/s40806-026-00475-5
Benevolent Gravity: the lethal structure inherent in conversational AI design principles
Yamada, K. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03340-y
Exploring the Design of a LLM-Based AI Assistant for Mindfulness Practice With Older Adults
McCarren, L., Eriksson, U., Mengual, L. O., & Kuoppamäki, S. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790734 · Cited by 2
“Rather than promising companionship, AI mindfulness assistants should focus on supporting users’ agency in navigating stress independently, while leaving space for and gently prompting connection with others by actively promoting social capacity building [43].”
How do teens really use AI companions? With more creativity than you might think
Blake, A., Velloso, E., & Carter, M. (2026) · doi:10.64628/aa.km46hrcga
Adams, S. T. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6592-3.ch010
AI and the Reduction of Truth: A Eucharistic Alternative
Reilly, C. M. (2026) · Religions · doi:10.3390/rel17050551
“…a distinct psychological phenomenon characterized by apprehension regarding AI’s autonomy and rapid development, and one of the key drivers of this anxiety in users is the black box nature of AI decision-making, leading to a tangible state of chronic stress and defensive behavior (Kim et al. 2025).”
People Keep Caring for Flawed AI in PracticePreprint
Zhang, H., Luokuan, Z., Li, Q., Ye, T., Yi, L., Danil, K., & huang, L. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6613720
Emerging Technologies and the Future of Singlehood
Hanson, K. R., & Lapointe, V. A. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197826461.003.0024
Artificial Intelligence Mobility, Emotion, and Companionship in After Yang
Arathdar, D., & Sarkar, A. (2026) · Mobile Media & Communication · doi:10.1177/20501579261454940
Only Time Will Tell: A Structured Survey of Longitudinal Studies on Social AI Companions
Pi, Y., & Hunter, R. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2670529
金, 文. (2026) · Advances in Education · doi:10.12677/ae.2026.1661115
Yan, Z., Sun, J., Song, F., Deng, Q., Chen, T., Pan, J., Cao, Q., & Xia, L. (2026) · International Journal of Transgender Health · doi:10.1080/26895269.2026.2682512
Fast-Food Intimacy: How Chinese Women Navigate Soul's AI Boyfriend
Lai, H., & Cheon, E. (2026) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3800645.3812992
“Recent HCI scholarship has examined ethical concerns in AI companionship—the tension between user autonomy and developer responsibility [36, 86], privacy risks from data collection and misuse [91, 150], and harm reduction strategies [60, 86, 101, 150].”
Other People’s Problems: Perceptions of AI-Related Displacement and DeskillingPreprint
Davis, J. L., Bastian, S. C., ÇETİN, R. A. Ç. S., Carr, C., & Vanapalli, V. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9656090/v1
Regulation of Consumer Safety Risks from AI Characters in the European Union and United States
Duffourc, M., Goel, R., & Kennedy, R. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19720-7_4
Exploring the Role of AI as a Recovery Companion for People Who Use Drugs: Potential and Boundaries
Hsu, S.-C., Chiu, C.-H., Wang, H.-C., & Lin, X.-R. (2026) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23104-8_20
An ecological meta-analysis of coach education for sport-based youth development
Li, L., Tereschenko, I., & McCleery, J. (2026) · International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · doi:10.1177/17479541261461871
Affective Computing in the Age of GenAI: Balancing Risks and Rewards
Latif, S., Shoukat, M., Pervez, F., Shamshad, F., Usama, M., Sandhu, M., & Schuller, B. W. (2026) · IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · doi:10.1109/mci.2026.3678879
“Prolonged interaction with emotionally responsive systems can shift user expectations and weaken human – human engagement when such systems are perceived as substitutes rather than complements to interpersonal relationships [134], [135].”
When the Magic Fades: Understanding Determinants of User Disengagement with AI Companions
Ye, X., Zhao, Y., Wang, D., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2703321
Feeling Vulnerable With My AI Companion: Examining Well‐Being in Human‐AI Relationships
Abboud, L., Pitardi, V., & Marriott, H. R. (2026) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.70230 · Cited by 1
Rantung, G. A. J., Wulandari, I. S. M., Sihotang, J. I., Silalahi, H. R., & Zhong, Y. (2026) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2026.104936
Opportunities and Risks in the Use of Large Language Models to Combat Loneliness in Later Life
Boyd, D. (2026) · Studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-31732-2_11
Shekhar, A., & Mabaso, C. (2026) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2026.1846117
“Malfacini (2025) raises the concern of social deskilling: users growing accustomed to relationships that demand less effort than human interaction, gradually losing the capacity for reciprocal negotiation that genuine community requires.”
Lee, J.-Y. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03290-5 · Cited by 2
Between humans and machines: exploring how AI chatbots shape motivation for real relationships
Salim, N., Şafak, A., & Güçlü-Aydoğan, M. (2026) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-026-09896-8
Lapointe, V. A., Calazana, F., Dubé, S., Neppel, R.-M., Blum, S., & Lafortune, D. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100384
Renda, M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01310-0
Digital Companionship: How AI Companions Influence Human Interpersonal Connections
Li, L. (2026) · SHS Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/shsconf/202623602005
“It puts forward suggestions from three aspects: regulatory governance, industry norms, and educational intervention, aiming to ensure that technology can protect the subjectivity and authenticity of human social interaction while serving human emotional needs [2].”
InfluentialWhen no one laughs back: reciprocal subjectivity and the limits of AI companionship
Gazit, L. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03331-z
Shih, J.-N. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1904676
“This is because interaction with sycophantic AI systems may recalibrate users’ expectations about relationships, and may foster unrealistic relational standards and deepen social isolation (Malfacini, 2025; Muldoon and Parke, 2025).”
The Holodeck revisited: foundations for AI Character Media
Hoshino, J. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03282-5
Visuri, I., & Svensson, J. (2026) · Religion & Education · doi:10.1080/15507394.2026.2716456
“The reflected “knowledge” that the chatbots are not real humans thus seems to be overruled by the intuitive experience – or illusion – of authenticity that these systems produce (e.g., De Freitas et al., 2026; Ho et al., 2025; Malfacini, 2025).”
Human Socialization (and Dis-Socialization) by AI and Robotic Companions in Educational Ecosystems
Alam, A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6836-8.ch002
Sariaslan, F., & Aslan, A. M. (2026) · Research on Education and Psychology · doi:10.54535/rep.1989072
Döring, N. M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-46851-4_38-1 · Cited by 1
AI and Clinical Psychology: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Practice
Gosar, D., & Leader, J. F. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52643-5_289-1
Assumptions and principles for responsible AI development and use in grief and bereavement care
Lunardini, M. M., Hall, C., Hjorth, L., Kosminsky, P. S., Massdorp, V., Ho, A. H. Y., & Dying and Bereavement (IWG) on behalf of the International Work Group on Death (2026) · Death Studies · doi:10.1080/07481187.2026.2721402
Tschopp, M. V., Klein, S. H., Anderl, C., Sætra, H. S., & Utz, S. (2026) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2026-4-2
“While recent integrative work on human-CA relationships emphasizes that such systems can offer meaningful benefits, such as perceived support or companionship (Malfacini, 2025), scholars have raised serious concerns related to human-CA relational interaction.”
A Reusable Edge AI System for Multimodal AI Companion: Performance and Response Evaluation
Lu, Y.-C., & Shih, H.-C. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) · doi:10.1109/iri69576.2026.00077
“Recent studies [1]-[5] have shown that AI companions are evolving from task-oriented conversational agents into socially aware systems intended to support long-term affective and interpersonal engagement.”
The Aesthetics of Bias in Machine-Mediated Speech Acts
Seval, H. D. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-87993-7_186-1
The Promise and Peril of AI in Later Life Leisure
Standridge, S. H. (2026) · Leisure Sciences · doi:10.1080/01490400.2026.2729924
“Although AI companions may reduce loneliness (Yang et al., 2025), they also raise important questions about the distinction between genuine human relationships and technologically simulated companionship (Malfacini, 2025; Sparrow & Brown, 2026).”
Shekhar, A., & Ngonyama-Ndou, T. L. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10614183/v1
Wong, A. H. K., & Lee, C. K. H. (2026) · Asian Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s13520-026-00271-1
Should the Legal Concept of Speech Include Chatbot Output in US Law?
Dobler, T., & Bracker, D. (2026) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-026-01187-1
“These allegations resonate with a substantial body of empirical research (Proud-foot, 2011; Salles et al., 2020; Złotowski et al., 2014; Van Es & Nguyen, 2024; Wat - son, 2019; Zhang et al., 2025; Placani, 2024 , Li, 2022, Dewitte 2024; Floridi and Nombre 2024, Malfacini, 2025; Ko et al., 2025).”
How generative AI transforms relational archives into simulations of living persons
Luo, J. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-02249-1
“Such choices recognise that an emotionally sensitive system should not define success as more conversation [6, 14, 16].”
InfluentialWhen code breaks the heart: Disrupting the relational continuity of AI companionship
Tucker, I. M., Goodings, L., & Ellis, D. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100398
Psychological Distress and Artificial Intelligence Dependency: The Moderating Role of Extraversion
Yıldırım, Z. E. (2026) · Current Perspectives in Social Sciences · doi:10.53487/atasobed.1920593
Where is the love? The anthropomorphism paradox in human-AI intimacy
Wang, H., Liao, J., & Zhou, M. (2026) · Chinese Sociological Review · doi:10.1080/21620555.2026.2735006
What Companion AI Can’t Give Us: The Opportunity to Contribute
Lim, J., & Muyskens, K. (2026) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-026-01200-7
“There are similar worries about “social deskilling”, which can happen when a person primarily interacts with an AI companion, and thus loses skill at navigating relationships with real people (Malfacini, 2025; Turkle, 2011).”
InfluentialKelly, R., & Saeghe, P. (2026) · Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3821402.3830120
Advertising with HAART: Introducing Human–AI Asymmetric Relationship Theory
Thomas, V. L., Shoenberger, H., Gvirtz, A., Sands, S., & Willemsen, L. M. (2026) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2026.2735425
Artificial companions shape embodied desire and human attraction
Bruni, D. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1966880
“They may also foster affective dependency, relational substitution, or intensified isolation, especially among vulnerable users (De Freitas et al., 2026; Ho et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2026; Malfacini, 2025; Shu et al., 2026).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Malfacini, K.
- Affiliations
- OpenAI (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Malfacini, Kim
- Venue
- AI & SOCIETY
- Published
- 2025-04-16
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 5527-5540
- ISSN
- 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-5655
- OpenAlex
- W4409502783
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 93 · 2025: 12
- FWCI
- 116.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- AI companions, social robots, human-robot relationships, loneliness, human-AI interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
