CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 63

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using attachment theory to conceptualize and measure the experiences in human-AI relationships

Yang, Fan, Oshio, Atsushi·2025·Current Psychology
DOI 10.1007/s12144-025-07917-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is growing “stronger and wiser,” leading to increasingly frequent and varied human-AI interactions. This trend is expected to continue. Existing research has primarily focused on trust and companionship in human-AI relationships, but little is known about whether attachment-related functions and experiences could also be applied to this relationship. In two pilot studies and one formal study, the current project first explored using attachment theory to examine human-AI relationships. Initially, we hypothesized that interactions with generative AI mimic attachment-related functions, which we tested in Pilot Study 1. Subsequently, we posited that experiences in human-AI relationships could be conceptualized via two attachment dimensions, attachment anxiety and avoidance, which are similar to traditional interpersonal dynamics. To this end, in Pilot Study 2, a self-report scale, the Experiences in Human-AI Relationships Scale, was developed. Further, we tested its reliability and validity in a formal study. Overall, the findings suggest that attachment theory significantly contributes to understanding the dynamics of human-AI interactions. Specifically, attachment anxiety toward AI is characterized by a significant need for emotional reassurance from AI and a fear of receiving inadequate responses. Conversely, attachment avoidance involves discomfort with closeness and a preference for maintaining emotional distance from AI. This implies the potential existence of shared structures underlying the experiences generated from interactions, including those with other humans, pets, or AI. These patterns reveal similarities with human and pet relationships, suggesting common structural foundations. Future research should examine how these attachment styles function across different relational contexts.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12144-025-07917-6

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Ainsworth, M. S. (1979). Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34(10), 932–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Alsumayt, A., Alfawaer, Z. M., El-Haggar, N., Alshammari, M., Alghamedy, F. H., Aljameel, S. S., Alabbad, D. A., & Aldossary, M. I. (2024). Boundaries and future trends of ChatGPT based on AI and security perspectives. HighTech and Innovation Journal, 5(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.28991/HIJ-2024-05-01-010 · DOI
  3. Bell, S. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1972). Infant crying and maternal responsiveness. Child Development, 43(4), 1171–1190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127506. JSTOR. · DOI
  4. Bosmans, G., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Vervliet, B., Verhees, M. W. F. T., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2020). A learning theory of attachment: Unraveling the black box of attachment development. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 113, 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.03.014 · DOI
  5. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss V. 3 (Vol. 1). Basic Books.
  6. Brandtzaeg, P. B., Skjuve, M., & Følstad, A. (2022). My AI friend: How users of a social chatbot understand their Human–AI friendship. Human Communication Research, 48(3), 404–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac008 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). The Guilford Press.
  8. Chaturvedi, R., Verma, S., Das, R., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023). Social companionship with artificial intelligence: Recent trends and future avenues. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 193, 122634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122634 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Chou, C. P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37–55). Sage Publications, Inc.
  10. Ciacchella, C., Veneziani, G., Garenna, S. A., & Lai, C. (2024). Interpersonal and pet bonding: A meta-analytic review of attachment dimensions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 02654075241285440. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241285440 · DOI
  11. De Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2), 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206 · DOI
  12. DeSimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1962 · DOI
  13. Farooqui, M. O., Siddiquei, M. I., & Kathpal, S. (2024). Framing assessment questions in the age of artificial intelligence: Evidence from ChatGPT 3.5. Emerging Science Journal, 8(3), 948–956. https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2024-08-03-09 · DOI
  14. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.631 · DOI
  16. Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00135.x · DOI
  17. Fraley, R. C., Hudson, N. W., Heffernan, M. E., & Segal, N. (2015). Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000027 · DOI
  18. Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.430 · DOI
  19. Heffernan, M. E., Fraley, R. C., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2012). Attachment features and functions in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(5), 671–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512443435 · DOI
  20. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Jiang, C., Zhu, Y., Luo, Y., Tan, C. S., Mastrotheodoros, S., Costa, P., Chen, L., Guo, L., Ma, H., & Meng, R. (2023). Validation of the Chinese version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale: Evidence from a three-wave longitudinal study. BMC Psychology, 11(1), 345. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01293-1 · DOI
  22. Joo, M., Cross, S. E., & Park, S. W. (2023). Who do we turn to and what do we get? Cultural differences in attachment structure and function among East Asian and Western individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 01461672231195781. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231195781 · DOI
  23. Kim, J., & Im, I. (2023). Anthropomorphic response: Understanding interactions between humans and artificial intelligence agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107512 · DOI
  24. Klohnen, E. C., Weller, J. A., Luo, S., & Choe, M. (2005). Organization and predictive power of general and Relationship-Specific attachment models: One? for all, and all for one?? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(12), 1665–1682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278307 · DOI
  25. Li, D., Shu, C., & Chen, X. (2019). Sex differences in romantic attachment among Chinese: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(9), 2652–2676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518793533 · DOI
  26. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd edition). Guilford Press.
  27. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2023). Attachment theory expanded: Security dynamics in individuals, dyads, groups, and societies. The Guilford Press.
  28. Pirson, M., Langer, E. J., Bodner, T., & Zilcha, S. (2012). The development and validation of the Langer mindfulness scale-enabling a socio-cognitive perspective of mindfulness in organizational contexts. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2158921 · DOI
  29. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image, Princeton, NJ. Princeton press. Russell, DW (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40.
  30. Sindermann, C., Sha, P., Zhou, M., Wernicke, J., Schmitt, H. S., Li, M., Sariyska, R., Stavrou, M., Becker, B., & Montag, C. (2021). Assessing the attitude towards artificial intelligence: Introduction of a short measure in German, Chinese, and english Language. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz, 35(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-020-00689-0 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Sorokowska, A., Kowal, M., Saluja, S., Aavik, T., Alm, C., Anjum, A., Asao, K., Batres, C., Bensafia, A., Bizumic, B., Boussena, M., Buss, D. M., Butovskaya, M., Can, S., Carrier, A., Cetinkaya, H., Conroy-Beam, D., Cueto, R. M., Czub, M., & Croy, I. (2023). Love and affectionate touch toward romantic partners all over the world. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 5497. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31502-1 · DOI
  32. Taufiq Hail, G. A. M., Yusof, S. A. M., Rashid, A., El-Shekeil, I., & Lutfi, A. (2024). Exploring factors influencing gen Z’s acceptance and adoption of AI and Cloud-Based applications and tools in academic attainment. Emerging Science Journal, 8(3), 815–836. https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2024-08-03-02 · DOI
  33. Ward, M. K., & Meade, A. W. (2023). Dealing with careless responding in survey data: Prevention, identification, and recommended best practices. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-040422-045007 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Yang, F., Sawada, N., & Oshio, A. (2023). Development and validation of the Japanese version of the langer mindfulness scale. Japanese Psychological Research, jpr.12490. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12490 · DOI
  35. Zhang, Q., Hou, Z. J., Fraley, R. C., Hu, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., & Guo, X. (2022). Validating the experiences in close Relationships–Relationship structures scale among Chinese children and adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(3), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1947844 · DOI
  36. Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.04.001 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yang, F., & Oshio, A.
ORCID
Venue
Current Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-05-09
Volume
44
Issue
11
Pages
10658-10669
ISSN
  • 1046-1310
  • 1936-4733
DOI
10.1007/s12144-025-07917-6
Cited by
63
References
9
Language
en
Licence

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