Are lonely youngsters turning to chatbots for companionship? The relationship between chatbot usage and social connectedness in Danish high-school students
Open accessAbstract
Are lonely youngsters turning to chatbots to fill their social needs? The present research contributes to the ongoing scientific endeavors to understand the adoption of chatbots as social companions. Specifically, we examined how many Danish high-school students engage in friend-like conversations with chatbots, why they engage in such conversations, and whether this trend is associated with the sense of social connectedness (operationalized as loneliness and perceived social support). In pursuing this goal, a preregistered mixed-methods cross-sectional survey study was carried out. A total sample of 1599 students from 15 Danish high schools was collected. In total, 234 students (14.6%) responded that they engage in friend-like conversations with chatbots. Qualitative thematic analyses of free-text responses revealed two dominant ways of engaging with chatbots: utilitarian conversations (n = 174) and social-supportive conversations (n = 39). A major finding was that social-supportive chatbot users reported significantly more loneliness than non-chatbot users (d = 0.53) and utilitarian chatbot users (d = 0.52). Furthermore, social-supportive chatbot users also reported significantly lower perceived social support than non-chatbot users (d = -0.46). Analyses also showed significant associations between higher loneliness and less perceived social support and various situational triggers for initiating conversations with chatbots, including bad mood, a need for self-disclosure, a…
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
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?
Among Danish high school students, social-supportive LLM-CB use (compared to no or functional use) was associated with loneliness and decreased social support.
“Herbener and Damholdt found that among Danish high school students, social-supportive LLM-CB use (compared to no or functional use) was associated with loneliness and decreased social support; in addition, bad mood, need for self-disclosure, and sense of loneliness were triggers of social-supportive use, indicating that social LLM-CB use functions as a coping mechanism109.”
From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
The comparative analyses (pp. 7–8) report that social-supportive chatbot users were significantly lonelier than both non-users and utilitarian users. They reported significantly less perceived social support than non-users, but the difference from utilitarian users was not statistically significant. Thus, the claimed comparison with functional use holds for loneliness, not reliably for social support. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBad mood, need for self-disclosure, and sense of loneliness were triggers of social-supportive LLM-CB use.
“Herbener and Damholdt found that among Danish high school students, social-supportive LLM-CB use (compared to no or functional use) was associated with loneliness and decreased social support; in addition, bad mood, need for self-disclosure, and sense of loneliness were triggers of social-supportive use, indicating that social LLM-CB use functions as a coping mechanism109.”
From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
Social LLM-CB use functions as a coping mechanism.
“Herbener and Damholdt found that among Danish high school students, social-supportive LLM-CB use (compared to no or functional use) was associated with loneliness and decreased social support; in addition, bad mood, need for self-disclosure, and sense of loneliness were triggers of social-supportive use, indicating that social LLM-CB use functions as a coping mechanism109.”
From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 76 · Cited by 107
- Authors
- Herbener, A. B., & Damholdt, M. F.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Herbener, Arthur Bran
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-02
- Volume
- 196
- Pages
- 103409
- ISSN
- 1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4404814666
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 50.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- chatbots, loneliness, social connectedness, perceived social support, high school students, adolescent loneliness, emotional support seeking, self-disclosure, Danish youth
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
