CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29

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

AI companions and subjective well-being: Moderation by social connectedness and loneliness

Nakagomi, Atsushi, Akutsu, Yasuko, Yasuoka, Mika, Abe, Noriyuki, Ihara, Shiichi, Teroh, Taisuke, Tabuchi, Takahiro·2026·Technology in Society
DOI 10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103229
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Conversational AI companions—such as Replika and Character.AI—are increasingly adopted to provide emotional support, yet their psychological effects remain underexplored. This study investigates whether the use of AI companions is associated with enhanced well-being, and whether these associations are moderated by social network/support and loneliness. We analysed cross-sectional data from 14,721 Japanese adults participating in nationwide internet panel surveys conducted in December 2024 and January 2025. Well-being was assessed across three domains: evaluative (life satisfaction), hedonic (happiness), and eudaimonic (purpose and meaning in life). AI use was categorized as either companion or non-companion. Moderators included social network/support (measured via the Lubben Social Network Scale, LSNS-6) and loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale). Multivariable linear regression and restricted cubic spline models were used to assess associations and effect modification. Use of AI companions was significantly associated with higher scores across all well-being domains. In contrast, non-companion AI use showed weaker or inconsistent associations. A U-shaped moderation pattern emerged for friend-based social network/support: the benefits of AI companions were most pronounced among those with moderate levels of social connection and attenuated among those with either very high or very low levels. The strongest positive associations were observed among individuals reporting high lonel…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103229

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Alotaibi, 2024, The role of conversational AI agents in providing support and social care for isolated individuals, Alexandria Engineering Journal, 108, 273, 10.1016/j.aej.2024.07.098 · DOI
  2. Antonucci, 1998, Negative effects of close social relations, Family Relations, 379, 10.2307/585268 · DOI
  3. Arimoto, 2019, Reliability and validity of Japanese versions of the UCLA loneliness scale version 3 for use among mothers with infants and toddlers: A cross-sectional study, BMC Women's Health, 19, 1, 10.1186/s12905-019-0792-4 · DOI
  4. Bayor, 2025, Social-oriented communication with AI companions: benefits, costs, and contextual patterns, Business & Information Systems Engineering, 67, 637, 10.1007/s12599-025-00955-1 · DOI
  5. Bilquise, 2022, Emotionally intelligent chatbots: A systematic literature review, Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022
  6. Cohen, 1985, Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis, Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310, 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Dou, 2021, Effects of different types of social robot voices on affective evaluations in different application fields, International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 615, 10.1007/s12369-020-00654-9 · DOI
  8. Fang, 2025, How ai and human behaviors shape psychosocial effects of chatbot use: A longitudinal randomized controlled study, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.17473 · arXiv
  9. Hall, 2019, Two tests of social displacement through social media use, Information, Communication & Society, 22, 1396, 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1430162 · DOI
  10. Hall, 2022, Social media use, social displacement, and well-being, Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101339 · DOI
  11. Holt-Lunstad, 2022, Social connection as a public health issue: The evidence and a systemic framework for prioritizing the “social” in social determinants of health, Annual Review of Public Health, 43, 193, 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052020-110732 · DOI
  12. Hughes, 2004, A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies, Research on Aging, 26, 655, 10.1177/0164027504268574 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Kessler, 2002, Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress, Psychological Medicine, 32, 959, 10.1017/S0033291702006074 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Kessler, 2003, Screening for serious mental illness in the general population, Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 184, 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Kraut, 1998, Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?, American Psychologist, 53, 1017, 10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Litwin, 2011, Social network type and subjective well-being in a national sample of older Americans, The Gerontologist, 51, 379, 10.1093/geront/gnq094 · DOI
  17. Liu, 2020, Adapting the UCLA 3-item loneliness scale for community-based depressive symptoms screening interview among older Chinese: A cross-sectional study, BMJ Open, 10, 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041921 · DOI
  18. Lubben, 2006, Performance of an abbreviated version of the Lubben social network scale among three European community-dwelling older adult populations, The Gerontologist, 46, 503, 10.1093/geront/46.4.503 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 2025, Communications usage trend survey, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan
  20. Nakagomi, 2023, Social isolation and subsequent health and well-being in older adults: A longitudinal outcome-wide analysis, Social Science & Medicine, 327, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115937 · DOI
  21. Noor, 2022, Artificial intelligence service agents: Role of parasocial relationship, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 62, 1009, 10.1080/08874417.2021.1962213 · DOI
  22. Papneja, 2024, Self-disclosure to conversational AI: A literature review, emergent framework, and directions for future research, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 1
  23. Phang, 2025, Investigating affective use and emotional well-being on ChatGPT, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03888 · arXiv
  24. Shaw, 2007, Tracking changes in social relations throughout late life, Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, S90, 10.1093/geronb/62.2.S90 · DOI
  25. Walen, 2000, Social support and strain from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 5, 10.1177/0265407500171001 · DOI
  26. Xie, 2024, Will virtual companionship enhance subjective well-Being—A comparison of cross-cultural context, International Journal of Social Robotics, 16, 2153, 10.1007/s12369-024-01180-8 · DOI
  27. Zaki, 2020, Integrating empathy and interpersonal emotion regulation, Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 517, 10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050830 · DOI
  28. Zhang, 2025, The rise of AI companions: How human-chatbot relationships influence well-being, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12605 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Nakagomi, A., Akutsu, Y., Yasuoka, M., Abe, N., Ihara, S., Teroh, T., & Tabuchi, T.
ORCID
Venue
Technology in Society
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-04
Volume
85
Pages
103229
ISSN
0160-791X
DOI
10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103229
Cited by
29
References
9
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society (JPMJRS2281)

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