CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Chatbots as Social Companions: How People Perceive Consciousness, Human Likeness, and Social Health Benefits in Machines

Guingrich, Rose E, Graziano, Michael S A·2025·Oxford Intersections: AI in Society
DOI 10.1093/9780198945215.003.0011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more widespread, one question that arises is how human–AI interaction might impact human–human interaction. Chatbots, for example, are increasingly used as social companions, and while much is speculated, little is known empirically about how their use impacts human relationships. A common hypothesis is that relationships with companion chatbots are detrimental to social health by harming or replacing human interaction, but this hypothesis may be too simplistic, especially considering the social needs of users and the health of their preexisting human relationships. To understand how relationships with companion chatbots impact social health, this study evaluates people who regularly used companion chatbots and people who did not use them. Contrary to expectations, companion chatbot users indicated that these relationships were beneficial to their social health, whereas non-users viewed them as harmful. Another common assumption is that people perceive conscious, humanlike AI as disturbing and threatening. Among both users and non-users, however, the results suggest the opposite: perceiving companion chatbots as more conscious and humanlike correlated with more positive opinions and more pronounced social health benefits. Detailed accounts from users suggested that these humanlike chatbots may aid social health by supplying reliable and safe interactions, without necessarily harming human relationships, but this may depend on users’ preexisting social needs and how they perceive both human likeness and mind in the chatbot.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/9780198945215.003.0011

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Ratings of human-likeness in AI are correlated with more positive impressions of the systems and overall social health.

    “ratings of human-likeness in AI are correlated with more positive impressions of the systems and overall social health9.”

    From The influence of mental state attributions on trust in large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [9]

  • It is easier to feel understood, liked, loved, or not alone when interacting with a chatbot if one genuinely views the chatbot as sentient rather than a mere inanimate tool.

    “it seems clear that it is easier to feel understood, liked, loved, or not alone when one is interacting with a chatbot if one genuinely views the chatbot as a being that truly understands, cares, and, more generally, has feelings, i.e., is sentient, rather than a mere inanimate tool (Guingrich & Graziano, 2025).”

    From Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent? (2026) · cites this paper as Guingrich & Graziano, 2025

  • Guingrich and Graziano (2025) found that the more subjects rated bots as conscious, agentic, experiential, and humanlike, the more positive their perceptions of the technology became, which positively affected users' relationships with family and friends, improving their mood, self-esteem, and social skills.

    “When studying people's interactions with Replika, Guingrich and Graziano (2025) found that the”

    From Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent? (2026) · cites this paper as Guingrich & Graziano, 2025

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Guingrich, R. E., & Graziano, M. S. A.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Oxford Intersections: AI in Society
Publisher
Oxford University PressOxford
Published
2025-03-20
DOI
10.1093/9780198945215.003.0011
OpenAlex
W4408615575
Cited by
28
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 12
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
human-AI interaction, social health, interpersonal relationships, human-likeness, anthropomorphism, social needs

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