I love you, my AI companion! Do you? Perspectives from the Triangular Theory of Love and Attachment Theory

Ng, Peggy M.L.; Wan, Calvin; Lee, Daisy; Garnelo-Gomez, Irene; Lau, Mei Mei

doi:10.1108/intr-11-2024-1783

Cited by 27AI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 26 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

I love you, my AI companion! Do you? Perspectives from the Triangular Theory of Love and Attachment Theory

Open access

Ng, Peggy M.L., Wan, Calvin, Lee, Daisy, Garnelo-Gomez, Irene, Lau, Mei Mei·2026·Internet Research

DOI 10.1108/intr-11-2024-1783

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines the influence of artificial intelligence (AI) companions on users' social well-being by integrating the Triangular Theory of Love and Attachment Theory. Specifically, this study explores how the three components of love (including intimacy, passion and commitment) shape users' attachment (interactive engagement, emotional attachment, emotional trust) toward AI companions and how attachment, in turn, impacts social well-being. The study also investigates the moderating role of sweet deception in these relationships. Design/methodology/approach: An online survey was conducted with 527 users of AI companion apps, recruited through a panel service provided by a marketing agency. The proposed path relationships in the conceptual framework were analyzed using SmartPLS 4.0. Findings: The results show that the three components of love significantly impact users' attachment and both interactive and emotional attachment subsequently influence social well-being. Additionally, sweet deception was found to strengthen the relationships between interactive engagement and social well-being, as well as that between emotional attachment and social well-being. Originality/value: This study makes a unique contribution to the literature by empirically examining how human–AI companion relationships impact users’ social well-being. Specifically, it introduces the novel concept of sweet deception – the strategic use of affectionate yet deceptive communications to foster emotional bonds – and empirically test its role in strengthening the relationship between users’ emotional attachment and social well-being. By integrating Triangular Theory of Love and Attachment Theory, this study offers a new theoretical framework for understanding the emotional dynamics of human–AI interactions. Moreover, this study provides innovative practical insights for businesses on designing emotionally engaging AI companions that promote user well-being.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study integrates the Triangular Theory of Love and Attachment Theory to test how intimacy, passion, and commitment shape users’ attachment to AI companions and, in turn, their social well-being. Survey results from 527 AI companion app users show that interactive engagement and emotional attachment predict social well-being, while emotional trust does not, and sweet deception moderates some of these links.

Key findings

Intimacy, passion, and commitment all had significant positive effects on interactive engagement, emotional attachment, and emotional trust (e.g., passion → emotional attachment β = 0.514, p < 0.001; commitment → emotional attachment β = 0.121, p < 0.05).
Interactive engagement (β = 0.204, p < 0.001) and emotional attachment (β = 0.142, p < 0.001) significantly influenced social well-being, but emotional trust did not (β = 0.104, p > 0.05), so H6 was rejected.
Sweet deception positively moderated the relationship between interactive engagement and social well-being (β = 0.152, p < 0.05) and between emotional attachment and social well-being (β = 0.194, p < 0.001), but not between emotional trust and social well-being (β = 0.059, p = 0.294).
The model explained 45.9% of variance in emotional trust, 54.0% in interactive engagement, 63.3% in emotional attachment, and 56.2% in social well-being.

Methods

An online survey was conducted with 527 valid users of AI companion apps, recruited via Prolific from October 12 to October 21, 2024; of 542 responses, 9 were unsubmitted and 6 failed attention checks.
The sample was 42.6% female and 57.4% male; participants were screened for AI companion app use in the past 3 months.
Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 4.0, including measurement model assessment, common method bias checks, structural path analysis, and moderation tests.

Limitations

Stated: the study did not focus on a specific geographic region, and because love is culturally specific, future research could explore cultural and ethnic differences.
Stated: the cross-sectional design cannot measure long-term effects, and self-reported data may limit depth, especially for sensitive topics like love and AI companionship.
Stated: the study did not associate Dark Triad personality traits with sweet deception; future research could examine how narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy influence sweet deception in human-AI interactions. Evident from the text: the sample was recruited through Prolific and skewed male (57.4%), which may limit generalizability beyond that panel and gender distribution.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/intr-11-2024-1783

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 26 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding control variables, the demographic variables of gender, age, education level and frequency of usage were used.There were no significant effects, as follows: gender (β = 0.006, p > 0.05); age (β = 0.027, p > 0.05); education level (β = 0.094, p > 0.05); and AI companion app usage (β = 0.009, p > 0.05).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 5.3 Structural model
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships among the latent constructs in the structural model are correctly specified and causal in the direction hypothesized.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Commitment had significant positive effects on interactive engagement (β = 0.196, p < 0.001), emotional attachment (β = 0.121, p < 0.05), and emotional trust (β = 0.180, p < 0.05), supporting H3a, H3b and H3c.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 5.3 Structural model
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships among the latent constructs in the structural model are correctly specified and causal in the direction hypothesized.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Passion had significant positive effects on interactive engagement (β = 0.373, p < 0.001), emotional attachment (β = 0.514, p < 0.001), and emotional trust (β = 0.298, p < 0.001); thus, H2a, H2b, and H2c are supported.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 5.3 Structural model
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships among the latent constructs in the structural model are correctly specified and causal in the direction hypothesized.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model explained 45.9% of the variance in emotional trust, 54.0% of the variance in interactive engagement, 63.3% of the variance in emotional attachment, and 56.2% of the variance in social well-being.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 5.3 Structural model
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships among the latent constructs in the structural model are correctly specified and causal in the direction hypothesized.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, emotional trust did not significantly influence social well-being (β = 0.104, p > 0.05).Therefore, H6 is not supported.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 5.3 Structural model
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
- Rests on an assumption: The relationships among the latent constructs in the structural model are correctly specified and causal in the direction hypothesized.

Show all 44 claims

It may state two separate claims as one. 18
Probably not a substantial claim. 13

A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, sweet deception did not moderate the relationship between emotional attachment and social well-being, suggesting that the strength of emotional bonds remains unaffected by idealized responses.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Discussion · hedged
  “The findings indicated that the strength of the relationship between emotional attachment and social well-being remains consistent, regardless of the presence of sweet deception.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6. Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
In the paper
“Regular, meaningful engagement with AI companions can reduce feelings of social isolation and provide emotional support, ultimately contributing to improved social well-being (Leo-Liu, 2023).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 3.4 Interactive engagement, emotional attachment, emotional trust and social well-being
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Leo-Liu, 2023 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Sweet deception fosters positive and deep engagement in human-AI relationships, building trust and a sense of connection (Umbrello and Natale, 2024).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 2.4 Sweet deception
What the sources say
- Not checked yet
  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
  cites Umbrello and Natale, 2024 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“High levels of social well-being are associated with positive mental health outcomes, including lower loneliness, greater life satisfaction, and increased emotional stability (Marriott and Pitardi, 2024).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 3.4 Interactive engagement, emotional attachment, emotional trust and social well-being
What the sources say
- Not checked yet
  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
  cites Marriott and Pitardi, 2024 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Triangular Theory of Love has been widely accepted and adopted, due to its robustness and universality, across relationships of different natures (Sternberg, 1986).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 2.1 Triangular Theory of Love
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sternberg, 1986 source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These three components are believed to be essential in forming and sustaining romantic relationships (Sternberg, 1986;Hatfield et al., 1988;Sternberg, 1997).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 2.1 Triangular Theory of Love
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sternberg, 1986 source
- Not matched
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
  cites Hatfield et al., 1988
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sternberg, 1997 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“researchers applied the theory to relationships with musical instruments (Sternberg, 2021), e-wallets (Seng and Hee, 2021), brands (Albert and Merunka, 2013), and intelligent assistants (Song et al., 2022).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 2.1 Triangular Theory of Love
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sternberg, 2021 source
- Not checked yet
  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
  cites Seng and Hee, 2021 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Albert and Merunka, 2013 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Fourth, considering the ethical concerns surrounding AI-driven sweet deception, authors argue that deception in human-AI relationships may depend on the user's autonomy, as well as their cognitive, social and emotional competencies (Kaczmarek, 2024).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6.3 Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yet
  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
  cites Kaczmarek, 2024 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As the concept of love is highly culturally specific (Doherty et al., 1994), future studies could explore cultural and ethnic differences in human-AI relationships and their impact on social well-being.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6.3 Limitations and future research
What the sources say
- Not checked yet
  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
  cites Doherty et al., 1994 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“the variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated, with values ranging from 1.662 to 2.971, all below the recommended threshold of 5 (Hair et al., 2019).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 5.1 Measurement model
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hair et al., 2019 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, this research has revealed that attachment-manifested through interactive engagement and emotional connection-was the most robust predictor of social well-being in the context of relationships with AI companions, whereas emotional trust played a comparatively lesser role.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6. Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results reflected that sweet deception enhances the relationship between interactive engagement and social well-being, as users experience greater social well-being when they perceive idealized emotional responses from their AI companions.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6.1 Theoretical implications
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The research findings revealed that the key components of love (including intimacy, passion, and commitment) significantly predicted various forms of attachment (including interactive engagement, emotional attachment, and emotional trust) within the user-AI companion relationship, subsequently enhancing users' social well-being.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6. Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While this research found that AI companions can simulate idealized emotional attachment, which may enhance users' social well-being, this raises ethical considerations regarding the authenticity of human-AI interactions.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6.2 Practical implications
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, the establishment of emotional attachment has been shown to contribute positively to social well-being, suggesting that emotional bonds formed with AI companions enrich users' emotional fulfillment and sense of connectedness.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6. Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
In the paper
“the content validity of the initial questionnaire was assessed by four expert judges, consisting of two marketing academics and two marketing researchers (Shen et al., 2014).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 4.1 Questionnaire design
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shen et al., 2014 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passes
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Emotional trust in AI, comparable to trust in human relationships, contributes to users' emotional security, thereby enhancing overall social well-being (Wilson-Nash et al., 2023).”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 3.4 Interactive engagement, emotional attachment, emotional trust and social well-being
What the sources say
- Not checked yet
  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
  cites Wilson-Nash et al., 2023 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The total variance accounted for by a single factor was 34.2% (Podsakoff et al., 2003), which is below the 50% threshold, indicating the absence of CMB.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 5.2 Common method bias
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Podsakoff et al., 2003 source
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the role of emotional trust appeared to be less significant in this research, as it did not predict social well-being, implying a shift in how trust is viewed in human-AI relationships.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6. Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results contribute to the literature by demonstrating how strategically designed emotional responses in AI systems can mimic aspects of human attachment, enriching users' emotional experiences and overall well-being.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6.1 Theoretical implications
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, our study contributes to the literature by providing evidence of the positive outcomes arising from engagement with AI companions and the role of emotions in shaping the attachment to AI in a romantic way.”
§ I love you, my AI companion > 6.1 Theoretical implications
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibrated
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.

29 of 29

The paper relies on this without support.
The underlying mechanisms for establishing long-term relational bonds or connectedness with AI tools remain underexplored.
“the underlying mechanisms for establishing long-term relational bonds or connectedness with AI tools remain underexplored, thereby creating a research gap.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI companions are always available for emotional support whenever users want it, providing 24/7 companionship.
“AI companions are always available for emotional support whenever users want it, providing 24/7 companionship.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants' self-reported responses accurately reflect their actual feelings, attachment, trust, and social well-being.
“Third, this study relied on selfreported data that may limit the depth of insights.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The relationships among the latent constructs in the structural model are correctly specified and causal in the direction hypothesized.
“The structural model was examined by evaluating the proposed relationships between latent constructs of the path model.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI companion environments like Replika and Reddit highly imitate human love and attachment capabilities.
“It also investigates how attachment affects social well-being, particularly in environments like Replika and Reddit that highly imitate human love and attachment capabilities.”

5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

Discussion reverses the emotional-attachment moderation result
Major
The discussion says sweet deception did not moderate the emotional attachment-social well-being relationship. The path-analysis table reports that this moderation was significant and supported.
Nearly identical t-statistics have sharply different p-values
Minor
Two paths in the same analysis have t-statistics of 2.928 and 2.931, yet their reported p-values are 0.040 and 0.000. Such nearly identical t-statistics cannot produce such different p-values under the same test.

2 of 2

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 · Cited by 38,459
When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203 · Cited by 27,541
Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling
Etikan, I. (2016) · American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics · doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 · Cited by 11,412
PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use
Jr., J. F. H., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017) · International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis · doi:10.1504/ijmda.2017.087624 · Cited by 5,441
The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00505-6 · Cited by 5,265
Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect.
Bowlby, J. (1982) · American Journal of Orthopsychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x · Cited by 2,930
Untitled work
Bowlby (1977) · doi:10.1192/bjp.130.3.201 · Cited by 2,844
A triangular theory of love.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.119 · Cited by 2,614
Les passions de l'ame: on obsessive and harmonious passion
Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., Gagné, M., & Marsolais, J. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.756 · Cited by 2,566

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 73 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

Abraham, 2024, Computer says yes: how AI is changing our romantic lives, The Guardian
Blackbyrn, 2024, Would You Fall in Love with an AI – 3 in 5 Americans Say Yes
Hatfield, 1988, The Psychology of Love, 119
Keyes, 2004, How Healthy Are We? A National Study of well-being at Midlife, 350
Levy, 2007, Falling in love with a companion, Artificial Companions in Society: Perspectives on the Present and Future, 2, 28
Levy, 2009, Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships
Liang, 2023, The New York Times
McDaniel, 2018, ‘You look fine’: a closer look at white lies in female best friendships, Iowa Journal of Communication, 50, 52
Sari, 2019, The role of emotional brand attachment and customer trust in enhancing customer experience's effect on customer loyalty towards beauty clinics in Surabaya, Petra International Journal of Business Studies, 2, 18

Sorted by citations

Effects of AI Companions’ Sycophancy and Emotional Mimicry on Consumers’ Continuance Intention and Social Wellbeing
Lee, D., Wan, C., Ng, P. M. L., Fung, Y.-N., & Wu, N. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2626809 · Cited by 10
Self-citation
The relational power of friendly AI shopping assistants: A serial mediation model of sense of care, reliance, and stickiness intention
Choi, W. (2026) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2026.104795 · Cited by 5
Love on Demand
Quanling, E. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6623-4.ch002 · Cited by 1
Anthropomorphic AI in retail: Machine, assistant, or coworker?
Park, J., Chen, Y., & Kim, M. (2026) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2026.104871 · Cited by 1
Healthy bonds or pathological ties? Unpacking emotional dependence on AI through rumination and metacognitive awareness
Zhenyan, L., Li, H., & 袁勤俭 (2026) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2026.102404 · Cited by 1

See all 27

Authors: Ng, P. M. L., Wan, C., Lee, D., Garnelo-Gomez, I., & Lau, M. M.
Affiliations: Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
University of Reading (GB)
IQS School of Management, Universitat Ramon Llull , ,
ORCID: Ng, Peggy M.L.
Wan, Calvin
Lee, Daisy
Garnelo-Gomez, Irene
Lau, Mei Mei
Venue: Internet Research
Publisher: Emerald
Published: 2025-09-30
Volume: 36
Issue: 3
Pages: 905-925
ISSN: 1066-2243 (ISSN-L)
2054-5657
DOI: 10.1108/intr-11-2024-1783
OpenAlex: W7083624060
Semantic Scholar: b5bab8af38246ff3a279a347d677d93680d770d0
Cited by: 27
References: 73
Citations by year: 2026: 27
FWCI: 20.32
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: green
centaur.reading.ac.uk
Locations: Internet Research (publishedVersion)
CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
DAU - Digital Archive of URL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders: CPCE research fund (BHM-TF-2023-023(J))
Topics: Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords: AI companions, human-AI relationship, triangular theory of love, attachment theory, intimacy, passion, commitment, emotional attachment, interactive engagement, emotional trust, social well-being

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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

I love you, my AI companion! Do you? Perspectives from the Triangular Theory of Love and Attachment Theory

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks