CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Digital Companionship: Overlapping Uses of AI Companions and AI Assistants

Manoli, Aikaterina, Pauketat, Janet V.T., Ladak, Ali, Noh, Hayoun, Hwang, Angel Hsing-Chi, Anthis, Jacy Reese·2026·Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3772318.3791331
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1145/3772318.3791331

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • The data suggest that one of the most important perceived advantages of AI for mental health is the understanding that AI, while possessing human-like relational affordances such as empathy, is also recognised as not human and therefore does not possess some human traits (judgement, time constraints, emotional impact) that act as barriers towards seeking formal mental health treatment or advice/帮助

    “Importantly the data suggests that one of the most important perceived advantages of AI for mental health is the understanding that AI, while possessing human-like relational affordances such as empathy, is also recognised as not human and therefore does not possess some human traits (judgement, time constraints, emotional impact) that act as barriers towards seeking formal mental health treatment”

    From Artificial intelligence and unconditional love: the rise of generative AI as an alternative form of mental health support (2026) · cites this paper as Manoli et al., 2026

  • Recent studies demonstrate a more complicated and multifaceted relationship with AI in which mental health, emotional connection, and self-disclosure are not originally intended or primary uses.

    “Several recent studies are beginning to demonstrate this more complicated and multifaceted relationship with AI in which mental health, or even emotional connection and self-disclosure are not an originally intended or primary use of these technologies (Zhang et al., 2025;Manoli et al., 2026).”

    From Artificial intelligence and unconditional love: the rise of generative AI as an alternative form of mental health support (2026) · cites this paper as Manoli et al., 2026

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 101

  1. Ibrahim Adeshola and Adeola Praise Adepoju. 2024. The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in education. Interactive Learning Environments 32 10 (Nov. 2024) 6159–6172. 10.1080/10494820.2023.2253858Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253858. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Karima Al Mazroui and Mohammed Alzyoudi. 2024. The role of ChatGPT in mitigating loneliness among older adults: An exploratory study. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 14 4 (Oct. 2024) e202444. 10.30935/ojcmt/14777 · DOI
  3. Amani Alabed Ana Javornik Diana Gregory-Smith and Rebecca Casey. 2023. More than just a chat: a taxonomy of consumers’ relationships with conversational AI agents and their well-being implications. European Journal of Marketing 58 2 (Jan. 2023) 373–409. 10.1108/EJM-01-2023-0037Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited. · DOI
  4. Fahad Alanezi. 2024. Assessing the Effectiveness of ChatGPT in Delivering Mental Health Support: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 17 (Jan. 2024) 461–471. 10.2147/JMDH.S447368 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1145/3678884.3681858 · DOI
  6. 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.5 · DOI
  7. Jacy Reese Anthis and Eze Paez. 2021. Moral Circle Expansion: A Promising Strategy to Impact the Far Future. Futures 130 (June 2021) 102756. 10.1016/j.futures.2021.102756 · DOI
  8. 10.1145/3706598.3713329 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Jaime Banks. 2019. A perceived moral agency scale: Development and validation of a metric for humans and social machines. Computers in Human Behavior 90 (Jan. 2019) 363–371. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.028 · DOI
  10. Christoph Bartneck Dana Kulić Elizabeth Croft and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism Animacy Likeability Perceived Intelligence and Perceived Safety of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1 1 (Jan. 2009) 71–81. 10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 57 1 (1995) 289–300. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x_eprint: https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Timothy W. Bickmore Pfeifer Laura M. Byron Donna Forsythe Shaula Henault Lori E. Jack Brian W. Silliman Rebecca and Michael K. Paasche-Orlow. 2010. Usability of Conversational Agents by Patients with Inadequate Health Literacy: Evidence from Two Clinical Trials. Journal of Health Communication 15 sup2 (Aug. 2010) 197–210. 10.1080/10810730.2010.499991Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.499991. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Timothy W. Bickmore and Rosalind W. Picard. 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12 2 (June 2005) 293–327. 10.1145/1067860.1067867 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Som S. Biswas. 2023. Role of Chat GPT in Public Health. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 51 5 (May 2023) 868–869. 10.1007/s10439-023-03172-7 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Petter Bae Brandtzaeg Marita Skjuve and Asbjørn Følstad. 2022. My AI Friend: How Users of a Social Chatbot Understand Their Human–AI Friendship. Human Communication Research 48 3 (July 2022) 404–429. 10.1093/hcr/hqac008 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 2 (Jan. 2006) 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oaPublisher: Routledge. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health 11 4 (Aug. 2019) 589–597. 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Lucius Caviola Jeff Sebo and Jonathan Birch. 2025. What Will Society Think about AI Consciousness? Lessons from the Animal Case. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 29 8 (Aug. 2025) 681–683. 10.1016/j.tics.2025.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  19. José-Antonio Cervantes Sonia López Luis-Felipe Rodríguez Salvador Cervantes Francisco Cervantes and Félix Ramos. 2020. Artificial Moral Agents: A Survey of the Current Status. Science and Engineering Ethics 26 2 (April 2020) 501–532. 10.1007/s11948-019-00151-x · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1145/3706598.3713550 · DOI
  21. 10.1145/3613904.3642775 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Catherine A. Cottrell and Steven L. Neuberg. 2005. Different emotional reactions to different groups: a sociofunctional threat-based approach to "prejudice". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 5 (May 2005) 770–789. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770 · DOI
  23. Jennifer Dunn Nicole E. Ruedy and Maurice E. Schweitzer. 2012. It hurts both ways: How social comparisons harm affective and cognitive trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 117 1 (Jan. 2012) 2–14. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.08.001 · DOI
  24. Steve W Edison and Gary L Geissler. 2003. Measuring attitudes towards general technology: Antecedents hypotheses and scale development. Journal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 12 2 (Nov. 2003) 137–156. 10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740104 · DOI
  25. Mehmet Firat. 2023. What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching 6 1 (April 2023) 57–63. 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22Number: 1. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Kathleen Kara Fitzpatrick Alison Darcy and Molly Vierhile. 2017. Delivering Cognitive Behavior Therapy to Young Adults With Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety Using a Fully Automated Conversational Agent (Woebot): A Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mental Health 4 2 (June 2017) e7785. 10.2196/mental.7785Company: JMIR Mental Health Distributor: JMIR Mental Health Institution: JMIR Mental Health Label: JMIR Mental Health Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc. Toronto Canada. · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1145/2696454.2696483 · DOI
  28. Julian De Freitas Noah Castelo Ahmet Uguralp and Zeliha Uguralp. 2024. Lessons From an App Update at Replika AI: Identity Discontinuity in Human-AI Relationships. 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14190arXiv:https://arXiv.org/abs/2412.14190 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Andrew Gambino Jesse Fox and Rabindra Ratan. 2020. Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm. Human-Machine Communication 1 1 (Feb. 2020). 10.30658/hmc.1.5 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Louie Giray. 2024. AI Shaming: The Silent Stigma among Academic Writers and Researchers. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 52 9 (Sept. 2024) 2319–2324. 10.1007/s10439-024-03582-1 · DOI
  31. Samuel D Gosling Peter J Rentfrow and William B Swann. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality 37 6 (Dec. 2003) 504–528. 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Heather M. Gray Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner. 2007. Dimensions of Mind Perception. Science 315 5812 (Feb. 2007) 619–619. 10.1126/science.1134475Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Siddharth Gulati Sonia Sousa and David Lamas. 2019. Design development and evaluation of a human-computer trust scale. Behaviour & Information Technology 38 10 (Oct. 2019) 1004–1015. 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1656779Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1656779. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Shelleka Gupta and Vinay Chauhan. 2023. Understanding the Role of Social Networking Sites in Political Marketing. Jindal Journal of Business Research 12 1 (June 2023) 58–72. 10.1177/22786821221147592Publisher: SAGE Publications India. · DOI
  35. Jerlyn Q. H. Ho Meilan Hu Tracy X. Chen and Andree Hartanto. 2025. Potential and pitfalls of romantic Artificial Intelligence (AI) companions: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 19 (Aug. 2025) 100715. 10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100715 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang Fiona Li Jacy Reese Anthis and Hayoun Noh. 2025. How AI Companionship Develops: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study. arXiv:https://arXiv.org/abs/2510.10079 [cs] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.10079 · DOI
  37. Qiaolei Jiang Yadi Zhang and Wenjing Pian. 2022. Chatbot as an emergency exist: Mediated empathy for resilience via human-AI interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information Processing & Management 59 6 (Nov. 2022) 103074. 10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103074 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Kathryn Johnson Adam Cohen Rebecca Neel Anna Berlin and Donald Homa. 2015. Fuzzy people: The roles of kinship essence and sociability in the attribution of personhood to nonliving nonhuman agents. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 7 4 (Nov. 2015) 295–305. 10.1037/rel0000048 · DOI
  39. Celina Kacperski Roberto Ulloa Denis Bonnay Juhi Kulshrestha Peter Selb and Andreas Spitz. 2025. Characteristics of ChatGPT users from Germany: Implications for the digital divide from web tracking data. PLOS ONE 20 1 (Jan. 2025) e0309047. 10.1371/journal.pone.0309047Publisher: Public Library of Science. · DOI
  40. Dinesh Kalla Nathan Smith Fnu Samaah and Sivaraju Kuraku. 2023. Study and Analysis of Chat GPT and its Impact on Different Fields of Study. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4402499
  41. 10.1145/3715275.3732094 · DOI
  42. Eunbin Kang and Youn Ah Kang. 2024. Counseling Chatbot Design: The Effect of Anthropomorphic Chatbot Characteristics on User Self-Disclosure and Companionship. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 40 11 (June 2024) 2781–2795. 10.1080/10447318.2022.2163775Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2163775. · DOI
  43. Weria Khaksar Diana Saplacan Lindblom Lee Andrew Bygrave and Jim Torresen. 2025. Robotics in Elderly Healthcare: A Qualitative Analysis of 20 Recent European Research Projects. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 14 2 (Feb. 2025) 35:1–35:38. 10.1145/3711936 · DOI
  44. 10.1145/3290605.3300330 · DOI
  45. Kaylee Payne Kruzan Jonah Meyerhoff Theresa Nguyen David C. Mohr Madhu Reddy and Rachel Kornfield. 2022. “I Wanted to See How Bad it Was”: Online Self-screening as a Critical Transition Point Among Young Adults with Common Mental Health Conditions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference 2022 (April 2022) 328. 10.1145/3491102.3501976 · DOI
  46. Ali Ladak and Lucius Caviola. 2025. Public Skepticism about AI Consciousness. 10.31234/osf.io/wvbya_v2 · DOI
  47. 10.1145/3613904.3642403 · DOI
  48. 10.1145/3706598.3713130 · DOI
  49. Linnea Laestadius Andrea Bishop Michael Gonzalez Diana Illenčík and Celeste Campos-Castillo. 2022. Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot Replika. New Media & Society (Dec. 2022) 14614448221142007. 10.1177/14614448221142007Publisher: SAGE Publications. · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1145/3290605.3300932 · DOI
  51. 10.1145/3313831.3376175 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Eleonora Lima and Tiffany Morisseau. 2025. Can chatbots teach us how to behave? Examining assumptions about user interactions with AI assistants and their social implications. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 8 (May 2025) 1545607. 10.3389/frai.2025.1545607 · DOI
  53. 10.1145/3544548.3580953 · DOI
  54. Gabriel Lima Changyeon Kim Seungho Ryu Chihyung Jeon and Meeyoung Cha. 2020. Collecting the Public Perception of AI and Robot Rights. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4 CSCW2 (Oct. 2020) 135:1–135:24. 10.1145/3415206 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Bingjie Liu and S. Shyam Sundar. 2018. Should Machines Express Sympathy and Empathy? Experiments with a Health Advice Chatbot. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking 21 10 (Oct. 2018) 625–636. 10.1089/cyber.2018.0110Publisher: Mary Ann Liebert Inc. publishers. · DOI · Paper page
  56. 10.1145/3491102.3517731 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Chiara Longoni Luca Cian and Ellie J. Kyung. 2023. Algorithmic Transference: People Overgeneralize Failures of AI in the Government. Journal of Marketing Research 60 1 (Feb. 2023) 170–188. 10.1177/00222437221110139Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc. · DOI · Paper page
  58. 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.7 · DOI
  59. 10.1145/3544548.3580690 · DOI
  60. Kim Malfacini. 2025. The impacts of companion AI on human relationships: risks benefits and design considerations. AI & SOCIETY 40 7 (Oct. 2025) 5527–5540. 10.1007/s00146-025-02318-6 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Bertram F. Malle. 2019. How Many Dimensions of Mind Perception Really Are There? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 41 0 (2019). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3j55p1rz
  62. Michael J. Manfredo Tara L. Teel Andrew W. Don Carlos Leeann Sullivan Alan D. Bright Alia M. Dietsch Jeremy Bruskotter and David Fulton. 2020. The changing sociocultural context of wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology 34 6 (2020) 1549–1559. 10.1111/cobi.13493_eprint: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cobi.13493. · DOI
  63. Aikaterina Manoli Janet V. T. Pauketat and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2025. The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 9 2 (May 2025) CSCW185:1–CSCW185:24. 10.1145/3711083 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Bethanie Maples Merve Cerit Aditya Vishwanath and Roy Pea. 2024. Loneliness and suicide mitigation for students using GPT3-enabled chatbots. npj Mental Health Research 3 1 (Jan. 2024) 1–6. 10.1038/s44184-023-00047-6Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Philipp K. Masur Dominic DiFranzo and Natalie N. Bazarova. 2021. Behavioral contagion on social media: Effects of social norms design interventions and critical media literacy on self-disclosure. PLoS ONE 16 7 (July 2021) e0254670. 10.1371/journal.pone.0254670 · DOI
  66. Gail F. Melson Peter H. Kahn Jr. Alan Beck and Batya Friedman. 2009. Robotic Pets in Human Lives: Implications for the Human–Animal Bond and for Human Relationships with Personified Technologies. Journal of Social Issues 65 3 (2009) 545–567. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01613.x_eprint: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01613.x. · DOI
  67. 10.1145/3715275.3732039 · DOI · Paper page
  68. 10.1145/3678884.3681909 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues 56 1 (2000) 81–103. 10.1111/0022-4537.00153_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/0022-4537.00153. · DOI · Paper page
  70. 10.1145/3706598.3713503 · DOI
  71. 10.1145/3613904.3642785 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Janet V. T. Pauketat and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2022. Predicting the moral consideration of artificial intelligences. Computers in Human Behavior 136 (Nov. 2022) 107372. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107372 · DOI · Paper page
  73. Janet V. T. Pauketat Daniel B. Shank Aikaterina Manoli and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2025. Mental Models of Autonomy and Sentience Shape Reactions to AI. arXiv:https://arXiv.org/abs/2512.09085 [cs] 10.48550/arXiv.2512.09085 · DOI
  74. Iryna Pentina Tyler Hancock and Tianling Xie. 2023. Exploring relationship development with social chatbots: A mixed-method study of replika. Comput. Hum. Behav. 140 C (March 2023). 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Ana Pinto Sónia Sousa Ana Simões and Joana Santos. 2022. A Trust Scale for Human-Robot Interaction: Translation Adaptation and Validation of a Human Computer Trust Scale. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2022 1 (Jan. 2022) 6437441. 10.1155/2022/6437441Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. · DOI
  76. Verónica Policarpo. 2015. What Is a Friend? An Exploratory Typology of the Meanings of Friendship. Social Sciences 4 1 (March 2015) 171–191. 10.3390/socsci4010171Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. · DOI
  77. Jacy Reese. 2018. The End of Animal Farming: How Scientists, Entrepreneurs, and Activists Are Building an Animal-Free Food System. Beacon Press, Boston.
  78. Byron Reeves and Clifford Ivar Nass. 1996. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, US. Pages: xiv, 305.
  79. Andreas M. Riege. 2003. Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands‐on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 6 2 (Jan. 2003) 75–86. 10.1108/13522750310470055Publisher: MCB UP Ltd. · DOI
  80. Nicole Ruggiano Ellen L. Brown Lisa Roberts C. Victoria Framil Suarez Yan Luo Zhichao Hao and Vagelis Hristidis. 2021. Chatbots to Support People With Dementia and Their Caregivers: Systematic Review of Functions and Quality. Journal of Medical Internet Research 23 6 (June 2021) e25006. 10.2196/25006Company: Journal of Medical Internet Research Distributor: Journal of Medical Internet Research Institution: Journal of Medical Internet Research Label: Journal of Medical Internet Research Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc. Toronto Canada. · DOI · Paper page
  81. Chelsea Schein and Kurt Gray. 2018. The Theory of Dyadic Morality: Reinventing Moral Judgment by Redefining Harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review 22 1 (Feb. 2018) 32–70. 10.1177/1088868317698288Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc. · DOI
  82. Astrid Schepman and Paul Rodway. 2023. The General Attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS): Confirmatory Validation and Associations with Personality Corporate Distrust and General Trust. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 39 13 (Aug. 2023) 2724–2741. 10.1080/10447318.2022.2085400Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2085400. · DOI · Paper page
  83. 10.1145/3544548.3581296 · DOI · Paper page
  84. Katie Seaborn. 2025. ChatGPT and U(X): A Rapid Review on Measuring the User Experience. 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15808arXiv:https://arXiv.org/abs/2503.15808 [cs]. · DOI
  85. Daniel B. Shank Mayu Koike and Steve Loughnan. 2025. Artificial intimacy: ethical issues of AI romance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 29 6 (June 2025) 499–501. 10.1016/j.tics.2025.02.007 · DOI
  86. Dominik Siemon Timo Strohmann Bijan Khosrawi-Rad Triparna de Vreede Edona Elshan and Michael Meyer. 2022. Why Do We Turn to Virtual Companions? A Text Mining Analysis of Replika Reviews. AMCIS 2022 Proceedings (Aug. 2022). https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2022/sig_hci/sig_hci/10
  87. Marita Skjuve Petter Bae Brandtzaeg and Asbjørn Følstad. 2024. Why do people use ChatGPT? Exploring user motivations for generative conversational AI. First Monday (Jan. 2024). 10.5210/fm.v29i1.13541 · DOI · Paper page
  88. 10.1145/3571884.3597144 · DOI
  89. Marita Skjuve Asbjørn Følstad Knut Inge Fostervold and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. 2021. My Chatbot Companion - a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 149 (May 2021) 102601. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601 · DOI · Paper page
  90. Marita Skjuve Asbjørn Følstad Knut Inge Fostervold and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. 2022. A longitudinal study of human–chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 168 (Dec. 2022) 102903. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102903 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Benjamin Sturgeon Daniel Samuelson Jacob Haimes and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2025. HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants. arXiv:https://arXiv.org/abs/2509.08494 [cs] 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08494 · DOI
  92. Vivian Ta Caroline Griffith Carolynn Boatfield Xinyu Wang Maria Civitello Haley Bader Esther DeCero and Alexia Loggarakis. 2020. User Experiences of Social Support From Companion Chatbots in Everyday Contexts: Thematic Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22 3 (March 2020) e16235. 10.2196/16235 · DOI · Paper page
  93. Deniz Tahiroglu Louis J. Moses Stephanie M. Carlson Caitlin E. V. Mahy Eric L. Olofson and Mark A. Sabbagh. 2014. The Children’s Social Understanding Scale: construction and validation of a parent-report measure for assessing individual differences in children’s theories of mind. Developmental Psychology 50 11 (Nov. 2014) 2485–2497. 10.1037/a0037914 · DOI
  94. Loukas Triantafyllopoulos Georgios Feretzakis Lazaros Tzelves Aikaterini Sakagianni Vassilios S. Verykios and Dimitris Kalles. 2024. Evaluating the interactions of Medical Doctors with chatbots based on large language models: Insights from a nationwide study in the Greek healthcare sector using ChatGPT. Computers in Human Behavior 161 (Dec. 2024) 108404. 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108404 · DOI
  95. Linda R. Tropp and Stephen C. Wright. 2001. Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 5 (May 2001) 585–600. 10.1177/0146167201275007Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc. · DOI
  96. Kallie Tzelios Lisa A. Williams John Omerod and Eliza Bliss-Moreau. 2022. Evidence of the unidimensional structure of mind perception. Scientific Reports 12 1 (Nov. 2022) 18978. 10.1038/s41598-022-23047-6Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. · DOI
  97. Bingcheng Wang Pei-Luen Patrick Rau and Tianyi Yuan. 2023. Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale. Behaviour & Information Technology 42 9 (July 2023) 1324–1337. 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768. · DOI · Paper page
  98. Adam Waytz John Cacioppo and Nicholas Epley. 2010. Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5 3 (2010) 219–232. 10.1177/1745691610369336Place: US Publisher: Sage Publications. · DOI · Paper page
  99. Qiuhong Wei Zhengxiong Yao Ying Cui Bo Wei Zhezhen Jin and Ximing Xu. 2024. Evaluation of ChatGPT-generated medical responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 151 (March 2024) 104620. 10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104620 · DOI
  100. Matti Wilks Ali Ladak and Steve Loughnan. 2026. Why AI Might Not Gain Moral Standing: Lessons from Animal Ethics. AI and Ethics 6 1 (Feb. 2026) 74. 10.1007/s43681-025-00919-x · DOI
  101. Tianling Xie and Iryna Pentina. 2022. Attachment Theory as a Framework to Understand Relationships with Social Chatbots: A Case Study of Replika. 10.24251/HICSS.2022.258 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Manoli, A., Pauketat, J. V. T., Ladak, A., Noh, H., Hwang, A. H.-C., & Anthis, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
  • Sentience Institute, New York, New York, USA
  • University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2026-04-13
Pages
1-25
DOI
10.1145/3772318.3791331
Cited by
5
References
3
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (vor)

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