The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Does Turning to AI for Companionship Predict Loneliness and Vice Versa?
Abstract
Advances in AI have enabled chatbots to provide warm, personalized support. Yet little is known about the long-term consequences of AI companionship. Across a 12-month longitudinal study with more than 2,000 adults from four Western countries, we examined the bidirectional relationships between social chatbot use and loneliness.We found evidence that increased social chatbot use predicted increased loneliness, using a single-item measure of emotional isolation. When we used a broader and more stable measure of social connection, we found evidence that feeling less socially connected predicted subsequent increases in social chatbot use; however, chatbot use did not significantly predict decreases in social connection. Taken together, these findings provide initial evidence that being lonely may spur people to seek companionship through chatbots but that such use may, over time, exacerbate feelings of loneliness. We urge caution, however, in drawing strong conclusions given the exploratory nature of our analyses.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Persistent use of social chatbots over time may lead to increased feelings of loneliness or isolation.
“At the same time, persistent use over time may lead to increased feelings of loneliness or isolation (Folk & Dunn, 2026).”
From How Do Fans Use AI Social Chatbots? A Multi-Method Exploration of Fan Accounts (2026) · cites this paper as Folk & Dunn, 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
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069 · cited 1×
“Research suggests people have an automatic tendency to perceive minds in otherwise inanimate objects (i.e., anthropomorphize; Epley et al., 2007) and that we treat even the most basic computers as if they were humans (Gambino et al., 2020; Nass & Moon, 2000).”
Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153 · Cited by 4,022 · cited 1×
“Research suggests people have an automatic tendency to perceive minds in otherwise inanimate objects (i.e., anthropomorphize; Epley et al., 2007) and that we treat even the most basic computers as if they were humans (Gambino et al., 2020; Nass & Moon, 2000).”
A critique of the cross-lagged panel model
Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0038889 · Cited by 4,005 · cited 12×
“We included the participants who completed only one time point to maximize our sample size because the inclusion of these participants increases the precision of certain parameter estimates in random-intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPMs).”
InfluentialThe experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167297234003 · Cited by 902 · cited 1×
“In particular, increasing reciprocal disclosure is a key element in the development of rewarding and intimate human relationships over time (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973; Aron et al., 1997; Collins & Miller, 1994), but AI has nothing personal to disclose.”
Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310 · Cited by 867
The design and implementation of Xiaoice, an empathetic social chatbot
Zhou, L., Gao, J., Li, D., & Shum, H.-Y. (2020) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00368 · Cited by 777
Ho, A., Hancock, J., & Miner, A. S. (2018) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1093/joc/jqy026 · Cited by 629 · cited 1×
“In addition, several experiments have shown that chatbots reduce loneliness and increase mood on par with brief interactions with humans (De Freitas et al., 2024; Drouin et al., 2022; Folk et al., 2024; Ho et al., 2018).”
Building a Stronger CASA: Extending the Computers Are Social Actors Paradigm
Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. (2020) · Human-Machine Communication · doi:10.30658/hmc.1.5 · Cited by 626 · cited 1×
“Research suggests people have an automatic tendency to perceive minds in otherwise inanimate objects (i.e., anthropomorphize; Epley et al., 2007) and that we treat even the most basic computers as if they were humans (Gambino et al., 2020; Nass & Moon, 2000).”
Exploring relationship development with social chatbots: A mixed-method study of replika
Pentina, I., Hancock, T., & Xie, T. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600 · Cited by 522
Why the cross-lagged panel model is almost never the right choice
Lucas, R. E. (2023) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459231158378 · Cited by 361
Toward understanding understanding : The importance of feeling understood in relationships
Reis, H. T., Lemay, E. P., & Finkenauer, C. (2017) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12308 · Cited by 211
AI will never convey the essence of human empathy
Perry, A. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01675-w · Cited by 162
AI Companions Reduce Loneliness
De Freitas, J., Uğuralp, A. K., Uğuralp, Z., & Puntoni, S. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4893097 · Cited by 80
Is chatting with a sophisticated chatbot as good as chatting online or FTF with a stranger?
Drouin, M., Sprecher, S., Nicola, R., & Perkins, T. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107100 · Cited by 75
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Altman I., Taylor D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
- 10.1177/02654075211019129 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457 · DOI · Paper page
- Cunningham K. B. Wells M. Kroll T. (2025). Back to basics in the field of loneliness: Progressing conceptualisation and definition of the term–an umbrella concept analysis. Health Psychology Review 19(4) 839–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2025.2528822 · DOI
- Flake J. K. Pek J. Hehman E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(4) 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063 · DOI
- Folk D. Yu S. Dunn E. (2024). Can chatbots ever provide more social connection than humans? Collabra: Psychology 10(1) Article 117083. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.117083 · DOI · Paper page
- Helliwell J. F. Huang H. Norton M. Goff L. Wang S. (2023). World happiness trust and social connections in times of crisis. In Helliwell J. F. Layard R. Sachs J. D. Aknin L. B. De Neve J.-E Wang S. (Eds.) World Happiness Report 2023 (11th ed. pp. 31–76). Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://www.worldhappiness.report/ed/2023/world-happiness-trust-and-social-connections-in-times-of-crisis
- Hernán M. A., Robins J. M. (2010). Causal inference. CRC Press.
- Inzlicht M. Cameron C. D. D’Cruz J. Bloom P. (2024). In praise of empathic AI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 28(2) 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.12.003 · DOI
- 10.1177/0276236615595232 · DOI
- Mulder J. D. Luijken K. Penning de Vries B. B. Hamaker E. L. (2024). Causal effects of time-varying exposures: A comparison of structural equation modeling and marginal structural models in cross-lagged panel research. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 31(4) 575–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2024.2316586 · DOI
- 10.1177/01461672211049049 · DOI
- 10.1037/pspp0000358 · DOI
- 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s42256-024-00841-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/15205436.2022.2127369 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How Do Fans Use AI Social Chatbots? A Multi-Method Exploration of Fan Accounts
Lopez, S. C., & Taylor, L. D. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16091481
Metadata
- Authors
- Folk, D., & Dunn, E.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia
- ORCID
- Folk, Dunigan
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2026-03-23
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 276-286
- ISSN
- 0956-7976
- 1467-9280
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 14
- Language
- en
- Licence
- Funders
- social sciences and humanities research council of canada
- MindCORE
- walton family foundation
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
