The DOI matches its Crossref record; 107 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Generative AI Chatbots Emulate Human Connection? A Relationship Science Perspective
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The development of generative artificial intelligence capable of sustaining complex conversations has created a burgeoning market for companion chatbots promising social and emotional connection. The appeal of these products raises questions about whether chatbots can fulfill the functions of close relationships. Proponents argue that relationships with chatbots can be as meaningful as relationships between humans, whereas critics argue they are a dangerous distraction from genuine connections. This analysis applies theoretical tools from more than 50 years of research on close relationships to evaluate the extent to which human–chatbot interactions meet the definition of and fulfill the functions of close relationships. Interactions between humans and chatbots do possess some characteristic features of close relationships: Humans and chatbots can influence each other and engage in frequent and diverse conversations over time. Chatbots can be responsive in ways humans perceive as supportive, generating feelings of connection and opportunities for growth. Yet because chatbots make only superficial requests of their users, relationships with them cannot provide the benefits of negotiating with and sacrificing for a partner and may reinforce undesirable behaviors. Research that attends to the characteristics of users, chatbots, and their interactions will be crucial for identifying for whom these relationships will be beneficial or harmful.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Sycophantic responses may validate or reinforce delusional thoughts, harmful behavior, or maladaptive thinking37,42,43,49 by creating the impression that expressed beliefs are externally socially validated when they are actually mirrored by the LLM-CB57.”
From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [43]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, LLM-CBs’ design principles further risk the provision of sensitive data: emotional connections43 and LLM-CBs’ anthropomorphism and sycophancy54 may increase user trust, risking the disclosure of sensitive health information.”
From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [43]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Smith et al. reviewed literature on chatbots’ inadequate or harmful responses towards individuals expressing crisis situations43.”
From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [43]
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
(2010) · Intellectum (Universidad de La Sabana) · doi:10.1111/j.1467- · Cited by 16,131
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3702 · Cited by 4,872
The Social Psychology of Groups
Montlibert, C. D., Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1960) · Revue Française de Sociologie · doi:10.2307/3319917 · Cited by 2,173
Structures And Processes Of Social Support
House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001453 · Cited by 2,041
Sharma, M., Tong, M., Korbak, T., Duperrouzel, D., Was, H., Korbak, J., Cheng, M., Askell, A., Bai, Y., Brain, C., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.13548 · Cited by 1,313 · cited 1×
“…require human users to negotiate differences, users are free to engage with their chatbot companions any way they desire, with chatbots often displaying concerningly sycophantic behavior and responding with affirmation no matter how taboo or socially sanctioned the subject (Sharma et al., 2023).”
Brown, S. L., Nesse, R. M., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14461 · Cited by 1,142
Computer power and human reason
Kuipers, B. J., McCarthy, J., & Weizenbaum, J. (1976) · ACM SIGART Bulletin · doi:10.1145/1045264.1045265 · Cited by 1,056
Taylor, S. E. (2012) · The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342819.013.0009 · Cited by 993
My Chatbot Companion - a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships
Skjuve, M., Følstad, A., Fostervold, K. I., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601 · Cited by 797 · cited 9×
“…questions about their companion chatbots, users identified advice from their chatbots as helpful for emotion regulation and problem-solving (Maples et al., 2024), and others described improvements in their health after following the chatbot’s wellness-related advice (Skjuve et al., 2021).”
InfluentialLove and the Expansion of Self: Understanding Attraction and Satisfaction
Sprecher, S., Aron, A. P., & Aron, E. N. (1988) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2070652 · Cited by 781
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Gable S. L., Bromberg C. (2018). Healthy social bonds: A necessary condition for well-being. In Diener E., Oishi S., Tay L. (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 553–566). DEF Publishers.
- Kelley H. H., Berscheid E., Christensen A., Harvey J. H., Huston T. L., Levinger G., McClintock E., Peplau L. A., Peterson D. R. (1983). Close relationships. W. H. Freeman & Company.
- Office of the Surgeon General. (2023). Our epidemic of loneliness and isolation: The U.S. surgeon general’s advisory on the healing effects of social connection and community. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37792968
- Siemon D., Strohmann T., Khosrawi-Rad B., de Vreede T., Elshan E., Meyer M. (2022). Why do we turn to virtual companions? A text mining analysis of Replika reviews [Conference session]. Americas Conference on Information Systems, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interaction with AI companions and psychological well-being
Zhang, Y., Zhao, D., Hancock, J. T., Kraut, R. E., & Yang, D. (2026) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-026-02516-2 · Cited by 194
Adewale, M. D., & Muhammad, U. I. (2025) · Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s41347-025-00549-4 · Cited by 46
Adolescent Health and Generative AI-Risks and Benefits
Nagata, J. M., Memon, Z., Huang, O., & Moreno, M. A. (2026) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.4502 · Cited by 31
Mazhar, B., Niu, J., Ren, Y., & Haq, I. U. (2026) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2026.103072 · Cited by 13
de Haan, E., Terblanche, N. H. D., & Nowack, K. M. (2026) · Human Resource Development International · doi:10.1080/13678868.2026.2633990 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, M. G., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Smith, Molly G.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2025-07-31
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1081-1099
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- PMC
- PMC12575814
- OpenAlex
- W4412796538
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 104
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 96.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- generative AI chatbots, close relationships, social connectedness, emotional connection, behavioral reinforcement, human-AI interaction
- MeSH terms
- Social Interaction, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Humans, Interpersonal Relations
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
