The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Longitudinal Randomized Control Study of Companion Chatbot Use: Anthropomorphism and Its Mediating Role on Social Impacts
Open accessAbstract
Relationships with social artificial intelligence (AI) agents are on the rise. Most notably, people are forming relationships with companion chatbots such as Replika, a type of social AI agent that people can converse with via text or voice chat. These Large Language Model (LLM) chatbots are designed for companionship, and people have reported forming friendships, mentorships, and romantic partnerships with them. Concerns that companion chatbots may harm or replace real human relationships have been raised, but whether and how these social consequences occur remains unclear. Prior research suggests that people’s state of social need and their anthropomorphism of AI may play a role in how human-AI interaction impacts human-human interaction. In this longitudinal study (N = 183), participants were randomly assigned to a chatbot condition (text chat with a companion chatbot) or to a control condition (engage in text-based word games) in which they engaged in their daily task at least 10 minutes a day for 21 consecutive days. Participants completed four surveys during the 21 days, and engaged in audio recorded interviews on day 1 and 21. We investigated three primary questions. First, do daily interactions with a companion chatbot impact people’s social health and human relationships? Second, do people’s social states such the desire for social connection or loneliness predict anthropomorphism of the chatbot? Third, does anthropomorphism of the chatbot predict human-human social impacts? We found that people’s social health and relationships were not significantly impacted by companion chatbot interactions across 21 days of use. However, people who had a higher desire for social connection, but not higher loneliness, anthropomorphized the chatbot more. Those who anthropomorphized the chatbot more indicated that the human-chatbot interaction had greater impacts on their social interactions and relationships with family and friends. Via a mediation analysis, our results suggest that the impact of human-AI interaction on human-human social outcomes is mediated by the extent to which people anthropomorphize the AI agent, which may be motivated by a desire for social connection.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Belief Offloading in Human-AI InteractionPreprint
Guingrich, R. E., Mehta, D., & Bhatt, U. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.08754 · Cited by 9
Self-citationUnilateral Relationship Revision Power in Human-AI Companion InteractionPreprint
Lange, B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.23315 · Cited by 4
Morrin, H., Nicholls, L., Deeley, Q., & Pollak, T. A. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03283-4 · Cited by 3
Vonschallen, S., Eyssel, F., & Schmiedel, T. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11483 · Cited by 1
Alignment Is Not Enough: A Relational Framework for Moral Standing in Human-AI InteractionPreprint
Pasandi, F. B., & Pasandi, H. B. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.00078 · Cited by 1
Herane, L. A. G. (2026) · International Forum of Psychoanalysis · doi:10.1080/0803706x.2026.2617183
Position: Responsible AI for AI companions must actively combat violence toward intimate partners
Ghoshal, A., Ghoshal, A., Shevchenko, V., Ashwini, B., Dutta, A., Abu-Salma, R., & Brandão, M. (2026) · Research Portal (King's College London)
Rehman, T., Muslim, A., Lashari, T. A., Ashraf, M., & Khan, A. (2026) · International Journal of Innovations in Science and Technology · doi:10.33411/ijist/1819
He, J., 이한미, & Yao, X. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14100239
The Psycho-Spiritual Crisis of the Digital Age: A Critical Review of Magnifica Humanitas
Baby, B. (2026) · Vinayasādhana
Rizzuto, F., & Mattarella, A. M. R. (2026) · Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.)
Deceptive Design in AI Companions: A Cognitive Bias Perspective on Risks for Teenagers
Ferreira, A., Valença, G., & Glasner, L. (2026) · Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web · doi:10.5753/webmedia.2026.30695
Metadata
- Authors
- Guingrich, R. E., & Graziano, M. S. A.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
- Published
- 2025-10-15
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1153-1153
- ISSN
- 3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4415230961
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Princeton University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Keywords
- anthropomorphism, human-AI interaction, social needs, loneliness, social health, human-human relationship, mediation, large language model chatbots, Replika
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 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