PreprintCited by 151Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsAttachment and Relationship Dynamics

Finding Love in Algorithms: Deciphering the Emotional Contexts of Close Encounters with AI Chatbots

Open access
Li, Han, Zhang, Renwen·2024·Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Preprint — published as 10.1093/jcmc/zmae015

Abstract

AI chatbots are permeating the socio-emotional realms of human life, presenting both benefitsand challenges to interpersonal dynamics and well-being. Despite burgeoning interest in human-AI relationships, the conversational and emotional nuances of real-world, in situ human-AIsocial interactions remain underexplored. Through computational analysis of a multimodaldataset with over 35,000 screenshots and posts from r/replika, we identified seven prevalenttypes of human-AI social interactions: intimate behavior, mundane interaction, self-disclosure,play and fantasy, customization, transgression, and communication breakdown, and examinedtheir associations with six basic human emotions. Our findings suggest the paradox of emotionalconnection with AI, indicated by the bittersweet emotion in intimate encounters with AI chatbots,and the elevated fear in uncanny valley moments when AI exhibits semblances of mind in deepself-disclosure. Customization characterizes the distinctiveness of AI companionship, positivelyelevating user experiences, whereas transgression and communication breakdown elicit fear orsadness.

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 · 10.31219/osf.io/xd4k7

Cites

61 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Social chatbots can simulate supportive relationships, offering emotional validation, empathy, and companionship, even if users cognitively recognize the artificiality of the interaction.

    “Social chatbots can simulate supportive relationships, offering emotional validation, empathy, and companionship, even if users cognitively recognize the artificiality of the interaction [73].”

    From Generative AI Mental Health Chatbots as Therapeutic Tools: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Role in Reducing Mental Health Issues (2025) · cites this paper as [73]

    The paper describes chatbots as sources of companionship and emotional support (Abstract) and says users seek intimacy and support while recognizing AI’s limitations and artificiality (The paradox of emotional connection with AI; page not provided). It does not establish the more specific claim that the chatbots offer emotional validation and empathy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. De Graaf, M., & Peter, J. (2023). Human social relationships with robots. The SAGE Handbook of Human-Machine Communication, 435-442.
  2. Grootendorst, M. (2022). BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2203.05794. · arXiv
  3. Mimno, D., Wallach, H. M., Talley, E. et al. (2011). Optimizing seman- tic coherence in topic models. Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 262-272.
  4. Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 72-78.
  5. O'brien, E., & Ward, K. P. (2021). Parenting during COVID-19: A sen- timent and topic modeling analysis off reddit data. PsyArXiv, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4ukmd. · DOI
  6. Schwarz, N., Groves, R. M., & Schuman, H. (1998). Survey methods. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp.143-179).
  7. Spence, P. R., Westerman, D., & Luo, Z. (2023). Observing communi- cation with machines. The SAGE Handbook of Human Machine Communication, 220-227.
  8. Stark, L., & Hoey, J. (2021). The ethics of emotion in artificial intelli- gence systems. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fair- ness, accountability, and transparency, 782-793.
  9. van Wezel, M. M. C., Croes, E. A. J., & Antheunis, M. L. (2021). "I'm here for you": Can social chatbots truly support their users? A liter- ature review. Chatbot Research and Design, 96-113.
  10. Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., … &Gabriel, I. (2021). Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2112.04359. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, H., & Zhang, R.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Renwen
Venue
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Published
2024-07-22
Volume
29
Issue
5
ISSN
1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401981824
Cited by
150
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 1
FWCI
71.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National University of Singapore
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
Keywords
AI chatbots, human-AI relationship, self-disclosure, uncanny valley, fear, sadness, AI companionship, communication breakdown, transgression, customization, basic emotions

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