CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Social Robot Interaction and HRIInnovative Human-Technology InteractionAI in Service Interactions

Digital Mirrors: AI Companions and the Self

Open access
Kouros, Theodoros, Papa, Venetia·2024·Societies
DOI 10.3390/soc14100200
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This exploratory study examines the socio-technical dynamics of Artificial Intelligence Companions (AICs), focusing on user interactions with AI platforms like Replika 9.35.1. Through qualitative analysis, including user interviews and digital ethnography, we explored the nuanced roles played by these AIs in social interactions. Findings revealed that users often form emotional attachments to their AICs, viewing them as empathetic and supportive, thus enhancing emotional well-being. This study highlights how AI companions provide a safe space for self-expression and identity exploration, often without fear of judgment, offering a backstage setting in Goffmanian terms. This research contributes to the discourse on AI’s societal integration, emphasizing how, in interactions with AICs, users often craft and experiment with their identities by acting in ways they would avoid in face-to-face or human-human online interactions due to fear of judgment. This reflects front-stage behavior, in which users manage audience perceptions. Conversely, the backstage, typically hidden, is somewhat disclosed to AICs, revealing deeper aspects of the self.

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 · 10.3390/soc14100200

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • Users cannot meaningfully navigate risk if they do not understand what kind of relational system they are entering.

    “Users cannot meaningfully navigate risk if they do not understand what kind of relational system they are entering (Kouros and Papa 2024).”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Kouros and Papa 2024

    The transparency discussion in §3.4.1 reports that users want to know how conversational AI works and handles their data, and that insufficient transparency undermines trust. The Conclusions also urge awareness of AI companionship’s limitations and risks. The paper does not establish the stronger claim that users cannot meaningfully navigate risk without understanding the relational system they are entering. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI companions provide a 'backstage' space where users feel free to disclose emotionally salient aspects of the self, facilitating identity work that might be too risky in face-to-face or human-human online interactions.

    “In Goffmanian terms, AI companions provide a”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Kouros and Papa 2024

  • The appeal of AI agents as companions lies in their consistency and perceived non-judgmentality.

    “The appeal of AI agents as companions lies in their consistency and perceived non-judgmentality [27, 40, 55]”

    From Emotional Coregulation in Close Relationships with AI Agents: A Survey of ChatGPT and Replika Users (2025) · cites this paper as [27]

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

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Gardner, H.; Davis, K. The App Generation: How Today's Youth Navigate Identity, Intimacy, and Imagination in a Digital World; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2013.
  2. Hagerty, A.; Rubinov, I. Global AI ethics: A review of the social impacts and ethical implications of artificial intelligence. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1907.07892. · arXiv
  3. Schrock, A.R. Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability, capability, and multimodality. Int. J. Commun. 2015, 9, 18.
  4. Cooley, C.H. The looking-glass self. In The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1902; Volume 6, pp. 126-128.
  5. Mead, G.H. GH Mead: A Reader; Routledge: Hilldale, MO, USA, 2011; Volume 6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kouros, T., & Papa, V.
Affiliations
Cyprus University of Technology (CY)
Corresponding author
Kouros, Theodoros
ORCID
Venue
Societies
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-10-08
Volume
14
Issue
10
Pages
200
ISSN
2075-4698 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/soc14100200
OpenAlex
W4403216264
Cited by
66
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 20
FWCI
31.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Societies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ktisis at Cyprus University of Technology (Cyprus University of Technology) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
AI companions, Replika, human-AI interaction, emotional attachment to AI, identity exploration, self-expression, Erving Goffman, audience management, fear of judgment, emotional well-being, digital mirror

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