CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 21Social Robot Interaction and HRIAI in Service InteractionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Chatbots as social companions: How people perceive consciousness, human likeness, and social health benefits in machines

Open access
Guingrich, Rose E., Graziano, Michael S. A.·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2311.10599arXiv 2311.10599
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more widespread, one question that arises is how human-AI interaction might impact human-human interaction. Chatbots, for example, are increasingly used as social companions, and while much is speculated, little is known empirically about how their use impacts human relationships. A common hypothesis is that relationships with companion chatbots are detrimental to social health by harming or replacing human interaction, but this hypothesis may be too simplistic, especially considering the social needs of users and the health of their preexisting human relationships. To understand how relationships with companion chatbots impact social health, we studied people who regularly used companion chatbots and people who did not use them. Contrary to expectations, companion chatbot users indicated that these relationships were beneficial to their social health, whereas non-users viewed them as harmful. Another common assumption is that people perceive conscious, humanlike AI as disturbing and threatening. Among both users and non-users, however, we found the opposite: perceiving companion chatbots as more conscious and humanlike correlated with more positive opinions and more pronounced social health benefits. Detailed accounts from users suggested that these humanlike chatbots may aid social health by supplying reliable and safe interactions, without necessarily harming human relationships, but this may depend on users' preexisting social needs and how they perceive both human likeness and mind in the chatbot.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2311.10599

Cites

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?

  • Pseudosocial bonds with LLM-CBs are not necessarily harmful, but can instead be beneficial and experienced as positive by users.

    “pseudosocial bonds with LLM-CBs are not necessarily harmful, but can instead be beneficial and experienced as positive by users146.”

    From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [146]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 129

  1. Anderson, C A, Carnagey, N L, Flanagan, M, Benjamin, A J, Jr., Eubanks, J, & Valentine, J C (2004). Violent video games: Specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and behavior. In M P Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 199-249). Elsevier Academic Press. link · DOI
  2. Bandura, A (1965). Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589.
  3. Bandura, A (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
  4. Bandura, A, & Walters, R H (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall. link
  5. Bartneck, C, Kulić, D, Croft, E, & Zoghbi, S (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71-81.
  6. link · DOI · Paper page
  7. Beneteau, E, Boone, A, Wu, Y, Kientz, J A, Yip, J, & Hiniker, A (2020). Parenting with Alexa: Exploring the introduction of smart speakers on family dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI '20) (pp. 1-13). Association for Computing Machinery. link · DOI · Paper page
  8. Blut, M, Wang, C, Wünderlich, N V, & Brock, C (2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 632-658.
  9. link · DOI · Paper page
  10. Boine, C (2023). Emotional attachment to AI companions and European law. MIT Case Studies in Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing, Winter 2023. link · DOI
  11. Brandtzaeg, P B, Skjuve, M, & Følstad, A (2022). My AI friend: How users of a social chatbot understand their human-AI friendship. Human Communication Research, 48(3), 404-429.
  12. link · DOI · Paper page
  13. Broadbent, E, Kumar, V, Li, X, Sollers, J , 3rd, Stafford, R Q, MacDonald, B A, & Wegner, D M (2013). Robots with display screens: A robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PLoS ONE, 8(8), Article e72589. link · DOI
  14. Bryson, J J (2010). Robots should be slaves. In Y Wilks (Ed.), Close engagements with artificial companions: Key social, psychological, ethical and design issues (pp. 63-74).
  15. John Benjamins. link · DOI · Paper page
  16. link · DOI · Paper page
  17. Chalmers, D J (2023). Could a large language model be conscious? (arXiv:2303.07103). · arXiv
  18. link · DOI · Paper page
  19. link · DOI
  20. Colombatto, C, & Fleming, S M (2023). Folk psychological attributions of consciousness to large language models [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. link · DOI · Paper page
  21. Croes, E A J, & Antheunis, M L (2021). Can we be friends with Mitsuku? A longitudinal study on the process of relationship formation between humans and a social chatbot. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(1), 279-300.
  22. link · DOI · Paper page
  23. Damholdt, M F, Quick, O S, Seibt, J, Vestergaard, C, & Hansen, M (2023). A Scoping review of HRI research on "anthropomorphism": Contributions to the method debate in HRI. International Journal of Social Robotics, 15(7), 1203-1226.
  24. link · DOI
  25. de Gennaro, M, Krumhuber, E G, & Lucas, G (2020). Effectiveness of an empathic chatbot in combating adverse effects of social exclusion on mood. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3061. link · DOI · Paper page
  26. der Pütten, A M R & Krämer, N C (2014). How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 422-439. link · DOI
  27. der Pütten, A M R, Krämer, N C, Maderwald, S, Brand, M, & Grabenhorst, F (2019). Neural mechanisms for accepting and rejecting artificial social partners in the uncanny valley. Journal of Neuroscience, 39(33), 6555-6570.
  28. link · DOI
  29. DiPaola, D, & Calo, R (2024). Socio-Digital vulnerability (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4686874).
  30. link · DOI
  31. link · DOI
  32. link · DOI
  33. Eyssel, F A, & Pfundmair, M (2015). Predictors of psychological anthropomorphization, mind perception, and the fulfillment of social needs: A case study with a zoomorphic robot. 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 827-832.
  34. link · DOI
  35. Ferrari, F, Paladino, M P, & Jetten, J (2016). Blurring human-machine distinctions: Anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 287-302.
  36. link · DOI
  37. Frith, C (2002). Attention to action and awareness of other minds. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 11(4), 481-487.
  38. link · DOI · Paper page
  39. Fu, Y, Michelson, R, Lin, Y, Nguyen, L K, Tayebi, T J, & Hiniker, A (2022). Social emotional learning with conversational agents: Reviewing current designs and probing parents' ideas for future ones. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 6(2), 52:1-52:23.
  40. link · DOI
  41. Garg, R, & Sengupta, S (2020). He is just like me: A study of the long-term use of smart speakers by parents and children. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 4(1), 1-24.
  42. link · DOI
  43. Gray, H M, Gray, K, & Wegner, D M (2007). Dimensions of Mind Perception. Science, 315(5812), 619-619.
  44. link · DOI · Paper page
  45. Gray, K, Jenkins, A C, Heberlein, A S, & Wegner, D M (2011). Distortions of mind perception in psychopathology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(2), 477-479.
  46. link · DOI
  47. Graziano, M S A (2013). Consciousness and the social brain (pp. ix, 268). Oxford University Press.
  48. Graziano, M S A (2023, January 13). Essay: Without consciousness, AIs will be sociopaths. Wall Street Journal. link
  49. Guingrich, R E, & Graziano, M S A (2024). Ascribing consciousness to artificial intelligence: Human-AI interaction and its carry-over effects on human-human interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. link · DOI · Paper page
  50. Hawkley, L C, & Cacioppo, J T (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218-227.
  51. link · DOI · Paper page
  52. Hiniker, A, Wang, A, Tran, J, Zhang, M R, Radesky, J, Sobel, K, & Hong, S R (2021). Can conversational agents change the way children talk to people? In Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM interaction design and children conference (IDC '21) (pp. 338-349). Association for Computing Machinery. link · DOI
  53. Ho, A, Hancock, J, & Miner, A S (2018). Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. Journal of Communication, 68(4), 712-733.
  54. link · DOI · Paper page
  55. link · DOI · Paper page
  56. Kätsyri, J, Förger, K, Mäkäräinen, M, & Takala, T (2015). A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: Support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(390).
  57. link · DOI · Paper page
  58. link · DOI
  59. link · DOI · Paper page
  60. Knobe, J, & Prinz, J (2008). Intuitions about consciousness: Experimental studies. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(1), 67-83.
  61. link · DOI · Paper page
  62. Koch, C (2019). The feeling of life itself: Why consciousness is widespread but can't be computed. The MIT Press.
  63. Krach, S, Hegel, F, Wrede, B, Sagerer, G, Binkofski, F, & Kircher, T (2008). Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PLoS ONE, 3(7), Article e2597. link · DOI
  64. Krämer, N, & Bente, G (2021). Interactions with artificial entities reloaded: 20 years of research from a social psychological perspective. I-Com, 20(3), 253-262.
  65. link · DOI
  66. link · DOI · Paper page
  67. Kuss, D J, & Griffiths, M D (2011). Online social networking and addiction: A review of the psychological literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(9), 3528-3552.
  68. link · DOI · Paper page
  69. Küster, D, Swiderska, A, & Gunkel, D (2021). I saw it on YouTube! How online videos shape perceptions of mind, morality, and fears about robots. New Media & Society, 23(11), 3312-3331.
  70. link · DOI
  71. Laestadius, L, Bishop, A, Gonzalez, M, Illenčík, D, & Campos-Castillo, C (2022). Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot Replika. New Media & Society, 00(0), 1-19.
  72. link · DOI · Paper page
  73. link · DOI · Paper page
  74. Maples, B, Cerit, M, Vishwanath, A, & Pea, R (2024). Loneliness and suicide mitigation for students using GPT3- enabled chatbots. Npj Mental Health Research, 3(1), Article 1. link · DOI · Paper page
  75. link · DOI
  76. Mavrina, L, Szczuka, J, Strathmann, C, Bohnenkamp, L M, Krämer, N, & Kopp, S (2022). "Alexa, you're really stupid": A longitudinal field study on communication breakdowns between family members and a voice assistant. Frontiers in Computer Science, 4. link · DOI · Paper page
  77. McDonough, I M, Erwin, H, Sin, N L, & Allen, R S (2022). Pet ownership is associated with greater cognitive and brain health in a cross-sectional sample across the adult lifespan. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 14. link · DOI
  78. Mori, M, MacDorman, K F, & Kageki, N (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98-100.
  79. link · DOI · Paper page
  80. Nass, C, & Moon, Y (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103.
  81. link · DOI · Paper page
  82. Nass, C, Steuer, J, & Siminoff, E (1994). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI '94) (pp. 72-78). Association for Computing Machinery.
  83. link · DOI · Paper page
  84. O'Regan, J K (2012). How to build a robot that is conscious and feels. Minds and Machines, 22(2), 117-136.
  85. link · DOI
  86. Pałka, P (2024). AI, consumers and psychological harm. In L A DiMatteo, C Poncibó, & G Howells (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of AI and consumer law: Comparative perspectives (pp. 163-174). Cambridge University Press.
  87. Pennebaker, J W (2018). Expressive writing in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 226-229.
  88. link · DOI
  89. link · DOI · Paper page
  90. Pentina, I, Xie, T, Hancock, T, & Bailey, A (2023). Consumer-machine relationships in the age of artificial intelligence: Systematic literature review and research directions. Psychology & Marketing, 40(8), 1593-1614.
  91. link · DOI
  92. Pizzi, G, Vannucci, V, Mazzoli, V, & Donvito, R (2023). I, chatbot! The impact of anthropomorphism and gaze direction on willingness to disclose personal information and behavioral intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 40(7), 1372-1387.
  93. link · DOI · Paper page
  94. Prinz, W (2017). Modeling self on others: An import theory of subjectivity and selfhood. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 49, 347-362.
  95. link · DOI
  96. link · DOI
  97. Riches, S, Azevedo, L, Vora, A, Kaleva, I, Taylor, L, Guan, P, Jeyarajaguru, P, McIntosh, H, Petrou, C, Pisani, S, & Hammond, N (2022). Therapeutic engagement in robot-assisted psychological interventions: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 29(3), 857-873.
  98. link · DOI
  99. Schein, C, & Gray, K (2015). The eyes are the window to the uncanny valley: Mind perception, autism and missing souls. Interaction Studies, 16(2), 173-179.
  100. link · DOI
  101. Seeger, A -M, & Heinzl, A (2018). Human versus machine: Contingency factors of anthropomorphism as a trust- inducing design strategy for conversational agents. In F D Davis, R Riedl, J vom Brocke, P -M Léger, & A B Randolph (Eds.), Information systems and neuroscience. Lecture notes in information systems and organisation (Vol. 25, pp. 129-139). Springer. link · DOI
  102. Severson, R L, & Woodard, S R (2018). Imagining others' minds: The positive relation between children's role play and anthropomorphism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. link · DOI
  103. Shanahan, M (2024). Simulacra as conscious exotica (arXiv:2402.12422). · arXiv
  104. link · DOI
  105. Skjuve, M, Følstad, A, Fostervold, K I, & Brandtzaeg, P B (2021). My chatbot companion: A study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149, 102601.
  106. link · DOI · Paper page
  107. Skjuve, M, Følstad, A, Fostervold, K I, & Brandtzaeg, P B (2022). A longitudinal study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 168, 102903.
  108. link · DOI · Paper page
  109. Stein, J -P, Appel, M, Jost, A, & Ohler, P (2020). Matter over mind? How the acceptance of digital entities depends on their appearance, mental prowess, and the interaction between both. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 142, 102463.
  110. link · DOI
  111. Stein, J -P, Linda Breves, P, & Anders, N (2022). Parasocial interactions with real and virtual influencers: The role of perceived similarity and human likeness. New Media & Society, 00(0), 1-21.
  112. link · DOI
  113. link · DOI
  114. Sweeney, C, Potts, C, Ennis, E, Bond, R, Mulvenna, M D, O'Neill, S, Malcolm, M, Kuosmanen, L, Kostenius, C, Vakaloudis, A, Mcconvey, G, Turkington, R, Hanna, D, Nieminen, H, Vartiainen, A -K, Robertson, A, & Mctear, M F (2021). Can chatbots help support a person's mental health? Perceptions and views from mental healthcare professionals and experts. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare, 2(3), 25:1-25:15.
  115. link · DOI
  116. Ta, V, Griffith, C, Boatfield, C, Wang, X, Civitello, M, Bader, H, DeCero, E, & Loggarakis, A (2020). User experiences of social support from companion chatbots in everyday contexts: Thematic analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(3), e16235. link · DOI · Paper page
  117. Turkle, S (2007). Authenticity in the age of digital companions. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 501-517.
  118. Vaidyam, A N, Wisniewksi, H, Halamka, J D, Kashavan, M S, & Torous, J B (2019). Chatbots and conversational agents in mental health: A review of the psychiatric landscape. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64(7), 456-464.
  119. link · DOI · Paper page
  120. Ward, A F, Olsen, A S, & Wegner, D M (2013). The harm-made mind: Observing victimization augments attribution of minds to vegetative patients, robots, and the dead. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1437-1445.
  121. link · DOI
  122. Waytz, A, Cacioppo, J, & Epley, N (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219-232.
  123. link · DOI · Paper page
  124. Wilkenfeld, J N, Yan, B, Huang, J, Luo, G, & Algas, K (2022). "AI love you": Linguistic convergence in human-chatbot relationship development. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2022(1), 17063.
  125. link · DOI
  126. Xie, T, & Pentina, I (2022). Attachment theory as a framework to understand relationships with social chatbots: A case study of Replika. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS '55) (pp. 2046-2055).
  127. link Young, A, & Monroe, A (2019). Autonomous morals: Inferences of mind predict acceptance of AI behavior in sacrificial moral dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103870. · DOI
  128. link · DOI
  129. Yu, R, Hui, E, Lee, J, Poon, D, Ng, A, Sit, K, Ip, K, Yeung, F, Wong, M, Shibata, T, & Woo, J (2015). Use of a therapeutic, socially assistive pet robot (PARO) in improving mood and stimulating social interaction and communication for people with dementia: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Research Protocols, 4(2), e45.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guingrich, R. E., & Graziano, M. S. A.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2311.10599
arXiv
2311.10599
OpenAlex
W4388843673
Cited by
21
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
human-AI interaction, social health, human-likeness, anthropomorphism, social needs, interpersonal relationships, user perceptions of AI

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