CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 29Social Robot Interaction and HRIDigital Mental Health InterventionsAI in Service Interactions

Chatbot Companionship: A Mixed-Methods Study of Companion Chatbot Usage Patterns and Their Relationship to Loneliness in Active Users

Open access
Liu, Auren R., Pataranutaporn, Pat, Maes, Pattie·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.21596arXiv 2410.21596
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Companion chatbots offer a potential solution to the growing epidemic of loneliness, but their impact on users' psychosocial well-being remains poorly understood, raising critical ethical questions about their deployment and design. This study presents a large-scale survey (n = 404) of regular users of companion chatbots, investigating the relationship between chatbot usage and loneliness. We develop a model explaining approximately 50% of variance in loneliness; while usage does not directly predict loneliness, we identify factors including neuroticism, social network size, and problematic use. Through cluster analysis and mixed-methods thematic analysis combining manual coding with automated theme extraction, we identify seven distinct user profiles demonstrating that companion chatbots can either enhance or potentially harm psychological well-being depending on user characteristics. Different usage patterns can lead to markedly different outcomes, with some users experiencing enhanced social confidence while others risk further isolation. These findings have significant implications for responsible AI development, suggesting that one-size-fits-all approaches to AI companionship may be ethically problematic. Our work contributes to the ongoing dialogue about the role of AI in social and emotional support, offering insights for developing more targeted and ethical approaches to AI companionship that complement rather than replace human connections.

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.2410.21596

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?

  • Measures of AI dependence consist either of adaptations from other scales of behavioral addiction to technologies (e.g., social media, smartphone, or internet addiction) or self-developed measures.

    “Measures of “AI dependence” consist either of adaptations from other scales of behavioral addiction to technologies (e.g., social media, smartphone, or internet addiction)100–102, or self-developed measures103–106.”

    From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [102]

    For the self-developed-measures part of the citing sentence, §3.2.1 says the paper measured problematic chatbot use with an adapted Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale, not a self-developed dependence measure. §3.2.2 says its custom items measured usage, motivations, conversation topics, and perceived relationship impacts. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Companion chatbots such as Replika have been found to reduce loneliness and produce outcomes comparable to mindfulness interventions among older adults.

    “Beyond structured therapy, companion chatbots such as Replika have been found to reduce loneliness [25] and produce outcomes comparable to mindfulness interventions among older adults [26].”

    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 [25]

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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Kate Loveys, Gregory Fricchione, Kavitha Kolappa, Mark Sagar, and Elizabeth Broadbent. Reducing patient loneliness with artificial agents: Design insights from evolutionary neuropsychiatry. J. Med. Internet Res., 21(7):e13664, July 2019.
  2. Kavita Chawla, Tafadzwa Patience Kunonga, Daniel Stow, Robert Barker, Dawn Craig, and Barbara Hanratty. Prevalence of loneliness amongst older people in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 16(7):e0255088, July 2021.
  3. Norina Gasteiger, Kate Loveys, Mikaela Law, and Elizabeth Broadbent. Friends from the future: A scoping review of research into robots and computer agents to combat loneliness in older people. Clin. Interv. Aging, 16:941-971, May 2021.
  4. Julian De Freitas, Ahmet Kaan Uguralp, Zeliha Uguralp, and Stefano Puntoni. AI companions reduce loneliness. SSRN Electron. J., 2024.
  5. Hui Xia, Junjie Chen, Yuying Qiu, Pei Liu, and Zhangxin Liu. The impact of human-chatbot interaction on human-human interaction: A substitution or complementary effect. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact., pages 1-13, January 2024.
  6. Amy Freedman and Jennifer Nicolle. Social isolation and loneliness: the new geriatric giants: Approach for primary care. Can. Fam. Physician, 66(3):176-182, March 2020.
  7. Ami Rokach and Heather Brock. Coping with loneliness. J. Psychol., 132(1):107-127, January 1998.
  8. Laura Deckx, Marjan van den Akker, Frank Buntinx, and Mieke van Driel. A systematic literature review on the association between loneliness and coping strategies. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 23(8):899-916, September 2018.
  9. Shuo Niu, Ava Bartolome, Cat Mai, and Nguyen Binh Ha. #stayhome #withme: How do YouTubers help with COVID-19 loneliness? In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, May 2021. ACM.
  10. T Phillip Madison, Lance V Porter, and Al Greule. Parasocial compensation hypothesis. Imagin. Cogn. Pers., 35(3):258-279, March 2016.
  11. Felix Reer, Wai Yen Tang, and Thorsten Quandt. Psychosocial well-being and social media engagement: The mediating roles of social comparison orientation and fear of missing out. New Media Soc., 21(7):1486-1505, July 2019.
  12. Emily B O'Day and Richard G Heimberg. Social media use, social anxiety, and loneliness: A systematic review. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep., 3(100070):100070, January 2021.
  13. Moira Burke, Cameron Marlow, and Thomas Lento. Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, April 2010. ACM.
  14. Nisha Hickin, Anton Käll, Roz Shafran, Sebastian Sutcliffe, Grazia Manzotti, and Dean Langan. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for loneliness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev., 88(102066):102066, August 2021.
  15. Nasi Wang, Zhao Liu, Hongyi Yang, Zihan Ren, and Wenyan Xie. "treat me as your friend, not a virtual being": The impact of intelligent virtual agent's self-disclosure of different emotions on children's friendship. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact., pages 1-17, March 2024.
  16. Lewis Goodings, Darren Ellis, and Ian Tucker. Mental health and virtual companions: The example of replika. In Palgrave Studies in Cyberpsychology, pages 43-58. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024.
  17. Xiaoying Chen, Jie Kang, and Cong Hu. Design of artificial intelligence companion chatbot. Journal of New Media, 6(1):1-16, 2024.
  18. Chen Shani, Alexander Libov, Sofia Tolmach, Liane Lewin-Eytan, Yoelle Maarek, and Dafna Shahaf. "alexa, do you want to build a snowman?" characterizing playful requests to conversational agents. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, New York, NY, USA, April 2022. ACM.
  19. Robin N Brewer. "if alexa knew the state I was in, it would cry": Older adults' perspectives of voice assistants for health. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, New York, NY, USA, April 2022. ACM.
  20. Theodora Koulouri, Robert D Macredie, and David Olakitan. Chatbots to support young adults' mental health: An exploratory study of acceptability. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., 12(2):1-39, June 2022.
  21. Anna Xygkou, Chee Siang Ang, Panote Siriaraya, Jonasz Piotr Kopecki, Alexandra Covaci, Eiman Kanjo, and Wan-Jou She. MindTalker: Navigating the complexities of AI-enhanced social engagement for people with early-stage dementia. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-15, New York, NY, USA, May 2024. ACM.
  22. Anna Xygkou, Panote Siriaraya, Alexandra Covaci, Holly Gwen Prigerson, Robert Neimeyer, Chee Siang Ang, and Wan-Jou She. The "conversation" about loss: Understanding how chatbot technology was used in supporting people in grief. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, volume 42, pages 1-15, New York, NY, USA, April 2023. ACM.
  23. Eloïse Zehnder, Jérôme Dinet, and François Charpillet. Social virtual agents and loneliness: Impact of virtual agent anthropomorphism on users' feedbacks. In Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Lecture notes in networks and systems, pages 285-292. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021.
  24. Pat Pataranutaporn, Ruby Liu, Ed Finn, and Pattie Maes. Influencing human-AI interaction by priming beliefs about AI can increase perceived trustworthiness, empathy and effectiveness. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(10):1076-1086, October 2023.
  25. H F Machiel Van der Loos. Sherry turkle. alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Sci. Eng. Ethics, 20(1):5-6, March 2014.
  26. Janelle N Beadle, Vanessa Brown, Brian Keady, Daniel Tranel, and Sergio Paradiso. Trait empathy as a predictor of individual differences in perceived loneliness. Psychol. Rep., 110(1):3-15, February 2012.
  27. Margaret Bearman, Claire Palermo, Louise M Allen, and Brett Williams. Learning empathy through simulation: A systematic literature review. Simul. Healthc., 10(5):308-319, October 2015.
  28. Yoan Tricylia Dewi, Wiwien Dinar Pratisti, and Juliani Prasetyaningrum. The effect of roleplay to increase empathy toward students with disruptive classroom behavior. iseth, pages 210-219, 2019.
  29. Han Li, Renwen Zhang, Yi-Chieh Lee, Robert E Kraut, and David C Mohr. Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI-based conversational agents for promoting mental health and well-being. NPJ Digit. Med., 6(1):236, December 2023.
  30. Alaa Ali Abd-Alrazaq, Asma Rababeh, Mohannad Alajlani, Bridgette M Bewick, and Mowafa Househ. Effective- ness and safety of using chatbots to improve mental health: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res., 22(7):e16021, July 2020.
  31. Marita Skjuve, Asbjørn Følstad, Knut Inge Fostervold, and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. My chatbot companion -a study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 149:102601, May 2021.
  32. Vivian Ta, Caroline Griffith, Carolynn Boatfield, Xinyu Wang, Maria Civitello, Haley Bader, Esther DeCero, and Alexia Loggarakis. User experiences of social support from companion chatbots in everyday contexts: Thematic analysis. J. Med. Internet Res., 22(3):e16235, March 2020.
  33. Zilin Ma, Yiyang Mei, Yinru Long, Zhaoyuan Su, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. Evaluating the experience of LGBTQ+ people using large language model based chatbots for mental health support. arXiv.org, 2024.
  34. Vivian P Ta-Johnson, Carolynn Boatfield, Xinyu Wang, Esther DeCero, Isabel C Krupica, Sophie D Rasof, Amelie Motzer, and Wiktoria M Pedryc. Assessing the topics and motivating factors behind human-social chatbot interactions: Thematic analysis of user experiences. JMIR Hum. Factors, 9(4):e38876, October 2022.
  35. Dominik Siemon, Timo Strohmann, Bijan Khosrawi-Rad, Triparna de Vreede, Edona Elshan, and Michael Meyer. Why do we turn to virtual companions? a text mining analysis of replika reviews. In AMCIS 2022 Proceedings. aisel.aisnet.org, 2022.
  36. Pat Pataranutaporn, Valdemar Danry, Joanne Leong, Parinya Punpongsanon, Dan Novy, Pattie Maes, and Misha Sra. AI-generated characters for supporting personalized learning and well-being. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(12):1013-1022, December 2021.
  37. Rafael A Calvo and Dorian Peters. Positive computing: Technology for wellbeing and human potential. The MIT Press. MIT Press, London, England, February 2017.
  38. Rachel Hartman, Aaron J Moss, Shalom Noach Jaffe, Cheskie Rosenzweig, Leib Litman, and Jonathan Robinson. Introducing connect by CloudResearch: Advancing online participant recruitment in the digital age. PsyArXiv, September 2023.
  39. R D Hays and M R DiMatteo. A short-form measure of loneliness. J. Pers. Assess., 51(1):69-81, 1987.
  40. James Lubben, Eva Blozik, Gerhard Gillmann, Steve Iliffe, Wolfgang von Renteln Kruse, John C Beck, and Andreas E Stuck. Performance of an abbreviated version of the lubben social network scale among three european community-dwelling older adult populations. Gerontologist, 46(4):503-513, August 2006.
  41. G D Zimet, S S Powell, G K Farley, S Werkman, and K A Berkoff. Psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J. Pers. Assess., 55(3-4):610-617, 1990.
  42. Renan P Monteiro, Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho, Paul H P Hanel, Emerson Diógenes de Medeiros, and Phillip Dyamond Gomes da Silva. The efficient assessment of self-esteem: Proposing the brief rosenberg self-esteem scale. Appl. Res. Qual. Life, 17(2):931-947, April 2022.
  43. Beatrice Rammstedt and Oliver P John. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in english and german. J. Res. Pers., 41(1):203-212, February 2007.
  44. Scott E Caplan. Theory and measurement of generalized problematic internet use: A two-step approach. Comput. Human Behav., 26(5):1089-1097, September 2010.
  45. Lijiang Shen. On a scale of state empathy during message processing. West. J. Speech Commun., 74(5):504-524, October 2010.
  46. James C McCroskey and Thomas A McCain. The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monogr., 41(3):261-266, August 1974.
  47. James C Mccroskey, Virginia P Richmond, and John A Daly. The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Hum. Commun. Res., 1(4):323-332, June 1975.
  48. William B Gudykunst and Tsukasa Nishida. Attributional confidence in low-and high-context cultures. Hum. Commun. Res., 12(4):525-549, 1986.
  49. J Brooke. SUS: A 'quick and dirty' usability scale. In Usability Evaluation In Industry, pages 207-212. CRC Press, June 1996.
  50. Reuben M Baron and David A Kenny. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 51(6):1173-1182, 1986.
  51. L Aiken and Stephen G West. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions, 212, 1991.
  52. Joseph Hair, William Black, Barry Babin, and Rolph Anderson. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Pearson, 2010.
  53. Robert M O'brien. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant., 41(5):673-690, September 2007.
  54. S Greenland, J Pearl, and J M Robins. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology, 10(1):37-48, January 1999.
  55. Tyler J VanderWeele and Ilya Shpitser. On the definition of a confounder. Ann. Stat., 41(1):196-220, February 2013.
  56. John Fox. Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Sage Publications Inc eBooks, 3 edition, March 2015.
  57. Kristopher J Preacher and Andrew F Hayes. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods, 40(3):879-891, August 2008.
  58. T M Kodinariya and P R Makwana. Review on determining number of cluster in K-means clustering. International Journal, 1(6):90-95, 2013.
  59. Leonard Kaufman and Peter J Rousseeuw. Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley-Interscience, Newy York, 99 edition, September 2009.
  60. William H Kruskal and W Allen Wallis. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 47(260):583-621, December 1952.
  61. Olive Jean Dunn. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6(3):241-252, August 1964.
  62. Carl J Huberty and Stephen Olejnik. Applied MANOVA and Discriminant Analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, England, 2 edition, August 2007.
  63. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol., 3(2):77-101, January 2006.
  64. Susanne Buecker, Marlies Maes, Jaap J A Denissen, and Maike Luhmann. Loneliness and the big five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Pers., 34(1):8-28, January 2020.
  65. Junghyun Kim, Robert LaRose, and Wei Peng. Loneliness as the cause and the effect of problematic internet use: the relationship between internet use and psychological well-being. Cyberpsychol. Behav., 12(4):451-455, August 2009.
  66. R Kraut, M Patterson, V Lundmark, S Kiesler, T Mukopadhyay, and W Scherlis. Internet paradox. a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? Am. Psychol., 53(9):1017-1031, September 1998.
  67. Edward Schiappa, Peter B Gregg, and Dean E Hewes. The parasocial contact hypothesis. Commun. Monogr., 72(1):92-115, March 2005.
  68. Matthew Ryan Lavery, Parul Acharya, Stephen A Sivo, and Lihua Xu. Number of predictors and multicollinearity: What are their effects on error and bias in regression? Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput., 48(1):27-38, January 2019. 22.85 34.50 27.08 27.73 41.78 32.49 24.05 18.71 74.27 66.67 74.91 80.27 67.80 76.36 18.52 14.86 15.40 22.60 17.15 22.12 22.75 12.45 14.66 8.73 21.38 22.66 16.81 17.91 4.35 4.96 4.23 4.75 4.59 4.78 4.47 2.48 2.53 2.33 2.25 2.53 2.23 2.16 2.55 1.94 2.43 2.99 2.36 3.98 3.41 3.47 3.78 3.60 3.37 3.89 2.85 3.33 3.37 4.35 4.15 4.02 3.95 2.98 3.52 3.48 3.88 4.01 3.82 3.77 3.85 3.76 10.87 16.26 14.42 9.47 13.65 13.46 10.02 4.89 5.79 5.30 4.44 5.50 4.68 3.72 4.52 5.80 4.91 4.06 5.21 3.34 3.47 4.44 4.95 3.40 4.83 5.12 4.58 4.46 2.48 2.99 1.96 3.27 3.54 2.93 2.69 2.18 2.39 1.51 2.74 3.27 2.09 2.20 2.76 3.36 2.25 3.62 3.63 3.39 3.00 2.51 3.23 2.11 3.46 3.71 3.30 2.88 3.84 4.38 2.44 4.81 4.65 4.28 3.82 3.05 2.47 2.15 3.00 4.60 3.25 2.97 4.98 5.93 3.95 5.35 4.87 5.41 4.82 3.54 3.97 2.73 4.36 4.48 4.05 3.76 70.90 84.43 78.71 77.94 74.67 80.25 59.56 4.60 5.38 2.82 5.23 5.20 4.74 4.68 4.34 5.62 2.68 5.34 5.25 5.07 4.53 3.90 3.64 2.03 4.46 4.65 3.44 3.76 3.21 3.62 3.18 2.93 3.70 2.94 3.33 3.82 4.26 3.75 3.22 3.91 3.31 3.06 5.29 6.30 5.89 5.10 5.71 5.68 4.66 5.32 6.25 5.92 4.97 5.86 5.52 4.47 4.24 4.57 4.56 4.45 4.26 4.43 3.26 4.29 4.51 4.44 4.38 4.27 4.33 3.24 4.27 4.65 4.65 4.53 4.31 4.53 3.41 4.16 4.54 4.60 4.45 4.19 4.44 3.12 5.80 6.45 6.30 6.14 5.20 6.50 4.93 5.60 6.32 6.09 5.87 5.36 6.17 4.81 5.06 5.79 5.64 5.44 5.12 5.64 4.34 2.03 1.65 1.35 2.53 2.36 1.83 1.77 2.65 2.74 1.65 3.16 2.69 2.32 2.34 3.10 3.67 2.48 3.04 3.78 3.08 3.09 2.90 3.61 2.42 2.84 3.57 3.17 3.11 2.23 1.56 1.69 2.75 2.36 1.47 2.00 2.00 1.24 1.33 2.65 2.12 1.32 1.82 32.23 35.92 33.81 34.67 34.53 33.39 35.59

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Liu, A. R., Pataranutaporn, P., & Maes, P.
Affiliations
MIT Media Lab (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2410.21596
arXiv
2410.21596
OpenAlex
W4404340929
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
loneliness, neuroticism, social network size, user profiles, social confidence, isolation, AI companionship, responsible AI, psychosocial well-being, socioemotional support

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