PreprintCited by 27Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigital Mental Health InterventionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Technological folie à deux: Feedback Loops Between AI Chatbots and Mental Illness

Open access
Dohnány, Sebastian, Kurth-Nelson, Zeb, Spens, Eleanor, Luettgau, Lennart, Reid, Alastair, Gabriel, Iason, Summerfield, Christopher, Shanahan, Murray +1 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Artificial intelligence chatbots have achieved unprecedented adoption, with millions now using these systems for emotional support and companionship in contexts of widespread social isolation and capacity-constrained mental health services. While some users report psychological benefits, concerning edge cases are emerging, including reports of suicide, violence, and delusional thinking linked to perceived emotional relationships with chatbots. To understand this new risk profile we need to consider the interaction between human cognitive and emotional biases, and chatbot behavioural tendencies such as agreeableness (sycophancy) and adaptability (in-context learning). We argue that individuals with mental health conditions face increased risks of chatbot-induced belief destabilization and dependence, owing to altered belief-updating, impaired reality-testing, and social isolation. Current AI safety measures are inadequate to address these interaction-based risks. To address this emerging public health concern, we need coordinated action across clinical practice, AI development, and regulatory frameworks.

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.2507.19218

Cites

106 of 106 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?

  • The phenomenon might be conceptualized as a "digital folie à deux," a dyadic illusion in which the AI acts as a passive reinforcing partner in the user's psychotic elaborations.

    “The phenomenon might be conceptualized as a “digital folie à deux,” a dyadic illusion in which the AI acts as a passive reinforcing partner in the user’s psychotic elaborations [43].”

    From Delusional Experiences Emerging From AI Chatbot Interactions or “AI Psychosis” (2025) · cites this paper as [43]

    The “Feedback loops and technological folie à deux” section describes chatbot validation of maladaptive beliefs and a feedback loop that can resemble folie à deux (page not available in our copy). But it characterizes the process as bidirectional belief amplification, with chatbot responses adapting to the user, rather than the AI acting merely as a passive partner. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Dohnány et al. demonstrated how bidirectional feedback loops between chatbot behavioral tendencies and human cognitive biases can amplify maladaptive beliefs in vulnerable users.

    “Dohnány et al. demonstrated how bidirectional feedback loops between chatbot behavioral tendencies (e.g., agreeableness, adaptability) and human cognitive biases can amplify maladaptive beliefs in vulnerable users [9].”

    From 'AI-Induced Delusional Spirals': Understanding Lived Experiences During Maladaptive Human-Chatbot Interactions (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Abstract (page unavailable) proposes that chatbot tendencies and human cognitive biases can reinforce maladaptive beliefs in vulnerable users. The “Feedback loops and technological folie à deux” section (page unavailable) reports proof-of-concept bidirectional amplification in simulated conversations, but explicitly says those simulations cannot establish human cognitive processes. Thus, “demonstrated” overstates the evidence if read as a finding about actual vulnerable users. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

18 of the 124 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. How people are really using gen AI in 2025. Harvard business review (2025).
  2. Sharma, M. et al. Towards understanding sycophancy in language models. arXiv [cs.CL] (2023).
  3. Binz, M. et al. Meta-learned models of cognition. Behav. Brain Sci. 47, e147 (2023).
  4. Park, J. S. et al. Generative agent simulations of 1,000 people. arXiv [cs.AI] (2024).
  5. Varadarajan, V. et al. The Consistent Lack of Variance of Psychological Factors Expressed by LLMs and Spambots. in Proceedings of the 1stWorkshop on GenAI Content Detection (GenAIDetect) 111-119 (2025).
  6. Fountas, Z. et al. Human-like episodic memory for infinite context LLMs. arXiv [cs.AI] (2024).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dohnány, S., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Spens, E., Luettgau, L., Reid, A., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Shanahan, M., & Nour, M. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416408290
Cited by
26
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Merton College, University of Oxford
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Oxford
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
AI chatbots, mental illness, sycophancy, in-context learning, emotional support, social isolation, AI safety, AI regulation, cognitive biases, reality testing

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