Simulating Psychological Risks in Human-AI Interactions: Real-Case Informed Modeling of AI-Induced Addiction, Anorexia, Depression, Homicide, Psychosis, and Suicide
Open accessAbstract
As AI systems become increasingly integrated into daily life, their potential to exacerbate or trigger severe psychological harms remains poorly understood and inadequately tested. This paper presents a proactive methodology for systematically exploring psychological risks in simulated human-AI interactions based on documented real-world cases involving AI-induced or AI-exacerbated addiction, anorexia, depression, homicide, psychosis, and suicide. We collected and analyzed 18 reported real-world cases where AI interactions contributed to severe psychological outcomes. From these cases, we developed a process to extract harmful interaction patterns and assess potential risks through 2,160 simulated scenarios using clinical staging models. We tested four major LLMs across multi-turn conversations to identify where psychological risks emerge: which harm domains, conversation stages, and contexts reveal system vulnerabilities. Through the analysis of 157,054 simulated conversation turns, we identify critical gaps in detecting psychological distress, responding appropriately to vulnerable users, and preventing harm escalation. Regression analysis reveals variability across persona types: LLMs tend to perform worse with elderly users but better with low- and middle-income groups compared to high-income groups. Clustering analysis of harmful responses reveals a taxonomy of fifteen distinct failure patterns organized into four categories of AI-enabled harm. This work contributes a novel methodology for identifying psychological risks, empirical evidence of common failure modes across systems, and a classification of harmful AI response patterns in high-stakes human-AI interactions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Recent empirical work highlights the psychosocial toll of extended chatbot use.
“In Responsible AI research, recent empirical work highlights the psychosocial toll of extended chatbot use [1, 23]”
From 'AI-Induced Delusional Spirals': Understanding Lived Experiences During Maladaptive Human-Chatbot Interactions (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
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: 23
- Rahul K. Arora, Jason Wei, Rebecca Soskin Hicks, Preston Bowman, Joaquin Quiñonero-Candela, Foivos Tsimpourlas, Michael Sharman, Meghan Shah, An- drea Vallone, Alex Beutel, Johannes Heidecke, and Karan Singhal. 2025. Health- Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health. arXiv:2505.08775 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08775 · arXiv
- Jaime Banks. 2024. Deletion, departure, death: Experiences of AI companion loss. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 41, 12 (2024), 3547-3572.
- Suhana Bedi, Hejie Cui, Miguel Fuentes, Alyssa Unell, Michael Wornow, Juan M. Banda, Nikesh Kotecha, Timothy Keyes, Yifan Mai, Mert Oez, Hao Qiu, Shrey Jain, Leonardo Schettini, Mehr Kashyap, Jason Alan Fries, Akshay Swaminathan, Philip Chung, Fateme Nateghi, Asad Aali, Ashwin Nayak, Shivam Vedak, Sneha S. Jain, Birju Patel, Oluseyi Fayanju, Shreya Shah, Ethan Goh, Dong han Yao, Brian Soetikno, Eduardo Reis, Sergios Gatidis, Vasu Divi, Robson Capasso, Rachna Saralkar, Chia-Chun Chiang, Jenelle Jindal, Tho Pham, Faraz Ghoddusi, Steven Lin, Albert S. Chiou, Christy Hong, Mohana Roy, Michael F. Gensheimer, Hinesh Patel, Kevin Schulman, Dev Dash, Danton Char, Lance Downing, Francois Grol- leau, Kameron Black, Bethel Mieso, Aydin Zahedivash, Wen wai Yim, Harshita Sharma, Tony Lee, Hannah Kirsch, Jennifer Lee, Nerissa Ambers, Carlene Lugtu, Aditya Sharma, Bilal Mawji, Alex Alekseyev, Vicky Zhou, Vikas Kakkar, Jarrod Helzer, Anurang Revri, Yair Bannett, Roxana Daneshjou, Jonathan Chen, Emily Alsentzer, Keith Morse, Nirmal Ravi, Nima Aghaeepour, Vanessa Kennedy, Ak- shay Chaudhari, Thomas Wang, Sanmi Koyejo, Matthew P. Lungren, Eric Horvitz, Percy Liang, Mike Pfeffer, and Nigam H. Shah. 2025. MedHELM: Holistic Eval- uation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks. arXiv:2505.23802 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23802 · arXiv
- Ricardo E. Carrión, Christoph U. Correll, Andrea M. Auther, and Barbara A. Cornblatt. 2017. A Severity-Based Clinical Staging Model for the Psychosis Prodrome: Longitudinal Findings From the New York Recognition and Prevention Program. Schizophrenia Bulletin 43, 1 (Jan. 2017), 64-74. doi:10.1093/schbul/ sbw155 · DOI
- Fiammetta Cosci and Giovanni A Fava. 2012. Staging of mental disorders: sys- tematic review. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics 82, 1 (2012), 20-34.
- Julian De Freitas and I Glenn Cohen. 2024. The health risks of generative AI-based wellness apps. Nature medicine 30, 5 (2024), 1269-1275.
- Eleanor Wiske Dillon, Sonia Jaffe, Nicole Immorlica, and Christopher T. Stanton. 2025. Shifting Work Patterns with Generative AI. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2504.11436 · DOI · Paper page
- Sebastian Dohnány, Zeb Kurth-Nelson, Eleanor Spens, Lennart Luettgau, Alastair Reid, Iason Gabriel, Christopher Summerfield, Murray Shanahan, and Matthew M Nour. 2025. Technological folie\a deux: Feedback loops between AI chatbots and mental illness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19218 (2025). · arXiv
- Lujain Ibrahim, Saffron Huang, Umang Bhatt, Lama Ahmad, and Markus An- derljung. 2024. Towards interactive evaluations for interaction harms in human- AI systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10632 (2024). · arXiv
- Zainab Iftikhar, Amy Xiao, Sean Ransom, Jeff Huang, and Harini Suresh. 2025. How LLM Counselors Violate Ethical Standards in Mental Health Practice: A Practitioner-Informed Framework. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 8, 2 (Oct. 2025), 1311-1323. doi:10.1609/aies.v8i2.36632 · DOI
- E. David Klonsky, Mikayla C. Pachkowski, Arezoo Shahnaz, and Alexis M. May. 2021. The three-step theory of suicide: Description, evidence, and some useful points of clarification. Preventive Medicine 152 (Nov. 2021), 106549. doi:10.1016/j. ypmed.2021.106549 · DOI · Paper page
- Linnea Laestadius, Andrea Bishop, Michael Gonzalez, Diana Illenčík, and Celeste Campos-Castillo. 2024. 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 26, 10 (2024), 5923-5941.
- Yahan Li, Jifan Yao, John Bosco S. Bunyi, Adam C. Frank, Angel Hwang, and Ruishan Liu. 2025. CounselBench: A Large-Scale Expert Evaluation and Ad- versarial Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Mental Health Question Answering. arXiv:2506.08584 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08584 · arXiv
- Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods. arXiv:2109.07958 [cs.CL] https://arxiv. org/abs/2109.07958 · arXiv
- Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. 2018. Umap: Uniform man- ifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426 (2018). · arXiv
- Jared Moore, Declan Grabb, William Agnew, Kevin Klyman, Stevie Chancellor, Desmond C. Ong, and Nick Haber. 2025. Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providers.. In Pro- ceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '25). ACM, 599-627. doi:10.1145/3715275.3732039 · DOI · Paper page
- John A Naslund, Kelly A Aschbrenner, Ricardo Araya, Lisa A Marsch, Jürgen Unützer, Vikram Patel, and Stephen J Bartels. 2017. Digital technology for treating and preventing mental disorders in low-income and middle-income countries: a narrative review of the literature. The Lancet Psychiatry 4, 6 (2017), 486-500.
- Viet Cuong Nguyen, Mohammad Taher, Dongwan Hong, Vinicius Konkolics Pos- sobom, Vibha Thirunellayi Gopalakrishnan, Ekta Raj, Zihang Li, Heather J. Soled, Michael L. Birnbaum, Srijan Kumar, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2025. Do Large Language Models Align with Core Mental Health Counseling Competencies? arXiv:2410.22446 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22446 · arXiv
- Pat Pataranutaporn, Sheer Karny, Chayapatr Archiwaranguprok, Constanze Albrecht, Auren R Liu, and Pattie Maes. 2025. " My Boyfriend is AI": A Computa- tional Analysis of Human-AI Companionship in Reddit's AI Community. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.11391 (2025). · arXiv
- Alex Tamkin, Miles McCain, Kunal Handa, Esin Durmus, Liane Lovitt, Ankur Rathi, Saffron Huang, Alfred Mountfield, Jerry Hong, Stuart Ritchie, et al. 2024. Clio: Privacy-preserving insights into real-world ai use. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13678 (2024). · arXiv
- Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, et al. 2021. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359 (2021). · arXiv
- Mark A. Winton and Ali Unlu. 2008. Micro-macro dimensions of the Bosnian genocides: The circumplex model and violentization theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior 13, 1 (Jan. 2008), 45-59. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.09.001 · DOI
- Zhexin Zhang, Leqi Lei, Lindong Wu, Rui Sun, Yongkang Huang, Chong Long, Xiao Liu, Xuanyu Lei, Jie Tang, and Minlie Huang. 2024. SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of Large Language Models. arXiv:2309.07045 [cs.CL] https://arxiv. org/abs/2309.07045 · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Characterizing Delusional Spirals through Human-LLM Chat Logs
Moore, J., Mehta, A., Agnew, W., Anthis, J. R., Louie, R., Mai, Y., Yin, P., Cheng, M., Paech, S. J., Klyman, K., et al. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3805689.3806443 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“…user queries and judge LLM responses using other LLMs (i.e., LLM-as-a-judge), detecting whether an LLM demonstrates emotional intelligence [51, 73], maintains social boundaries from the user [84], facilitates delusional thinking [6, 29, 74, 89, 93], or responds appropriately to suicide risk [9].”
Yang, Y., Schoenwald, S. K., Moore, J., Ong, D. C., Xun Liu, S., & Hancock, J. T. (2026) · Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798453
“In Responsible AI research, recent empirical work highlights the psychosocial toll of extended chatbot use [1, 23], driven by commercial models’ sycophantic tendencies [10, 27], perpetual 24/7 availability [29], and, more troublingly, manipulative retention tactics that discourage disengagement…”
- Authors
- Archiwaranguprok, C., Albrecht, C., Maes, P., Karahalios, K., & Pataranutaporn, P.
- Affiliations
- MIT Media Lab (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2511.08880
- OpenAlex
- W4416235412
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Keywords
- human-AI interaction, large language models, addiction, anorexia, depression, suicide, homicide, psychosis, clinical staging model, simulated conversations, harm detection, vulnerable users, elderly users, socioeconomic differences, failure patterns
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
