The DOI matches its DataCite record; 106 of the 106 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 113 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions
Open accessAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) companions are increasingly promoted as solutions for loneliness, often overlooking how personal dispositions and life-stage conditions shape artificial intimacy. Because intimacy is a primary coping mechanism for loneliness that varies by attachment style and age, we examine how different types of users form intimate relationships with AI companions in response to loneliness. Drawing on a hermeneutic literature review and a survey of 277 active AI companion users, we develop and test a model in which loneliness predicts intimacy, moderated by attachment insecurity and conditioned by age. Although the cross-sectional data limits causal inference, the results reveal a differentiated pattern. Loneliness is paradoxically associated with reduced intimacy for securely attached users but with increased intimacy for avoidant and ambivalent users, while anxious users show mixed effects. Older adults report higher intimacy even at lower loneliness levels. These findings challenge portrayals of AI companions as universal remedies for loneliness. Instead, artificial intimacy emerges as a sociotechnical process shaped by psychological dispositions and demographic conditions. The study clarifies who is most likely to form intimate relationships with AI companions and highlights ethical risks in commercial models that may capitalise on user vulnerability.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper tests whether loneliness predicts intimacy with AI companions and how attachment style and age condition that link in a survey of 277 active users. It finds that loneliness is associated with lower intimacy for securely attached users but higher intimacy for avoidant and ambivalent users, while older adults report higher intimacy even at lower loneliness.
Key findings
- Loneliness was positively associated with intimacy overall (β = 0.134, p = 0.025), and age was positively associated with intimacy (β = 0.270, p < 0.001), with the model explaining 7.6% of variance.
- Attachment moderated the loneliness–intimacy link: for insecure attachment, loneliness positively predicted intimacy (β = 0.248, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.127; 0.368]); for secure attachment, the association was negative and marginal (β = −0.169, p = 0.084, 95% CI [−0.364; 0.026]); the moderated model explained 12.5% of variance.
- Post-hoc four-style analysis showed the strongest positive loneliness–intimacy associations for avoidant (β = 0.374, p = 0.021, 95% CI [0.058; 0.689]) and ambivalent users (β = 0.262, p = 0.013, 95% CI [0.055; 0.468]); anxious users showed a weaker, non-significant association (β = 0.097, p = 0.258, 95% CI [−0.071; 0.265]), and secure users showed a negative association (β = −0.174, p = 0.071, 95% CI [−0.65; 0.015]).
- Attachment distribution was 55.2% secure, 10.1% avoidant, 18.1% anxious, and 16.6% ambivalent; older adults reported higher intimacy even at lower loneliness levels.
Methods
- Cross-sectional online survey of 277 active AI companion users, recruited primarily in Replika-dedicated communities on Reddit, Discord, and Facebook with Luka Inc. support, and also shared in communities for Character AI, Pi AI, Muah AI, and other AI companions.
- Measures included the six-item Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, five-item Emotional Intimacy Scale, and 12-item Experiences in Close Relationships short form (ECR-12) for attachment anxiety and avoidance; all scales had Cronbach’s α ≥ .86. Age was collected in ranges and midpoint values used; biological sex was a control.
- Analyses used SPSS 29.0 with PROCESS Macro 4.2; attachment was first median-split into secure versus insecure, then post-hoc models examined four attachment styles with secure as reference.
Limitations
- The paper states that the cross-sectional design limits causal inference, that focusing on active AI companion users introduces self-selection bias, that the sample lacked explicit cultural measures, that intimacy is conceptualised as flowing from the user toward the AI, and that long-term societal implications remain uncertain.
- Evident from the text: recruitment from specific AI companion communities may limit generalisability; age was collected in ranges and analysed via midpoints; the binary secure/insecure median split may obscure dimensional attachment nuance; and the post-hoc secure-style confidence interval appears inconsistent between the text and table.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 Own interpretation · 22 No full text of the sources · 20 Not checked yet · 20 Own result · 10 Sources not found · 7 Own method · 5 No basis given · 3 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Because intimacy is a primary coping mechanism for loneliness that varies by attachment style and age, we examine how different types of users form intimate relationships with AI companions in response to loneliness.”
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
“It is central to meaningful relationships and a primary coping mechanism for loneliness (Cacioppo et al. 2015;Mund et al. 2020).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Cacioppo et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Intimate Loneliness” section (page unavailable) says intimate partners are a primary source of emotional support for adults and that having a partner is associated with lower intimate loneliness. It does not establish intimacy as a primary coping mechanism for loneliness generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites Mund et al. 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Loneliness follows a nonlinear life-course trajectory (Mund et al. 2020;von Soest et al. 2020), and older adults increasingly prioritise emotionally meaningful, low-effort interactions (Carstensen 2021).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > H2: Attachment styles will moderate the link between loneliness and intimacy with an AI companion.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Carstensen 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Abstract says that interest in emotionally meaningful activities and social partners increases with age, supporting that part of the claim. It does not characterize older adults’ preferred interactions as low-effort. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Loneliness is paradoxically associated with reduced intimacy for securely attached users but with increased intimacy for avoidant and ambivalent users, while anxious users show mixed effects.”
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
“Loneliness is associated with lower intimacy among securely attached users, higher intimacy among avoidant and ambivalent users, and mixed effects for anxious users.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Loneliness is paradoxically associated with reduced intimacy for securely attached users but with increased intimacy for avoidant and ambivalent users, while anxious users show mixed effects.”
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
“Loneliness is associated with lower intimacy among securely attached users, higher intimacy among avoidant and ambivalent users, and mixed effects for anxious users.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Loneliness is paradoxically associated with reduced intimacy for securely attached users but with increased intimacy for avoidant and ambivalent users, while anxious users show mixed effects.”
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
“Loneliness is associated with lower intimacy among securely attached users, higher intimacy among avoidant and ambivalent users, and mixed effects for anxious users.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Loneliness is paradoxically associated with reduced intimacy for securely attached users but with increased intimacy for avoidant and ambivalent users, while anxious users show mixed effects.”
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
“Loneliness is associated with lower intimacy among securely attached users, higher intimacy among avoidant and ambivalent users, and mixed effects for anxious users.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Older adults report higher intimacy even at lower loneliness levels.”
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
“Older adults report higher intimacy even at lower levels of loneliness.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. INTRODUCTION · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Older adults report stronger intimacy with AI companions even at relatively low levels of loneliness.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.1. Implications for Research
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall model was significant (p=0.001,R 2 =7.6%).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 4.1. Main Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the reverse was true for people with secure attachment style (β= -0.169, p=0.084, 95% CI [-0.364;0.026]).”
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Main Analysis · plain
“In contrast, loneliness is associated with reduced intimacy with the AI companion among securely attached individuals.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 4.1. Main Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4.1. Main Analysis · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- Probably not a substantial claim. 42
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“AI companions have also been linked to intensified loneliness and problematic use among vulnerable individuals (Alabed et al. 2024;Herbener & Damholdt 2025;Hu & Thomas 2025;Jacobs 2024).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Alabed et al. 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Herbener & Damholdt 2025 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (p. 6) and Discussion (p. 10) link social chatbot use among Danish high-school students with higher loneliness and lower social support. The Introduction (p. 2) discusses a potential risk of chatbot dependence for lonely users, drawing on prior research. The study is cross-sectional, so it does not establish that AI companions intensified loneliness or that problematic use occurred among its participants. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Could not verifycites Hu & Thomas 2025 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and the section on dating-app success and affective well-being discuss dating-app users, sadness, and a reported decrease in loneliness under specific conditions—not AI companions. Searches for AI companions, loneliness, and problematic or compulsive use found no passage linking AI companions to intensified loneliness or problematic use among vulnerable individuals. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For anxiously attached individuals, the association was weaker and not statistically significant.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Insecure Attachment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The moderation effects for Avoidant (β= 0.578, p=0.004),Anxious (β= 0.272, p=0.035) and Ambivalent (β= 0.436, p=0.002) styles were significant.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Insecure Attachment
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“securely attached individuals tend to withdraw from artificial closeness”
- Also stated in: § 6. CONCLUSION · plain
“| Secure | -0.174 | 0.071 | -0.65; 0.015 |”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 6. CONCLUSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 6. CONCLUSION · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet simulated intimacy carries risks of distorted judgement, emotional manipulation, and dependency (Chen et al. 2025;Gersen 2019;Schroeder et al. 2017;Su et al. 2019).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relational dynamics that underpin these divergent outcomes remain poorly understood.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using validated measures, we examine how loneliness relates to intimacy and how attachment style and age moderate this association.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“secure individuals are comfortable with intimacy, avoidant individuals strive to minimise it and maintain distance, anxious individuals seek it excessively, and ambivalent individuals oscillate between desire and withdrawal (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991;Feeney & Noller 1990;Spielmann et al. 2013).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Loneliness varies across the life span and personality traits (Mund et al. 2020;von Soest et al. 2020), and technology's effects are conditioned by psychological dispositions (Jin 2013;Phu & Gow 2019).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mund et al. 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites von Soest et al. 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet, unlike chosen solitude, loneliness reflects unmet needs for meaningful connection shaped by both personal dispositions and social conditions (Cacioppo et al. 2015;Mund et al. 2020;Vanhalst et al. 2015).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“secure individuals are comfortable with intimacy, avoidant individuals strive to minimise it and maintain distance, anxious individuals seek it excessively, and ambivalent individuals oscillate between desire and withdrawal (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991;Feeney & Noller 1990;Spielmann et al. 2013).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, our focus on active AI companion users introduces potential self-selection bias.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Biological sex (0 = male, 1 = female) was included as a control given known differences in intimacy processes (McNelles & Connolly 1999) and human-AI interaction patterns (Rahman et al. 2024).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 3.1. Survey Design and Scales
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McNelles & Connolly 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Rahman et al. 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar dynamics could emerge in companion systems.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.2. Implications for Practice and Policy
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sustained engagement with AI companions may reshape loneliness trajectories and attachment patterns, producing displacement, supplementation, or hybridisation effects in human relationships.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The literature commonly identifies four adult attachment styles: secure (low anxiety and avoidance), avoidant (emotional distancing and discomfort with intimacy), anxious (reassurance-seeking and fear of rejection), and ambivalent (a volatile combination of anxiety and avoidance, producing desire-withdrawal spirals) (Feeney & Noller 1990;Hazan & Shaver 1987).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.3. Attachment
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Loneliness thus risks becoming a revenue source to be cultivated and sustained.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.2. Implications for Practice and Policy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such approaches are particularly important because loneliness, attachment, and intimacy co-evolve over time rather than functioning as static traits.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite growing research on human-AI relationships, no studies have examined how loneliness shapes the development of intimacy with AI companions or how individual differences condition this process.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.1. Loneliness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A plausible explanation is that artificial partners alter the perceived risk structure of intimacy, lowering the psychological costs for avoidant users while retaining instrumental value for secure users.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.1. Implications for Research
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Loneliness was measured using the six-item Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Wongpakaran et al. 2020), a Rasch-validated short form retaining the measurement precision of the 20-item instrument.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 3.1. Survey Design and Scales
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wongpakaran et al. 2020 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Attachment theory, originating in developmental psychology (Ainsworth & Bowlby 1991) and later extended to adult relationships (Hazan & Shaver 1987), explains enduring differences in caregiving, intimacyseeking, and emotion regulation through internal models of the self and others (Mikulincer 1998).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.3. Attachment
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we theorise loneliness as an antecedent of intimacy formation, reverse or recursive processes cannot be excluded.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While online interaction, including with AI companions, may provide short-term emotional relief (Cauberghe et al. 2020;De Freitas et al. 2025;Latikka et al. 2022;Potdevin et al. 2021;Sullivan et al. 2023), highly lonely individuals often derive limited benefit (Jin 2013;Phu & Gow 2019), and some may develop maladaptive reliance (Al-Obaydi & Pikhart 2025;Jacobs 2024;Turel & Serenko 2012).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.4. Literature Synthesis and Hypotheses Development
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the rapid adoption of AI companions, no studies have examined whether attachment styles moderate intimacy with AI companions.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.2. Intimacy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Attachment anxiety and avoidance were measured using the 12-item Experiences in Close Relationships short form (ECR-12) (Lafontaine et al. 2016), which preserves the discriminative power of the full ECR while reducing response effort.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 3.1. Survey Design and Scales
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lafontaine et al. 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These interventions address structural drivers of loneliness identified in public health research (Ernst et al. 2022;WHO 2023).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.2. Implications for Practice and Policy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ernst et al. 2022 source
- Not matchedcites WHO 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As AI companions integrate into broader AI ecosystems, large-scale emotional data extraction becomes possible.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.2. Implications for Practice and Policy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we identify and explain an apparent paradox: loneliness does not consistently increase intimacy with AI companions, but does so differentially across attachment styles, diverging from typical human relational patterns.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Anxiously attached individuals seek reassurance but are sensitive to inconsistency (Feeney & Noller 1990), potentially fostering more volatile engagement.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > H2: Attachment styles will moderate the link between loneliness and intimacy with an AI companion.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Feeney & Noller 1990 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“AI companions are increasingly marketed and studied as remedies for loneliness (De Freitas et al. 2025;Kim et al. 2025;Sullivan et al. 2023).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5. DISCUSSION
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For regulators and policymakers, the concentration of intimacy among insecurely attached users signals a structural risk of emotional manipulation.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.2. Implications for Practice and Policy
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attachment norms, tolerance for artificial relationality, expectations of emotional labour, and attitudes toward anthropomorphism and AI plausibly vary across cultures.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Emerging regulation, including requirements for transparency about non-human status (e.g., California Senate Bill 243), anticipate such measures.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.2. Implications for Practice and Policy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites California Senate Bill 243
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Intimacy with the AI companion was captured using the five-item Emotional Intimacy Scale (Sinclair & Dowdy 2005), which measures perceived acceptance, empathic responsiveness, and depth of disclosure.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 3.1. Survey Design and Scales
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sinclair & Dowdy 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Insecure attachment is associated with distress, adverse health outcomes, and poorer relational functioning (Berant et al. 2001;Hardy & Barkham 1994;Maunder & Hunter 2001;Pietromonaco & Beck 2019).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“We computed and used mean scores to categorise participants into secure versus insecure attachment via a median-split procedure common in behavioural IS research (Turel 2015), and consistent with work categorising individuals into secure versus insecure attachment based on their position in the anxious-avoidant space (Davies et al. 2009;De Carli et al. 2016).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 3.1. Survey Design and Scales
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Turel 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Davies et al. 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites De Carli et al. 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Artificial intimacy does not emerge uniformly, nor does it generate uniform benefits or harms.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 6. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This finding aligns with our hypotheses but inverts expectations from human attachment theory, which predicts greater intimacy among secure individuals and lower intimacy among avoidant individuals under conditions of loneliness (Ainsworth & Bowlby 1991;Feeney & Noller 1990).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.1. Implications for Research
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Attachment also shapes trust in AI agents: experimentally increasing security cues elevates trust in AI, whereas activating anxiety cues reduces it (Gillath et al. 2021).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.3. Attachment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gillath et al. 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“AI companions therefore occupy an ambivalent position: they are designed to simulate intimacy and are widely promoted as remedies for loneliness (Chen et al. 2024;Chen et al. 2023; Zao-Sanders 2025), yet their effects depend on who uses them and how.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.4. Literature Synthesis and Hypotheses Development
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chen et al. 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Chen et al. 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Zao-Sanders 2025
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While current systems lack consciousness or genuine empathy, users may nonetheless perceive reciprocity as simulations become increasingly nuanced.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Current AI systems lack consciousness or genuine empathy.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Population studies consistently find secure attachment as the most prevalent style (50-60 %), followed by avoidant (23-25 %), anxious (11-19 %), and a smaller ambivalent minority (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van Ijzendoorn 2009;Mickelson et al. 1997).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.3. Attachment
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The observed patterns may shift as adoption broadens or as novelty effects diminish.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the crosssectional design limits causal inference.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Securely attached individuals, by contrast, may not translate loneliness into artificial intimacy, treating AI companionship as supplemental rather than substitutive.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.3. Attachment
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, although geographically diverse, our sample did not incorporate explicit cultural measures.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“secure individuals are comfortable with intimacy, avoidant individuals strive to minimise it and maintain distance, anxious individuals seek it excessively, and ambivalent individuals oscillate between desire and withdrawal (Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991;Feeney & Noller 1990;Spielmann et al. 2013).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Early adopters may differ systematically in psychological disposition, technological familiarity, or relational need.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“AI companions may thus disproportionately expose vulnerable users to manipulation, commercial exploitation, and privacy risks (Belk 2022;Gersen 2019;Su et al. 2019).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Belk 2022 source
- Not matchedcites Gersen 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Su et al. 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some users may experience compensatory relief; others may encounter intensified isolation or difficulty re-engaging with human partners.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 5.3. Limitations and Future Research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Older adults face heightened risks of chronic isolation (Carstensen 2021;Mund et al. 2020;von Soest et al. 2020) and may derive particular value from assistive technologies in the context of global demographic ageing (Latikka et al. 2022;Park & Kim 2022;von Soest et al. 2020).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 1. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Latikka et al. 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Park & Kim 2022 source
- Not matchedcites von Soest et al. 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because AI companions offer consistency, controllability, and low interpersonal risk, insecurely attached individuals may find them easier to engage with than human partners.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.3. Attachment
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: AI companions offer consistency, controllability, and low interpersonal risk.
In the paper
“Securely attached individuals, by contrast, may rely primarily on human partners (Feeney & Noller 1990) and may not convert loneliness into artificial intimacy at all, treating AI as supplemental tools rather than substitutive partners.”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > H2: Attachment styles will moderate the link between loneliness and intimacy with an AI companion.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Feeney & Noller 1990 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Insecure attachment constitutes a major psychological vulnerability, associated with maladaptive emotion regulation, reduced well-being, and difficulty coping with distress (Maunder & Hunter 2001;Mikulincer 1998;Shaver et al. 2005).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 2.3. Attachment
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
AI companions offer controllable intimacy without the reciprocity, friction, or risks of human relationships.
“Because AI companions offer controllable intimacy without the reciprocity, friction, or risks of human relationships, they may activate attachment strategies differently.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No studies have examined how attachment moderates the association between loneliness and intimacy with AI companions.
“Despite extensive evidence linking attachment to relationship functioning and technology use, no studies have examined how attachment moderates the association between loneliness and intimacy with AI companions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Loneliness reflects unmet relational needs and intimacy is a primary coping mechanism through which such needs are alleviated.
“Prior research establishes that loneliness reflects unmet relational needs and that intimacy is a primary coping mechanism through which such needs are alleviated.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Loneliness is a motivational antecedent of AI companion use rather than its outcome.
“We build on this literature by treating loneliness as a motivational antecedent of AI companion use rather than its outcome.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Intimacy flows from the human user toward the AI.
“Fourth, our framework conceptualises intimacy as flowing from the human user toward the AI.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Current AI systems lack consciousness or genuine empathy.
“While current systems lack consciousness or genuine empathy, users may nonetheless perceive reciprocity as simulations become increasingly nuanced.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI companions offer consistency, controllability, and low interpersonal risk.
“Because AI companions offer consistency, controllability, and low interpersonal risk, insecurely attached individuals may find them easier to engage with than human partners.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI companion adoption will accelerate and AI companions will increasingly structure emotional life at scale.
“As adoption accelerates, AI companions will increasingly structure emotional life at scale.”
“As AI companions become more prevalent”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI companions are increasingly presented as technocratic fixes to a structural loneliness crisis.
“AI companions are increasingly presented as technocratic fixes to a structural loneliness crisis”
The paper relies on this without support.
Certain attachment orientations heighten susceptibility to dependency on AI companions.
“users whose attachment orientations heighten susceptibility to dependency”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Insecure Attachment
“The model explained 18.5% of the variance in loneliness, and age remained as a significant predictor (β= 0.022, p<0.001).”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Insecure Attachment
“Table 2 presents the unstandardised effects of loneliness on intimacy within each attachment style.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > Insecure Attachment
“loneliness was negatively associated with intimacy with the AI (β= -0.174, p=0.071, 95% CI [-0.365;0.0.015])”
§ Not a Silver Bullet for Loneliness: How Attachment and Age Shape Intimacy with AI Companions > 6. CONCLUSION
“| Secure | -0.174 | 0.071 | -0.65; 0.015 |”
Citations
Cites
Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 · Cited by 6,247
Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.61.2.226 · Cited by 6,009
Sternberg, R. J. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.119 · Cited by 2,614
Parasocial Interaction: A Review of the Literature and a Model for Future Research
Giles, D. C. (2002) · Media Psychology · doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0403_04 · Cited by 1,245
Loneliness: clinical import and interventions
Cacioppo, S., Grippo, A. J., London, S., Goossens, L., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615570616 · Cited by 1,206
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238 · Cited by 1,064
An Ethological Approach to Personality Development
Ainsworth, M. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.46.4.333 · Cited by 1,004
Pittman, M., & Reich, B. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.084 · Cited by 907
Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample.
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.5.1092 · Cited by 843
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2009) · Attachment & Human Development · doi:10.1080/14616730902814762 · Cited by 742
A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches
Boell, S. K., & Ćećez-Kecmanović, D. (2014) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.03412 · Cited by 727
Attachment Style as a Predictor of Adult Romantic Relationships
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.281 · Cited by 707
The benefits and dangers of enjoyment with social networking websites
Turel, O., & Serenko, A. (2012) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.1 · Cited by 684
Self-citationInference by eye: Reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals
Cumming, G. (2008) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.3471 · Cited by 673
Adult Attachment in a Nationally Representative Sample
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1092 · Cited by 588
Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Ernst, M., Niederer, D., Werner, A. M., Czaja, S. J., Mikton, C., Ong, A. D., Rosen, T., Brähler, E., & Beutel, M. E. (2022) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0001005 · Cited by 584
Yim, C. K. (., Tse, D. K., & Chan, K. W. (2008) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.6.741 · Cited by 583
Socioemotional Selectivity Theory: The Role of Perceived Endings in Human Motivation
Carstensen, L. L. (2021) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnab116 · Cited by 573
Cauberghe, V., Van Wesenbeeck, I., De Jans, S., Hudders, L., & Ponnet, K. (2021) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2020.0478 · Cited by 564
Roberts, J. E., Gotlib, I. H., & Kassel, J. D. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.2.310 · Cited by 528
Exploring relationship development with social chatbots: A mixed-method study of replika
Pentina, I., Hancock, T., & Xie, T. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600 · Cited by 522
Attachment and trust in artificial intelligence
Gillath, O., Ai, T., Branicky, M. S., Keshmiri, S., Davison, R. B., & Spaulding, R. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106607 · Cited by 448
Attachment and Psychosomatic Medicine: Developmental Contributions to Stress and Disease
Maunder, R. G., & Hunter, J. J. (2001) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00006842-200107000-00006 · Cited by 381
Attachment Style and Subjective Motivations for Sex
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167204264794 · Cited by 347
Lee, Y., & Kwon, O. (2011) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2010.11.005 · Cited by 343
Roberts, J. E., Gotlib, I. H., & Kassel, J. D. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.310 · Cited by 339
Turel, O. (2014) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.19 · Cited by 330
Self-citationChandra, S., Shirish, A., & Srivastava, S. C. (2022) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2022.2127441 · Cited by 315
Bots with Feelings: Should AI Agents Express Positive Emotion in Customer Service?
Han, E., Yin, D., & Zhang, H. (2023) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2022.1179 · Cited by 307
Mikulincer, M. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.513 · Cited by 292
Attachment Style, Excessive Reassurance Seeking, Relationship Processes, and Depression
Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167204271709 · Cited by 288
Attachment style, social skills, and Facebook use amongst adults
Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.006 · Cited by 284
Texting, sexting, and attachment in college students’ romantic relationships
Drouin, M. A., & Landgraff, C. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.015 · Cited by 271
Loneliness and suicide mitigation for students using GPT3-enabled chatbots
Maples, B., Cerit, M., Vishwanath, A., & Pea, R. (2024) · npj Mental Health Research · doi:10.1038/s44184-023-00047-6 · Cited by 250
“Sexting” and adult romantic attachment
Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.008 · Cited by 244
Effects of self-disclosure on relational intimacy in Facebook
Park, N., Jin, B., & Annie Jin, S.-A. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.05.004 · Cited by 242
Relationship between the level of intimacy and lurking in online social network services
Rau, P. P., Gao, Q., & Ding, Y. (2008) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.04.001 · Cited by 239
Hu, B., Mao, Y., & Kim, K. J. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107760 · Cited by 228
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019 · Cited by 220
Selecting the Best Items for a Short-Form of the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire
Lafontaine, M.-F., Brassard, A., Lussier, Y., Valois, P., Shaver, P. R., & Johnson, S. M. (2016) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000243 · Cited by 220
Abeele, M. V., Hendrickson, A. T., Pollmann, M. M. H., & Ling, R. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.004 · Cited by 204
McNelles, L. R., & Connolly, J. (1999) · Journal of Research on Adolescence · doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0902_2 · Cited by 196
Humans' attachment to their mobile phones and its relationship with interpersonal attachment style
Konok, V., Gigler, D., Bereczky, B. M., & Miklósi, Á. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.062 · Cited by 192
Development of loneliness in midlife and old age: Its nature and correlates.
von Soest, T., Luhmann, M., Hansen, T., & Gerstorf, D. (2018) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000219 · Cited by 184
Adult attachment and physical health
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Beck, L. A. (2018) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.004 · Cited by 166
AI Companions Reduce Loneliness
De Freitas, J., Oğuz-Uğuralp, Z., Uğuralp, A. K., & Puntoni, S. (2026) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucaf040 · Cited by 165
Vanhalst, J., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Van Petegem, S., Weeks, M. S., & Asher, S. R. (2015) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000051 · Cited by 153
Development and validation of a 6‐item Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (RULS‐6) using Rasch analysis
Wongpakaran, N., Wongpakaran, T., Pinyopornpanish, M., Simcharoen, S., Suradom, C., Varnado, P., & Kuntawong, P. (2020) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12404 · Cited by 151
How does anthropomorphism improve human-AI interaction satisfaction: a dual-path model
Xie, Y., Zhu, K., Zhou, P., & Liang, C. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107878 · Cited by 150
Odacı, H., & Çıkrıkçı, Ö. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.019 · Cited by 149
Facebook use and its association with subjective happiness and loneliness
Phu, B., & Gow, A. J. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.020 · Cited by 138
Alabed, A., Javornik, A., Gregory‐Smith, D., & Casey, R. (2023) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-01-2023-0037 · Cited by 138
Insecure attachment style is associated with chronic widespread pain
Davies, K. A., Macfarlane, G. J., McBeth, J., Morriss, R. K., & Dickens, C. M. (2009) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.02.013 · Cited by 131
Hajek, A., & König, H. (2020) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000512793 · Cited by 121
A snap of intimacy: Photo-sharing practices among young people on social media
Kofoed, J., & Larsen, M. C. (2016) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v21i11.6905 · Cited by 120
Avi Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2005) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167204274082 · Cited by 118
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Safyer, P. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.050 · Cited by 118
Herbener, A. B., & Damholdt, M. F. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103409 · Cited by 107
Kim, J.-H. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.025 · Cited by 105
Companion animals and health in older populations: a systematic review
Hughes, M. J., Verreynne, M.-L., Harpur, P., & Pachana, N. A. (2020) · Clinical Gerontologist · doi:10.1080/07317115.2019.1650863 · Cited by 104
Latikka, R., Koivula, A., Oksa, R., Savela, N., & Oksanen, A. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114674 · Cited by 101
Benefits of positive relationship experiences for avoidantly attached individuals.
Stanton, S. C. E., Campbell, L., & Pink, J. C. (2017) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000098 · Cited by 96
Development and Validation of the Emotional Intimacy Scale
Sinclair, V. G., & Dowdy, S. W. (2005) · Journal of Nursing Measurement · doi:10.1891/jnum.13.3.193 · Cited by 94
The Relationship Between Interpersonal Attachment Styles and Work Difficulties
Hardy, G. E., & Barkham, M. (1994) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872679404700302 · Cited by 90
Kim, M., Lee, S., Kim, S., Heo, J.-I., Lee, S., Shin, Y.-B., Cho, C.-H., & Jung, D. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/65589 · Cited by 90
The Societal Impacts of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Balanced Perspective
Sabherwal, R., & Grover, V. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00860 · Cited by 82
How lonely people use and perceive Facebook
Jin, B. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.034 · Cited by 72
Millings, A., Walsh, J., Hepper, E. G., & O’Brien, M. (2012) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167212468333 · Cited by 72
Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167201278004 · Cited by 71
Geller, D., & Bamberger, P. A. (2009) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726709337524 · Cited by 71
Su, N. M., Lazar, A., Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3301422 · Cited by 70
The marketing of love: how attachment styles affect romantic consumption journeys
Mende, M., Scott, M. L., Garvey, A. M., & Bolton, L. E. (2018) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-018-0610-9 · Cited by 67
Feedback seeking from peers: A positive strategy for insecurely attached team-workers
Wu, C., Parker, S. K., & de Jong, J. P. J. (2013) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726713496124 · Cited by 66
Artificial Emotions and Love and Sex Doll Service Workers
Belk, R. (2022) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/10946705211063692 · Cited by 63
Financial vulnerability and the impact of COVID-19 on American households
Bruce, C., Gearing, M. E., DeMatteis, J., Levin, K., Mulcahy, T. M., Newsome, J., & Wivagg, J. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262301 · Cited by 60
Tams, S. (2022) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2022/16359 · Cited by 59
Lin, Y., & My, G. C. (2021) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-08-2020-0329 · Cited by 54
Owner of a lonely heart: The stability of loneliness across the life span.
Mund, M., Lüdtke, O., & Neyer, F. J. (2019) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000262 · Cited by 53
Spielmann, S. S., Maxwell, J. A., MacDonald, G., & Baratta, P. L. (2013) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167212472541 · Cited by 50
Digital loneliness—changes of social recognition through AI companions
Jacobs, K. A. (2024) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2024.1281037 · Cited by 48
Motivation, Concerns, and Attitudes Towards AI: Differences by Gender, Age, and Culture
Rahman, M. M., Babiker, A., & Ali, R. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-0573-6_28 · Cited by 48
The Impact of Everyday AI-Based Smart Speaker Use on the Well-Being of Older Adults Living Alone
Park, S., & Kim, B. (2022) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102133 · Cited by 46
Combating Loneliness with Artificial Intelligence: An AI-Based Emotional Support Model
Sullivan, Y., Nyawa, S., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.541 · Cited by 44
The AI-mediated intimacy economy: a paradigm shift in digital interactions
Bozdağ, A. A. (2025) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02132-6 · Cited by 42
Saffarizadeh, K., University of Texas at Arlington, Keil, M., Georgia State University, Boodraj, M., Boise State University, Alashoor, T., & University of Navarra (2024) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00839 · Cited by 41
Meier, M., Maier, C., Thatcher, J. B., & Weitzel, T. (2024) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12507 · Cited by 40
He Loves Her, He Loves Her Not
Hart, J., Hung, J. A., Glick, P., & Dinero, R. E. (2012) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167212454177 · Cited by 39
Networked intimacy. Intimacy and friendship among Italian Facebook users
Farci, M., Rossi, L., Artieri, G. B., & Giglietto, F. (2016) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1203970 · Cited by 35
Ghanayem, L. K., Shannon, H., Khodr, L., McQuaid, R. J., & Hellemans, K. G. C. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1247807 · Cited by 35
Artificial intelligence addiction: exploring the emerging phenomenon of addiction in the AI age
Al-Obaydi, L. H., & Pikhart, M. (2026) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02535-z · Cited by 32
The association between adult attachment and problematic Internet use: A three-level meta-analysis
Niu, X., Xie, Y., Gou, L.-X., King, D. L., Gu, J., & Wang, J. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107957 · Cited by 30
COVID-19-related mental health difficulties among marginalised populations: A literature review
Camara, C., Surkan, P. J., van der Waerden, J. E. B., Tortelli, A., Downes, N., Vuillermoz, C., & Melchior, M. (2022) · Cambridge Prisms Global Mental Health · doi:10.1017/gmh.2022.56 · Cited by 30
Haucke, M. N., Heinz, A., Liu, S., & Heinzel, S. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/32598 · Cited by 29
Potdevin, D., Clavel, C., & Sabouret, N. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102612 · Cited by 28
Cheng, J., Sun, X., Zhong, Y., & Li, K. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13020168 · Cited by 25
Platform capture: a review of the state of the art of research on platforms and a research agenda
Arsel, Z. (2025) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2025.2549741 · Cited by 23
Compassionate AI Design, Governance, and Use
Ciriello, R. F., Chen, A. Y., & Rubinsztein, Z. A. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society · doi:10.1109/tts.2025.3538125 · Cited by 19
Self-citationBalki, E., Hayes, N., & Holland, C. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/41536 · Cited by 18
Functional intimacy: Needing—But not wanting—The touch of a stranger.
Schroeder, J., Fishbach, A., Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2017) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000104 · Cited by 16
Conscious artificial intelligence in service
Breidbach, C. F., Ferm, L. C., Maglio, P. P., Beverungen, D., Wirtz, J., & Twigg, A. (2025) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-12-2024-0536 · Cited by 9
Chen, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, X., & Zeng, N. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2025.108651 · Cited by 8
Hughes, G., Moore, L., Hennessy, M., Sandset, T., Jentoft, E. E., & Haldar, M. (2024) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2024.1304085 · Cited by 7
Depression Self-Care Apps’ Characteristics and Applicability to Older Adults: Systematic Assessment
Yin, R., Rajappan, D., Martinengo, L., Chan, F. H. F., Smith, H. E., Griva, K., Subramaniam, M., & Car, L. T. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/56418 · Cited by 7
Wang, H. (2025) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-01-2024-0066 · Cited by 7
How Might Artificial Intelligence Influence Human Evolution?
Brooks, R. C. (2024) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/733290 · Cited by 6
Hu, J. M., & Thomas, M. F. (2026) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2025.2539294 · Cited by 6
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Chen, A. Y., Ciriello, R. F., Rubinsztein, Z. A., & Vaast, E. (2024). The Past, Present, and Futures of Artificial Emotional Intelligence: A Scoping Review. Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS2024), Canberra, Australia.
- Chen, A. Y., Kögel, S. I., Hannon, O., & Ciriello, R. F. (2023). Feels Like Empathy: How "Emotional" AI Challenges Human Essence. Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS2023), Wellington, New Zealand.
- Gersen, J. S. (2019). Sex Lex Machina: Intimacy and Artificial Intelligence. Columbia Law Review, 119(7), 1793-1810.
- Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
- Horwitz, J. (2021). The Facebook Files: A Wall Street Journal Investigation. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 12 2024 from https://tinyurl.com/ycytatjd
- Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an Interpersonal Process. In Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions. (pp. 367-389).
- Rook, K. (2014). The Health Effects of Negative Social Exchanges in Later Life. Generations, 38(1), 15-23.
- Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Beaulieu, T., & Lee, A. S. (2018). Learning from First-Generation Qualitative Approaches in the Is Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (Part 1/2). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(8), 752-774.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ComBodied Agents: a New Paradigm of Human-Centric Agentic AIPreprint
Ding, Q., Wang, X., Feng, R., Wang, Z., Wang, F., Mao, K., Sun, H., Luo, Z., Tang, J., Li, L., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.10915 · Cited by 8
Зв’язок використання ШІ-асистентів з психічним здоров'ям особистості
Козир, Д. Ю. (2026) · eKNUTSHIR
Han, J. (2026) · Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media · doi:10.54254/2753-7048/2027.sj37545
Self-Expansion Through AI: Latent Profile Analysis of AI Companionship and Wellbeing OutcomesPreprint
Sahandi, A., & Banks, J. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2611.00436
Liu, T., Shih, R.-M., Luo, T., & Jin, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1900817
Metadata
- Authors
- Ciriello, R., Gal, U., & Turel, O.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.12476
- OpenAlex
- W7129083135
- Semantic Scholar
- 581b5fa85a27e3b505ade576de6b1286f1bc654a
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- AI companions, loneliness, attachment styles, insecure attachment, age differences, older adults, attachment avoidance, ambivalent attachment, attachment anxiety, secure attachment, coping strategies, socio-technical processes
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
