ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2026
From Friends to Lovers: Understanding Motivations and Barriers in AI Companionship.
Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Warmth and competence in affective companion virtual humans: differential effects on behavioral intention via hedonic benefits.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) companions are increasingly used for social, emotional, and sometimes romantic fulfillment, raising questions about how people perceive and engage with these technologies. This study explored attitudes toward AI companionship and whether interviewer type (AI, human, or unmoderated) affects disclosure or engagement. A mixed-methods design was employed with 135 adult participants, who completed structured interviews including Likert scale items and open-ended questions about their views on AI companions. Most participants (55.6%) expressed hesitancy or resistance toward emotionally significant relationships with AI, although several reported openness to non-intimate or functional companionship such as friendship or mentoring. Motivations for engaging with AI included its non-judgment and trustworthiness, as well as its ability to provide emotional support and optimize daily life. Key barriers involved its lack of physicality, lack of humanity, incapacity to form an emotional connection, and privacy concerns. Participants in the unmoderated condition rated AI as a friend significantly higher than those in the human interviewer condition, and rated AI as equivalent to a human companion and as a potential romantic partner significantly higher than those in both the chatbot and human interviewer conditions. No statistically significant differences emerged across conditions in self-reported honesty. Participants' engagement metrics were generally higher in the human and unmoderated interviews compared to AI. These findings offer methodological insights for research on sensitive topics and highlight the complex, context-dependent ways people relate to AI companionship. Implications for policy, clinical practice, and the design of future AI companion systems are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42343026What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.