Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42510380›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

A Q Methodological Study on Algorithmic Intimacy, Social Connection, Well-Being, and the Boundaries of Autonomy in University Students' Conversational Artificial Intelligence Experiences.

Kyoung Yeon Moon, Taeeun Shim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kyoung Yeon MoonDharma College, Dongguk University, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0006-9351-3252
Taeeun ShimBright College, Hankyong National University, Anseong-si 17579, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6000-8296

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study explores how university students experience conversational artificial intelligence (AI) in the era of generative AI from the perspectives of algorithmic intimacy, social connection, well-being, and autonomy, and identifies their subjective meaning structures. Specifically, it examines how university students perceive conversational AI in relation to emotional regulation, self-understanding, relational boundaries, and autonomy, and how these perceptions relate to intimacy and well-being. Unlike previous studies focused primarily on AI use and acceptance, this study analyses how students interpret their experiences with conversational AI and negotiate relational boundaries. Using Q methodology, we developed 40 Q statements from literature review and in-depth interviews. Fifty-six university students in South Korea with experience using conversational AI completed the Q-sorting process. A four-factor solution explained 55% of the total variance and yielded four distinct types: (1) Relationship-Negating Instrumentalists, (2) Selective Emotional Utilizers, (3) Reflective Distancers, and (4) Autonomy Defenders. Although none of the groups viewed AI as a complete substitute for human relationships, they differed in their acceptance of algorithmic intimacy, use of AI for emotional support and regulation, concerns about dependence, and efforts to protect autonomy. These findings suggest that conversational AI experiences involve negotiating intimacy and boundaries rather than producing uniformly positive or negative outcomes. This study complements variable-centred approaches by identifying distinct subjective meaning structures in university students' human-AI relationship experiences.

Indexed as

algorithmic intimacyautonomyconversational AIQ methodologysocial connectionwell-being

Identifiers

PMID42510380
PMCPMC13406130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.