SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Human-like conversational agents as social partners: a scoping review of socioaffective mechanisms, well-being outcomes, risks and governance in the post-Turing era.
Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Large language models have evolved from laboratory demonstrations into mass-market companion-style conversational agents that many users treat as social partners. As these systems produce increasingly human-like conversational behavior, users may attribute mind, form affective bonds, disclose sensitive information, and rely on agents for emotional support, creating both potential benefits and psychosocial risks. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-ScR-informed scoping review of socioaffective human-artificial intelligence interaction research published or posted from 2016 to 15 January 2026. Eligible sources addressed companion-style conversational agents and adjacent therapeutic, assistant-first, or governance sources. Evidence was stratified by system type and calibrated as stronger empirical support, moderate support, preliminary support, or proposed/normative synthesis. Results: The final evidence map included 58 sources. We synthesized mechanisms that make agents feel social, including anthropomorphism, social presence, mind perception, self-disclosure, parasocial attachment, and socioaffective alignment. Therapeutic chatbot studies provided the strongest evidence for short-term symptom reduction in selected contexts, whereas evidence for sustained loneliness reduction in open-domain companion systems remained emerging. Reported and hypothesized risks included dependency-like use, displacement of human interaction, maladaptive validation or sycophancy, persuasive manipulation, privacy harms, and risks to minors or vulnerable users. Discussion: We propose an integrative pathway linking model capabilities and product design cues to relational outcomes and outline a companion-specific relational safety stack as a synthesis-based evaluation agenda rather than a validated regulatory or clinical standard. The review identifies measurement priorities for evaluating companion agents and governance priorities for managing psychosocial impact as these systems scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.