ArticleNature human behaviour2026
Interaction with AI companions and psychological well-being.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tool or Companion? Reframing Conversational AI to Prevent Psychological Harm.JMIR mental health · 2026Review
- A double-edged impact of AI literacy on consumers' willingness to use AI-powered products: a parallel mediation model of perceived AI risk and perceived social good.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As large-language-model-enhanced chatbots become increasingly expressive and socially responsive, many users begin forming companionship-like bonds with them. This study investigates how using AI companions relates to psychological well-being. We collected self-reported data from 1,131 US adults who use Character.AI, including survey responses and 4,664 chat sessions (464,687 messages) from 237 participants. By triangulating self-reported usage, relationship descriptions and real chat histories, we identify patterns of engagement and associated outcomes. Smaller social networks were associated with reporting companionship as the primary chatbot use (β = -0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), (-0.05, -0.01)), which in turn was associated with lower well-being (β = -0.48; 95% CI, (-0.70, -0.25)). For self-reported companionship usage, this association was stronger when interactions were intensive (β = -0.31; 95% CI, (-0.56, -0.06)) and highly disclosive (β = -0.38; 95% CI, (-0.63, -0.14)). These results suggest that the association between AI companionship and well-being is not uniform and depends on users' offline social environments and how chatbots are used.
Identifiers
42552393What 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.