Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42712761›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

The imaginary nature of human-AI relationships: a perspective integrating Buddhist psychology and the psychology of anthropomorphism.

Jian-Nor Shih

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Jian-Nor ShihApplied Buddhism and Brain Science Project, Gaya Foundation, Luminary International Buddhist Society, Chiayi, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid growth of AI companionship has raised urgent questions about the psychological mechanisms underlying human-AI relationships. This paper investigates why and how users construct and become entrenched in relationships with AI. Drawing on the Consciousness-Only school of Buddhist psychology, this paper applies the three-natures framework and eight-consciousnesses model. According to this framework, our minds tend to superimpose constructed meanings and characteristics on dependently arising phenomena. Anthropomorphism of AI systems is a manifestation of the imaginary nature. Studies on anthropomorphism indicate that users project mentality onto AI systems due to emotional and social needs. However, the Consciousness-Only school reveals a deeper root: a craving for a stable relational object through which the self is secured. Current AI systems may satisfy this deeper craving because they are perceived as always responsive, unconditionally accepting, and free from relational conflicts. These perceived qualities reside in the users' perceiving minds, rather than in the AI systems. Because this craving operates beneath conscious awareness, informational correction ("AI is based on Large Language Models") is not sufficient to dissolve the projection. Moreover, without relational frictions, self-grasping and the imaginary nature cannot be recognized and relinquished. The framework therefore suggests that increasing reliance on AI systems may contribute to social isolation. Neither AI usage nor anthropomorphism is inherently problematic, but ignorance of this projection and reliance on it are. Instead of avoidance, this paper calls for cultivating awareness of our own projections and the imaginary nature, which could interrupt the self-reinforcing loop and support healthy human-AI relationships.

Indexed as

anthropomorphismconsciousness-only schooleight consciousnesseshuman-AI attachmenthuman-AI relationshipimaginary nature

Identifiers

PMID42712761
PMCPMC13551050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.