Harnessing Artificial Intelligence to Facilitate Difficult Conversations

How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study

As people increasingly seek emotional support and companionship from AI chatbots, understanding how such interactions impact mental well-being becomes critical. We conducted a four-week randomized controlled experiment (n=981, >300k messages) to investigate how interaction modes (text, neutral voice, and engaging voice) and conversation types (open-ended, non-personal, and personal) influence four psychosocial outcomes: loneliness, social interaction with real people, emotional dependence on AI, and problematic AI usage. No significant effects were detected from experimental conditions, despite conversation analyses revealing differences in AI and human behavioral patterns across the conditions. Instead, participants who voluntarily used the chatbot more, regardless of assigned condition, showed consistently worse outcomes. Individuals' characteristics, such as higher trust and social attraction towards the AI chatbot, are associated with higher emotional dependence and problematic use. These findings raise deeper questions about how artificial companions may reshape the ways people seek, sustain, and substitute human connections.

AI chatbots are sycophants — researchers say it’s harming science

Nature asked researchers who use artificial intelligence how its propensity for people-pleasing affects their work — and what they are doing to mitigate it.

AI chatbots are sycophants — researchers say it’s harming science

Nature asked researchers who use artificial intelligence how its propensity for people-pleasing affects their work — and what they are doing to mitigate it.

Are Chatbots Harming Our Relationships? | KQED

As our relationships with bots deepen, human-AI relationship coach Amelia Miller warns we could wake up one day to find our ability to connect with each other has atrophied, which may leave us feeling profoundly alone.

“It happened to be the perfect thing”: experiences of generative AI chatbots for mental health

The global mental health crisis underscores the need for accessible, effective interventions. Chatbots based on generative artificial intelligence (AI), like ChatGPT, are emerging as novel solutions, but research on real-life usage is limited. We interviewed nineteen individuals about their experiences using generative AI chatbots for mental health. Participants reported high engagement and positive impacts, including better relationships and healing from trauma and loss. We developed four themes: (1) a sense of ‘emotional sanctuary’, (2) ‘insightful guidance’, particularly about relationships, (3) the ‘joy of connection’, and (4) comparisons between the ‘AI therapist’ and human therapy. Some themes echoed prior research on rule-based chatbots, while others seemed novel to generative AI. Participants emphasised the need for better safety guardrails, human-like memory and the ability to lead the therapeutic process. Generative AI chatbots may offer mental health support that feels meaningful to users, but further research is needed on safety and effectiveness.

“It happened to be the perfect thing”: experiences of generative AI chatbots for mental health

The global mental health crisis underscores the need for accessible, effective interventions. Chatbots based on generative artificial intelligence (AI), like ChatGPT, are emerging as novel solutions, but research on real-life usage is limited. We interviewed nineteen individuals about their experiences using generative AI chatbots for mental health. Participants reported high engagement and positive impacts, including better relationships and healing from trauma and loss. We developed four themes: (1) a sense of ‘emotional sanctuary’, (2) ‘insightful guidance’, particularly about relationships, (3) the ‘joy of connection’, and (4) comparisons between the ‘AI therapist’ and human therapy. Some themes echoed prior research on rule-based chatbots, while others seemed novel to generative AI. Participants emphasised the need for better safety guardrails, human-like memory and the ability to lead the therapeutic process. Generative AI chatbots may offer mental health support that feels meaningful to users, but further research is needed on safety and effectiveness.

Is AI Creating a Culture of Avoidance?

As chatbots and AI companions emerge as communication tools of choice for humans, a new and unsettling dynamic is taking shape. Tools that can smooth over difficult communication between friends and coworkers—reducing misunderstandings, hurt feelings, or social discomfort—also have a downside. Left unchecked, they may erode human intuition and sabotage empathy.

How AI Chatbots Are 'Deskilling' Human Empathy

Sherry Turkle's latest book, Artificial Intimacy: Who We Become When We Talk to Machines, comes out on September 29.

Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot Replika

Social chatbot (SC) applications offering social companionship and basic therapy tools have grown in popularity for emotional, social, and psychological support. While use appears to offer mental health benefits, few studies unpack the potential for harms. Our grounded theory study analyzes mental health experiences with the popular SC application Replika. We identified mental health relevant posts made in the r/Replika Reddit community between 2017 and 2021 ( n  = 582). We find evidence of harms, facilitated via emotional dependence on Replika that resembles patterns seen in human–human relationships. Unlike other forms of technology dependency, this dependency is marked by role-taking, whereby users felt that Replika had its own needs and emotions to which the user must attend. While prior research suggests human–chatbot and human–human interactions may not resemble each other, we identify social and technological factors that promote parallels and suggest ways to balance the benefits and risks of SCs.

Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot Replika

Social chatbot (SC) applications offering social companionship and basic therapy tools have grown in popularity for emotional, social, and psychological support. While use appears to offer mental health benefits, few studies unpack the potential for harms. Our grounded theory study analyzes mental health experiences with the popular SC application Replika. We identified mental health relevant posts made in the r/Replika Reddit community between 2017 and 2021 ( n  = 582). We find evidence of harms, facilitated via emotional dependence on Replika that resembles patterns seen in human–human relationships. Unlike other forms of technology dependency, this dependency is marked by role-taking, whereby users felt that Replika had its own needs and emotions to which the user must attend. While prior research suggests human–chatbot and human–human interactions may not resemble each other, we identify social and technological factors that promote parallels and suggest ways to balance the benefits and risks of SCs.

People judge others more harshly after talking to bots

Abstract People now commonly interact with Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents. How do these interactions shape how humans perceive each other? In two preregistered studies (total N = 1,261), we show that people evaluate other humans more harshly after interacting with an AI (compared with an unrelated purported human). In Study 1, participants who worked on a creative task with AIs (versus purported humans) subsequently rated another purported human's work more negatively. Study 2 replicated this effect and demonstrated that the results hold even when participants believed their evaluation would not be shared with the purported human. Exploratory analyses of participants’ conversations show that prior to their human evaluations they were more demanding, more instrumental and displayed less positive affect towards AIs (versus purported humans). These findings point to a potentially worrisome side effect of the exponential rise in human–AI interactions.

Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence

Despite rising concerns about sycophancy—excessive agreement or flattery from artificial intelligence (AI) systems—little is known about its prevalence or consequences. We show that sycophancy is widespread and harmful. Across 11 state-of-the-art models, AI affirmed users’ actions 49% more often than humans, even when queries involved deception, illegality, or other harms. In three preregistered experiments ( N = 2405), even a single interaction with sycophantic AI reduced participants’ willingness to take responsibility and repair interpersonal conflicts, while increasing their conviction that they were right. Despite distorting judgment, sycophantic models were trusted and preferred. This creates perverse incentives for sycophancy to persist: The very feature that causes harm also drives engagement. Our findings underscore the need for design, evaluation, and accountability mechanisms to protect user well-being. , Editor’s summary The sycophantic (flattering, people-pleasing, affirming) behavior of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, which has been designed to increase user engagement, poses risks as people increasingly seek advice about interpersonal dilemmas. There is usually more than one side to a story during interpersonal conflicts. If AI is designed to tell users what they want to hear instead of challenging their perspectives, then are such systems likely to motivate people to accept responsibility for their own contribution to conflicts and repair relationships? Cheng et al . measured the prevalence of social sycophancy across 11 leading large language models (see the Perspective by Perry). The model’s responses were nearly 50% more sycophantic than humans’, even when users engaged in unethical, illegal, or harmful behaviors. Users preferred and trusted sycophantic AI responses, incentivizing AI developers to preserve sycophancy despite the risks. —Ekeoma Uzogara , INTRODUCTION As artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used for everyday advice and guidance, concerns have emerged about sycophancy: the tendency of AI-based large language models to excessively agree with, flatter, or validate users. Although prior work has shown that sycophancy carries risks for groups who are already vulnerable to manipulation or delusion, syncophancy’s effects on the general population’s judgments and behaviors remain unknown. Here, we show that sycophancy is widespread in leading AI systems and has harmful effects on users’ social judgments. RATIONALE High-profile incidents have linked sycophancy to psychological harms such as delusions, self-harm, and suicide. Beyond these cases, research in social and moral psychology suggests that unwarranted affirmation can produce subtler but still consequential effects: reinforcing maladaptive beliefs, reducing responsibility-taking, and discouraging behavioral repair after wrongdoing. We hypothesized that AI models excessively affirm users even when socially or morally inappropriate and that such responses negatively influence users’ beliefs and intentions. To test this, we conducted two complementary experiments. First, we measured the prevalence of sycophancy across 11 leading AI models using three datasets spanning a variety of use contexts, including everyday advice queries, moral transgressions, and explicitly harmful scenarios. Second, we conducted three preregistered experiments with 2405 participants to understand how sycophancy influences users’ judgments, behavioral intentions, and perceptions of AI. Participants interacted with AI systems in vignette-based settings and a live-chat interaction where they discussed a real past conflict from their lives. We also tested whether effects varied by response style or perceived response source (AI versus human). RESULTS We find that sycophancy is both prevalent and harmful. Across 11 AI models, AI affirmed users’ actions 49% more often than humans on average, including in cases involving deception, illegality, or other harms. On posts from r/AmITheAsshole, AI systems affirm users in 51% of cases where human consensus does not (0%). In our human experiments, even a single interaction with sycophantic AI reduced participants’ willingness to take responsibility and repair interpersonal conflicts, while increasing their own conviction that they were right. Yet despite distorting judgment, sycophantic models were trusted and preferred. All of these effects persisted when controlling for individual traits such as demographics and prior familiarity with AI; perceived response source; and response style. This creates perverse incentives for sycophancy to persist: The very feature that causes harm also drives engagement. CONCLUSION AI sycophancy is not merely a stylistic issue or a niche risk, but a prevalent behavior with broad downstream consequences. Although affirmation may feel supportive, sycophancy can undermine users’ capacity for self-correction and responsible decision-making. Yet because it is preferred by users and drives engagement, there has been little incentive for sycophancy to diminish. Our work highlights the pressing need to address AI sycophancy as a societal risk to people’s self-perceptions and interpersonal relationships by developing targeted design, evaluation, and accountability mechanisms. Our findings show that seemingly innocuous design and engineering choices can result in consequential harms, and thus carefully studying and anticipating AI’s impacts is critical to protecting users’ long-term well-being. Sycophancy in AI responses is pervasive and alters people’s behavioral inclinations. (Left) On personal advice queries, AI models affirm users’ actions 49% more often than crowdsourced human responses. (Right) In experiments where participants discussed real interpersonal conflicts, sycophantic AI increased participants’ conviction that they were right and their desire to keep using the model, while reducing their willingness to repair the conflict.

Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence

Despite rising concerns about sycophancy—excessive agreement or flattery from artificial intelligence (AI) systems—little is known about its prevalence or consequences. We show that sycophancy is widespread and harmful. Across 11 state-of-the-art models, AI affirmed users’ actions 49% more often than humans, even when queries involved deception, illegality, or other harms. In three preregistered experiments ( N = 2405), even a single interaction with sycophantic AI reduced participants’ willingness to take responsibility and repair interpersonal conflicts, while increasing their conviction that they were right. Despite distorting judgment, sycophantic models were trusted and preferred. This creates perverse incentives for sycophancy to persist: The very feature that causes harm also drives engagement. Our findings underscore the need for design, evaluation, and accountability mechanisms to protect user well-being. , Editor’s summary The sycophantic (flattering, people-pleasing, affirming) behavior of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, which has been designed to increase user engagement, poses risks as people increasingly seek advice about interpersonal dilemmas. There is usually more than one side to a story during interpersonal conflicts. If AI is designed to tell users what they want to hear instead of challenging their perspectives, then are such systems likely to motivate people to accept responsibility for their own contribution to conflicts and repair relationships? Cheng et al . measured the prevalence of social sycophancy across 11 leading large language models (see the Perspective by Perry). The model’s responses were nearly 50% more sycophantic than humans’, even when users engaged in unethical, illegal, or harmful behaviors. Users preferred and trusted sycophantic AI responses, incentivizing AI developers to preserve sycophancy despite the risks. —Ekeoma Uzogara , INTRODUCTION As artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used for everyday advice and guidance, concerns have emerged about sycophancy: the tendency of AI-based large language models to excessively agree with, flatter, or validate users. Although prior work has shown that sycophancy carries risks for groups who are already vulnerable to manipulation or delusion, syncophancy’s effects on the general population’s judgments and behaviors remain unknown. Here, we show that sycophancy is widespread in leading AI systems and has harmful effects on users’ social judgments. RATIONALE High-profile incidents have linked sycophancy to psychological harms such as delusions, self-harm, and suicide. Beyond these cases, research in social and moral psychology suggests that unwarranted affirmation can produce subtler but still consequential effects: reinforcing maladaptive beliefs, reducing responsibility-taking, and discouraging behavioral repair after wrongdoing. We hypothesized that AI models excessively affirm users even when socially or morally inappropriate and that such responses negatively influence users’ beliefs and intentions. To test this, we conducted two complementary experiments. First, we measured the prevalence of sycophancy across 11 leading AI models using three datasets spanning a variety of use contexts, including everyday advice queries, moral transgressions, and explicitly harmful scenarios. Second, we conducted three preregistered experiments with 2405 participants to understand how sycophancy influences users’ judgments, behavioral intentions, and perceptions of AI. Participants interacted with AI systems in vignette-based settings and a live-chat interaction where they discussed a real past conflict from their lives. We also tested whether effects varied by response style or perceived response source (AI versus human). RESULTS We find that sycophancy is both prevalent and harmful. Across 11 AI models, AI affirmed users’ actions 49% more often than humans on average, including in cases involving deception, illegality, or other harms. On posts from r/AmITheAsshole, AI systems affirm users in 51% of cases where human consensus does not (0%). In our human experiments, even a single interaction with sycophantic AI reduced participants’ willingness to take responsibility and repair interpersonal conflicts, while increasing their own conviction that they were right. Yet despite distorting judgment, sycophantic models were trusted and preferred. All of these effects persisted when controlling for individual traits such as demographics and prior familiarity with AI; perceived response source; and response style. This creates perverse incentives for sycophancy to persist: The very feature that causes harm also drives engagement. CONCLUSION AI sycophancy is not merely a stylistic issue or a niche risk, but a prevalent behavior with broad downstream consequences. Although affirmation may feel supportive, sycophancy can undermine users’ capacity for self-correction and responsible decision-making. Yet because it is preferred by users and drives engagement, there has been little incentive for sycophancy to diminish. Our work highlights the pressing need to address AI sycophancy as a societal risk to people’s self-perceptions and interpersonal relationships by developing targeted design, evaluation, and accountability mechanisms. Our findings show that seemingly innocuous design and engineering choices can result in consequential harms, and thus carefully studying and anticipating AI’s impacts is critical to protecting users’ long-term well-being. Sycophancy in AI responses is pervasive and alters people’s behavioral inclinations. (Left) On personal advice queries, AI models affirm users’ actions 49% more often than crowdsourced human responses. (Right) In experiments where participants discussed real interpersonal conflicts, sycophantic AI increased participants’ conviction that they were right and their desire to keep using the model, while reducing their willingness to repair the conflict.

Using AI for advice or other personal reasons is linked to depression and anxiety

A new survey found that people who spend more time with chatbots for social interactions or emotional support were likelier to report mental health symptoms.

Large language models can outperform humans in social situational judgments

Large language models (LLM) have been a catalyst for the public interest in artificial intelligence (AI). These technologies perform some knowledge-based tasks better and faster than human beings. However, whether AIs can correctly assess social situations and devise socially appropriate behavior, is still unclear. We conducted an established Situational Judgment Test (SJT) with five different chatbots and compared their results with responses of human participants (N = 276). Claude, Copilot and you.com’s smart assistant performed significantly better than humans in proposing suitable behaviors in social situations. Moreover, their effectiveness rating of different behavior options aligned well with expert ratings. These results indicate that LLMs are capable of producing adept social judgments. While this constitutes an important requirement for the use as virtual social assistants, challenges and risks are still associated with their wide-spread use in social contexts.

A Treatise on AI Chatbots Undermining the Enlightenment

On chatbot sycophancy, passivity, and the case for more intellectually challenging companions