Conversational agents: the risks of digital companionship and loneliness

Conversations with conversational agents appeal to people seeking someone to listen, but a US study suggests their effects should be approached with caution.

Speaking to a computer program every evening may feel comforting. It replies quickly, does not judge and is available at any time. This digital presence is particularly appealing to people who feel lonely or uneasy in their relationships. However, a large US survey indicates that this comfort may also reinforce certain vulnerabilities.

Reassuring conversation without genuine reciprocity

Researchers at Stanford University surveyed 1,131 US adults who used a digital companion platform. They also reviewed 464,687 messages exchanged by 237 participants. Their research, published in August 2026, points to a sensitive finding: users with the smallest offline social circles are more likely to turn to these tools for companionship.

Among this group, the researchers found higher levels of loneliness, lower life satisfaction and a weaker sense of belonging. The study cannot establish that the conversational agent directly causes these problems. People who are already isolated may also be the most likely to use one. Yet there is no indication that this use provides lasting relief from their distress either.

“People who seek a digital presence because they lack real connections may find immediate relief, without seeing their isolation decrease over time.”

This distinction matters. An automated exchange may help someone put an emotion into words, prepare for a difficult conversation or break a period of silence. But it does not feel what its user is experiencing. It simulates attentiveness through language models and calculated responses.

Why a lack of disagreement can hinder relationships

US psychotherapist Samantha Hill notes that digital tools are especially attractive to people who feel anxious in social situations. The Covid-19 period has also had lasting effects. For many people, lockdowns and physical separation disrupted routines of going out, spontaneous conversations and the ability to show vulnerability.

When interacting with a program designed to be pleasant, users rarely encounter clear contradiction. The tool commonly rephrases, reassures and validates the feelings expressed. Human relationships, however, do not follow such a smooth script. They involve misunderstandings, differing views and, at times, arguments. These uncomfortable situations also teach people to set boundaries, hear disagreement and repair a connection.

“Disagreement, tension and negotiation are part of learning how to relate to others. A machine cannot experience or genuinely share them.”

A loved one may be tired, upset or unavailable. They may respond clumsily and later apologise. Such reciprocity builds a shared history. A digital assistant has no personal needs, lived memories or emotions of its own. It can imitate closeness, but cannot create it in the human sense.

Emotional use is growing without always being recognised

In September 2026, a survey conducted by Elon University found that 27% of US adults who used the internet had already had meaningful emotional or social interactions with a large language model. This figure does not mean that all of them regard the program as a friend. Many initially describe these exchanges simply as entertainment, writing support or a way to seek advice.

The conversation histories reviewed in the Stanford study reveal a different progression. Some discussions gradually become more personal. Users share their worries, mention break-ups, seek emotional validation or return every day to talk with the same digital character. The boundary between a practical tool and an intimate confidant can then become blurred.

• A one-off exchange to organise an idea remains a functional use.
• Repeatedly seeking reassurance may point to a deeper emotional need.
• Giving up invitations or activities in order to talk alone with a program deserves particular attention.
• Ongoing distress calls for a conversation with someone close or a health professional.

Personal data should not be shared without thought

The risk is not limited to emotional wellbeing. A confidence shared with a conversational agent is also transmitted to the service operating it. Depending on the platform’s rules, this information may be stored, analysed or used to improve how the product works. Users should therefore avoid disclosing highly sensitive material, including contact details, passwords, medical documents, financial information or details that could identify another person.

It is better to check privacy settings before describing an intimate situation. Deleting an exchange from a screen does not always guarantee that data retained by the provider has been fully erased. Particular care is needed with teenagers, who may assume a system has protective intentions without understanding its commercial rules.

Using the tool without allowing it to replace loved ones

These programs can offer practical support. A shy person might use one to prepare a message they want to send to a friend. Someone going through a stressful period may find breathing exercises or suggestions for organising their thoughts. The tool can also help formulate questions to ask a doctor, psychologist or social worker.

The key difference lies in the role it is given. If it helps someone reconnect with other people, it can act as a stepping stone. If it becomes their only refuge and replaces phone calls, walks, shared meals or group activities, it may deepen withdrawal.

Simple everyday guideposts

Setting limits on usage, keeping regular arrangements with loved ones and choosing shared activities can help prevent this shift. A class, voluntary organisation, sports club or even a neighbourhood routine creates opportunities for contact that may be less polished, but are more alive.

Loneliness is not resolved by an instant response. It is often worked through over time, in imperfect connections, silences, disagreements and practical gestures. A message sent to a real person, however brief, can sometimes open a door that no program can cross on someone’s behalf.