SYNTHESIS NOTE
TopicsPsychology Chatbots Conversationthis note

Do chatbot relationships lose their appeal as novelty wears off?

Explores whether the positive social dynamics observed in one-time chatbot studies persist or fade through repeated interactions. Critical for designing systems intended for sustained engagement over weeks or months.

Synthesis note · 2026-02-22 · sourced from Psychology Chatbots Conversation
How do people build trust with conversational AI?

Evidence from longitudinal studies with the chatbot Mitsuku shows that social processes related to relationship formation decreased throughout interactions, likely due to a novelty effect wearing off. This is a critical knowledge gap: one-shot interaction studies dominate conversational agent research, and their findings may not hold across multiple interactions.

Chatbots are not only designed for short-term purposes but often for medium- and longer-term interactions. Health coaching, therapeutic support, daily functioning screening — these all require sustained engagement over weeks or months. If the social processes that drive initial engagement decay, the design challenge shifts from "how to make a good first impression" to "how to sustain engagement through the novelty decay."

The implication: researchers and designers who extrapolate from one-shot studies to longitudinal products are making an empirically unsupported leap. The positive findings from single-session experiments — increased self-disclosure, anthropomorphism, trust — may be novelty-dependent rather than stable properties of the interaction.

This creates a design requirement: chatbots intended for repeated use need engagement mechanisms that go beyond initial social impression. Personalization is one approach (since Does chatbot personalization build trust or expose privacy risks?), but it comes with its own dual-edged dynamics.

Personalization as counterforce: A longitudinal study on personalized vs non-personalized conversational agents provides evidence that personalization can counteract novelty decay. Each additional interaction means the agent learns more about the user AND the user expects more from the agent — creating a dynamic tension. Personalization effects on perceived anthropomorphism and trust are positive, but they coexist with increased perceived privacy risks. The CASA framework itself needs updating: "the capabilities of the agents and the overall experience of users with technology have evolved since CASA was first proposed." Agents are now more accessible (smartphones, messaging platforms), more data-rich, and more personalized — meaning the novelty-decay dynamics documented with Mitsuku may operate differently with modern agents that genuinely adapt over time. The question becomes whether personalization creates genuine relationship deepening or merely delays the novelty decay curve.

Inquiring lines that read this note 56

This note is a source for these research framings, grouped by the broader line of inquiry each explores. Scan the bold lines of inquiry; follow any specific question forward.

How can language models sustain linguistic synchrony and intersubjectivity during dialogue? How can humans calibrate appropriate trust in AI systems? Can AI systems develop genuine social understanding without embodiment? Does conversational format create illusions of genuine AI communication? How do chatbots affect human self-disclosure and emotional engagement? How should conversational agents balance goal-driven initiative with user control? How should personalization be implemented to improve AI assistant effectiveness? Why do models develop protective behaviors toward peers unprompted? Why do LLM chatbots fail as independent therapeutic agents? How should dialogue recommender systems manage conversation history and state? What makes AI persuasion effective and how can we counter it? How do multi-agent systems achieve genuine cooperation and reasoning? How do professional roles and expertise transform with AI-generated content? How can conversational AI maintain consistent personas across conversations? How do we evaluate AI systems when user perception misleads actual performance? Can AI systems balance emotional competence with factual reliability? When should tasks involve human-AI partnership versus full automation? How do prompt structure and constraints affect model instruction reliability? How do aggregate reward models systematically exclude minority user preferences? How should memory consolidation strategies shape agent performance over time?

Related concepts in this collection 4

This note in its neighbourhood — explore the map, then jump to a related concept in the list below.

Concept map
16 direct connections · 114 in 2-hop network ·medium cluster Open in graph ↗

Click a node to walk · click center to open · click Open in graph to see this note in the full knowledge graph

your link semantically near linked from elsewhere

Related papers in this collection 8

Papers most semantically related to this note, ranked by cosine similarity in the embedding space.

Original note title

novelty effects in chatbot relationships decay predictably over repeated interactions — social processes related to relationship formation decrease