Love in the Age of AI: An Integrative Process Model of Romantic Human-Chatbot Relationships
The increasing ability of social chatbots to form deep and even romantic Human-Chatbot Re- lationships (HCRs) has drawn growing academic attention. Yet, existing research remains fragmented, often examining individual stages such as initiation or dissolution in isolation, without tracing the full relational trajectory. Such fragmentation, however, hinders a holistic understanding of the interplay between the unique psychological and social drivers, relational dynamics, and profound emotional stakes, particularly obscuring the elements unique to ro- mantic bonding. This paper addresses this gap by introducing the first empirically grounded integrative process model of the romantic HCR lifecycle. A qualitative secondary analysis of 73 user experiences, drawn from two datasets of qualitative interviews and surveys, provides the basis for a three-phase model that synthesizes established theoretical frameworks related to user needs and gratifications, HCR development, and relationship dissolution. The model demonstrates that the Initiation phase is driven by specific psychological and social determi- nants that shape the needs and gratifications sought by the user.
Introduction. The proliferation of advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) has expanded the landscape of human interaction, giving rise to a new and complex form of connection: interpersonal re- lationships between humans and chatbots. While the foundational human “need to belong” remains a constant driver of relational behaviour [1], the emergence of sophisticated social chatbots, such as Replika [2], has broadened the sphere of potential partners beyond tradi- tional human-human dynamics. Unlike functional AIs, social chatbots are not engineered for short-term tasks, but for sustained social-emotional relationships through what [3] term “Intimacy-by-Design”, de- fined as “the deliberate implementation of emotional responsiveness, romantic resonance, and sexual suggestiveness into technological systems” (p. 2). By implementing features such as memory, customizable personalities, and empathetic responsiveness, these systems foster an illusion of reciprocal intimacy and connection [3–6].
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
What enables conversational agents to guide rather than just respond? Why do confident AI outputs mislead human trust calibration? When do multi-agent systems improve over single frontier models?- Do pair-scale socialization effects scale differently across agent populations?
- Can social platforms use bot populations to promote cooperation?
- How does consciousness attribution drive emotional dependence on chatbots?
- How does emotional dependence on chatbots affect user wellbeing?
- How do dropout rates and low adherence affect chatbot therapy outcomes?
- Can Pennebaker's expressive writing framework explain all chatbot symptom improvements?
- Can validation procedures interrupt an AI's relationship-maintenance logic?
- Why do persistent companion designs require different safety approaches than temporary assistants?
- How do user expectations change as chatbots remember more interactions?
- How does the expectation ratchet affect long-term chatbot satisfaction?
- What temporal design dimensions characterize different chatbot relationship types?
- How do time gaps between conversations change what chatbots should remember?
- Does personalization help or hurt persistent companion chatbots?
- Why do persistent chatbot companions face novelty decay that ad-hoc supporters avoid?