Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-04
A Meta-Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Technologies Use and Loneliness: Examining the Influence of Physical Embodiment,Age Differences,and Effect Direction
Recent research has investigated the connection between artificial intelligence (AI) utilization and feelings of loneliness, yielding inconsistent outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to clarify this relationship by synthesizing data from 47 relevant studies across 21 publications. Findings indicate a generally significant positive correlation between AI use and loneliness (r = 0.163, p < 0.05). Specifically, interactions with physically embodied AI are marginally significantly associated with decreased loneliness (r = −0.266, p = 0.088), whereas engagement with physically disembodied AI is significantly linked to increased loneliness (r = 0.352, p < 0.001). Among older adults (aged 60 and above), AI use is significantly positively associated with loneliness (r = 0.352, p < 0.001), while no significant correlation is observed (r = 0.039, p = 0.659) in younger individuals (aged 35 and below). Furthermore, by incorporating positive attitudes toward AI, the study reveals that the influence of AI use in exacerbating loneliness outweighs the reverse impact, although both directions show significant positive relationships. These results enhance the understanding of how AI usage relates to loneliness and provide practical insights for addressing loneliness through AI technologies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TuringAM. I.—computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 1950;LIX(236):433–460; doi: 10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
2.
HaenleinM, KaplanA. A brief history of artificial intelligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. Calif Manage Rev, 2019; 61(4):5–14; doi: 10.1177/0008125619864925
3.
RustRT, HuangM-H. The Feeling Economy. In: The Feeling Economy: How Artificial Intelligence Is Creating the Era of Empathy. (RustRT, HuangM-H. eds) Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2021; pp. 41–61; doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-52977-2_4
4.
DakanalisA, WiederholdBK, RivaG. Artificial intelligence: A game-changer for mental health care. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2024; 27(2):100–104; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2023.0723
5.
ElyosephZ, RefouaE, AsrafK, et al.Capacity of generative AI to interpret human emotions from visual and textual data: Pilot evaluation study. JMIR Ment Health, 2024; 11(1):e54369; doi: 10.2196/54369
6.
DangJ, LiuL. Do lonely people seek robot companionship? A comparative examination of the Loneliness–Robot anthropomorphism link in the United States and China. Comput Hum Behav, 2023; 141:107637; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107637
7.
RobinsonH, MacDonaldB, KerseN, et al.The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2013; 14(9):661–667; doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.007
8.
WiederholdBK. The ascent of social robots. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2021; 24(5):289–290; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2021.29213.editorial
9.
KarkoszS, SzymańskiR, SannaK, et al.Effectiveness of a web-based and mobile therapy chatbot on anxiety and depressive symptoms in subclinical young adults: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR Form Res, 2024; 8(1):e47960; doi: 10.2196/47960
10.
MarriottHR, PitardiV. One is the loneliest number. Two can be as bad as one. The influence of AI Friendship Apps on users’ well-being and addiction. Psychology and Marketing, 2024; 41(1):86–101; doi: 10.1002/mar.21899
11.
XieT, PentinaI, HancockT. Friend, mentor, lover: Does chatbot engagement lead to psychological dependence? JOSM, 2023; 34(4):806–828; doi: 10.1108/JOSM-02-2022-0072
12.
ChoiTR, ChoiJH. You are not alone: A serial mediation of social attraction, privacy concerns, and satisfaction in voice AI use. Behav Sci (Basel), 2023; 13(5):431; doi: 10.3390/bs13050431
13.
JonesVK, YanC, ShadeMY, et al.Reducing loneliness and improving social support among older adults through different modalities of personal voice assistants. Geriatrics, 2024; 9(2):22; doi: 10.3390/geriatrics9020022
14.
LoveysK, SagarM, ZhangX, et al.Effects of emotional expressiveness of a female digital human on loneliness, stress, perceived support, and closeness across genders: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res, 2021; 23(11):e30624; doi: 10.2196/30624
15.
JeckerNS, SparrowR, LedermanZ, et al.Digital humans to combat loneliness and social isolation: Ethics concerns and policy recommendations. Hastings Cent Rep, 2024; 54(1):7–12; doi: 10.1002/hast.1562
16.
Russell NeumanW, GuggenheimL, Mo JangS, et al.The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data: Dynamics of public attention. J Commun, 2014; 64(2):193–214; doi: 10.1111/jcom.12088
17.
Holt-LunstadJ, SmithTB, BakerM, et al.Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci, 2015; 10(2):227–237; doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352
ChaturvediR, VermaS, DasR, et al.Social companionship with artificial intelligence: Recent trends and future avenues. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2023; 193:122634; doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122634
20.
ShaS, LoveysK, QualterP, et al.Efficacy of relational agents for loneliness across age groups: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 2024; 24(1):1802; doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19153-x
21.
LiuI, XiaoY, LiuF, et al.Assessing the effectiveness of using chatbots for positive psychological intervention: A randomized control study. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of Chinese CHI ACM: Guangzhou, China and Online China; 2022; pp. 227–234; doi: 10.1145/3565698.3565789
22.
ParkS, KimB. The impact of everyday AI-based smart speaker use on the well-being of older adults living alone. Technol Soc, 2022; 71:102133; doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102133
23.
AlotaibiJO, AlshahreAS. The role of conversational AI agents in providing support and social care for isolated individuals. Alex Eng J, 2024; 108:273–284; doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2024.07.098
24.
LeeOE, NahKO, KimEM, et al.Exploring the use of socially assistive robot among socially isolated Korean American older adults. J Appl Gerontol, 2024; 43(9):1295–1304; doi: 10.1177/07334648241236081
25.
LeiJ, LiangY, SuZ, et al.Can socially assistive robots be accepted by older people living alone in the community?: Empirical findings from a social work project in China. J Gerontol Soc Work, 2024; 67(7):995–1012; doi: 10.1080/01634372.2024.2339992
26.
PapadopoulosC, CastroN, NigathA, et al.The Caresses randomised controlled trial: Exploring the health-related impact of culturally competent artificial intelligence embedded into socially assistive robots and tested in older adult care homes. Int J Soc Robot, 2022; 14(1):245–256; doi: 10.1007/s12369-021-00781-x
27.
HuM, ChuaXCW, DiongSF, et al.AI as your ally: The effects of AI-assisted venting on negative affect and perceived social support. Appl Psychol Health Well Being, n.d; 17(1):e12621; doi: 10.1111/aphw.12621
28.
TangPM, KoopmanJ, MaiKM, et al.No person is an island: Unpacking the work and after-work consequences of interacting with artificial intelligence. J Appl Psychol, 2023; 108(11):1766–1789; doi: 10.1037/apl0001103
29.
HoffmannL, BockN, RosenthalV.d., PüttenAM. The peculiarities of robot embodiment (EmCorp-Scale): Development, validation and initial test of the embodiment and corporeality of artificial agents scale. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. HRI ‘18 Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA; 2018; pp. 370–378; doi: 10.1145/3171221.3171242
30.
MerrillKJr, KimJ, CollinsC. AI companions for lonely individuals and the role of social presence. Commun Res Rep, 2022; 39(2):93–103; doi: 10.1080/08824096.2022.2045929
31.
GuoX, ZhangX, SunY. The privacy–personalization paradox in mHealth services acceptance of different age groups. Electron Commer Res Appl, 2016; 16:55–65; doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2015.11.001
32.
NatarajanT, BalasubramanianSA, KasilingamDL. The moderating role of device type and age of users on the intention to use mobile shopping applications. Technol Soc, 2018; 53:79–90; doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01.003
33.
ChopikWJ. The benefits of social technology use among older adults are mediated by reduced loneliness. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2016; 19(9):551–556; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0151
34.
BonettiL, CampbellMA, GilmoreL. The relationship of loneliness and social anxiety with children’s and adolescents’ online communication. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2010; 13(3):279–285; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0215
35.
YuL, FanX. Lonely human and dominant robot: Similarity versus complementary attraction. Psychology and Marketing, 2024; 41(5):1133–1151; doi: 10.1002/mar.21975
36.
PengC, ZhangS, WenF, et al.How loneliness leads to the conversational AI usage intention: The roles of anthropomorphic interface, para-social interaction. Curr Psychol, 2024; doi: 10.1007/s12144-024-06809-5
37.
MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, et al;PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med, 2009; 151(4):264–269, W64; doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
38.
LiY, ShengD. Determinants of public emergency information dissemination on social networks: A meta-analysis. Comput Hum Behav, 2024; 152:108055; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.108055
39.
HendriksM, LuytenH, ScheerensJ, et al.Meta-Analyses. In: Effectiveness of Time Investments in Education: Insights from a Review and Meta-Analysis. (ScheerensJ ed) Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2014; pp. 55–142; doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00924-7_4
40.
LiJ. Information avoidance in the age of COVID-19: A meta-analysis. Inf Process Manag, 2023; 60(1):103163; doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103163
41.
SchmidtRD, FeasterDJ, HorigianVE, et al.Latent class analysis of loneliness and connectedness in US young adults during COVID-19. J Clin Psychol, 2022; 78(9):1824–1838; doi: 10.1002/jclp.23326
42.
SampognaG, GiallonardoV, Del VecchioV, et al.Loneliness in young adults during the first wave of COVID-19 lockdown: Results from the multicentric COMET study. Front Psychiatry, 2021; 12:788139; doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.788139
43.
AnsariS, IqbalN, AsifR, et al.Social media use and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2024; 27(10):704–719; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2024.0001
44.
LuC, HuB, BaoM-M, et al.Can media literacy intervention improve fake news credibility assessment? A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2024; 27(4):240–252; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2023.0324
45.
KhamitovM, RajaviK, HuangD-W, et al.Consumer trust: Meta-Analysis of 50 years of empirical research. J Consum Res, 2024; 51(1):7–18; doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucad065
46.
PetersonRA, BrownSP. On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol, 2005; 90(1):175–181; doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
47.
RosenthalR. Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Science Research Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, 1984, 148 pp. Educ Res, 1986; 15(8):18–20; doi: 10.3102/0013189X015008018
48.
BorensteinM, HedgesLV, HigginsJPT, et al.Converting Among Effect Sizes. In: Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2009; pp. 45–49; doi: 10.1002/9780470743386.ch7
49.
BorensteinM, HedgesLV, HigginsJPT, et al.A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods, 2010; 1(2):97–111; doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12
50.
SongH, Zmyslinski-SeeligA, KimJ, et al.Does Facebook make you lonely?: A meta analysis. Comput Hum Behav, 2014; 36:446–452; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011
51.
Huedo-MedinaTB, Sánchez-MecaJ, Marín-MartínezF, et al.Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods, 2006; 11(2):193–206; doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193
52.
AllenM, WittPL, WheelessLR. The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Commun Educ, 2006; 55(1):21–31; doi: 10.1080/03634520500343368
53.
van DijkR, van der ValkIE, DekovićM, et al.A meta-analysis on interparental conflict, parenting, and child adjustment in divorced families: Examining mediation using meta-analytic structural equation models. Clin Psychol Rev, 2020; 79:101861; doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101861
54.
Emmers-SommerTM, AllenM. Variables related to sexual coercion: A path model. J Soc Pers Relatsh, 1999; 16(5):659–678; doi: 10.1177/0265407599165006
55.
KepesS, BanksGC, McDanielM, et al.Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organ Res Methods, 2012; 15(4):624–662; doi: 10.1177/1094428112452760
56.
DuvalS, TweedieR. A nonparametric “Trim and Fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc, 2000; 95(449):89–98; doi: 10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905
57.
AguinisH. Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In: APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization. APA Handbooks in Psychology® American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, US; 2011; pp. 855–879; doi: 10.1037/12171-024
58.
GignacGE, SzodoraiET. Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personal Individ Differ, 2016; 102:74–78; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
59.
Fernández-AlvarezJ, GrassiM, ColomboD, et al.Efficacy of bio- and neurofeedback for depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med, 2022; 52(2):201–216; doi: 10.1017/S0033291721004396
60.
JacobsKA. Digital loneliness—changes of social recognition through AI companions. Front Digit Health, 2024; 6:1281037; doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2024.1281037
61.
KanamoriM, SuzukiM, OshiroH, et al.Pilot Study on Improvement of Quality of Life among Elderly Using a Pet-Type Robot. In: Proceedings 2003 IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation. Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation for the New Millennium (Cat. No.03EX694). 2003; pp. 107–112 vol.1; doi: 10.1109/CIRA.2003.1222072
62.
SzczukaJM, KrämerNC. Influences on the Intention to Buy a Sex Robot. In: Love and Sex with Robots. (CheokAD, DevlinK, LevyD. eds) Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2017; pp. 72–83; doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-57738-8_7
63.
HuB, MaoY, KimKJ. How social anxiety leads to problematic use of conversational AI: The roles of loneliness, rumination, and mind perception. Comput Hum Behav, 2023; 145:107760; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107760
64.
GuruprakashJ, KrithikaLB. Artificial Intelligent to Combat Loneliness and Social Isolation in Japan an Aid or Cure, 2024; doi: 10.20944/preprints202402.1662.v1
65.
PeplauLA, CaldwellMA. Loneliness: A cognitive analysis. Essence Issues Study Ageing Dying Death, 1978; 2(4):207–220.
66.
HuangM-H, RustR, MaksimovicV. The feeling economy: Managing in the next generation of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Calif Manage Rev, 2019; 61(4):43–65; doi: 10.1177/0008125619863436
67.
NordmoM, NæssJØ, HusøyMF, et al.Friends, lovers or nothing: Men and women differ in their perceptions of sex robots and platonic love robots. Front Psychol, 2020; 11:355; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00355
68.
DooleyB, UenoH. This man married a fictional character. He’d Like You to Hear Him Out. N Y Times, 2022.
69.
McCurryJ. Japan: Robot dogs get solemn Buddhist send-off at funerals. The Guardian, 2018.
70.
FindlayRA. Interventions to reduce social isolation amongst older people: Where is the evidence? Ageing Soc, 2003; 23(5):647–658; doi: 10.1017/S0144686X03001296
71.
HuppertzC, ForbrigTA, Lengert-BrzozowskiS, et al.Associations between older adults’ loneliness and acceptance of socially assistive robots: A cross-sectional study. J Gerontol Nurs, 2023; 49(4):21–26; doi: 10.3928/00989134-20230309-04
72.
KirschnerPA. Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learn Instr, 2002; 12(1):1–10; doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7
73.
ChenS-C, MoyleW, JonesC, et al.A social robot intervention on depression, loneliness, and quality of life for Taiwanese older adults in long-term care. Int Psychogeriatr, 2020; 32(8):981–991; doi: 10.1017/S1041610220000459
74.
HorstmannAC. Hey robot, can you help me feel less lonely?: An explorative study to examine the potential of using social robots to alleviate loneliness in young adults. In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction ACM: Stockholm Sweden; 2023; pp. 500–505; doi: 10.1145/3568294.3580135
75.
LabanG, KappasA, MorrisonV, et al.Building long-term human–robot relationships: Examining disclosure, perception and well-being across time. Int J of Soc Robotics, 2024; 16(5):1–27; doi: 10.1007/s12369-023-01076-z
76.
GlenbergAM. Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci, 2010; 1(4):586–596; doi: 10.1002/wcs.55
77.
LeeKM, JungY, KimJ, et al.Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. Int J Hum-Comput Stud, 2006; 64(10):962–973; doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.002
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
