Exploring the Behavioral Differentiation and Psychological Impact of Different Attachment Types of Users Interacting with AI

Linlin Liu

doi:10.54254/2753-7064/2025.LC25585

Communications in Humanities ResearchOpen access

Exploring the Behavioral Differentiation and Psychological Impact of Different Attachment Types of Users Interacting with AI

Research Article

Open Access

Exploring the Behavioral Differentiation and Psychological Impact of Different Attachment Types of Users Interacting with AI

Linlin Liu ^1*

¹ TOKAI University

^*Corresponding author: linlinliu967@gmail.com

Published on 30 July 2025

CHR Vol.74

ISSN (Print): 2753-7072

ISSN (Online): 2753-7064

ISBN (Print): 978-1-80590-301-7

ISBN (Online): 978-1-80590-302-4

Download Cover

Abstract

In the rapid development of generative AI, affective AIs have gradually entered public life as a new type of “social companion”, and users show different degrees of emotional attachment and healing experiences in their interactions with AIs. Attachment theory suggests that the attachment patterns formed by individuals in early relationships will be extended to their subsequent intimate interactions, which may also affect their interaction and psychological responses with AIs. In this study, we take attachment type as the independent variable and introduce “human-computer relationship strength” as the mediator variable to explore the psychological outcomes of “emotional healing” and “emotional addiction” in AI interactions by users with different attachment types from a dual-path perspective. The influence mechanism of different attachment types of users on “emotional healing” and “emotional addiction” in AI interaction was explored from a dual-path perspective. A total of 203 users were surveyed, and the ECR-S, PSI, PANAS and adapted PUCAI scales were used to measure the variables. The results found that: anxious and fearful attachment individuals had higher HCI intensity; HCI fully mediated the effect of anxious attachment on emotional addiction; and HCI partially mediated the positive effect of secure attachment on positive emotions but did not significantly affect negative emotions. This study reveals the predictive role of different attachment styles on the psychological outcomes of AI use, emphasizing that individual user differences should be fully considered in AI design and ethical governance to prevent the risk of abuse and leverage the positive value of technology.

Keywords:

attachment style, human-computer relationship strength, emotional healing, emotional addiction, social AI.

View PDF

References

[1]. Chu, M.D., Gerard, P., Pawar, K., Bickham, C. and Lerman, K. (2025) Illusions of intimacy: Emotional attachment and emerging psychological risks in human-AI relationships. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2505.11649.

[2]. De Freitas, J., Uguralp, A.K., Uguralp, Z.O. and Stefano, P. (2024) AI companions reduce loneliness. SSRN.

[3]. Ho, A., Hancock, J. and Miner, A.S. (2018) Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. Journal of Communication 68, 712–733.

[4]. Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E. and Wall, S. (1978) Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

[5]. Gillath, O., Ai, T., Branicky, M.S., Keshmiri, S., Davison, R.B. and Spaulding, R. (2020) Attachment and trust in artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior 115, 106607.

[6]. Fang, C.M., Liu, A.R., Danry, V., Lee, E., Chan, S.W.T. et al. (2025) How AI and human behaviors shape psychosocial effects of chatbot use: A longitudinal randomized controlled study. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2503.17473.

[7]. Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L. and Shaver, P.R. (1998) Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson, J.A. and Rholes, W.S. (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.

[8]. Rubin, R.B., Perse, E.M. and Powell, R.A. (1985) Development of parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 29, 389–400.

[9]. Hartmann, T. and Goldhoorn, C. (2011) Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication 61, 1104–1121.

[10]. Gross, J.J. (1998) The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology 2, 271–299.

[11]. Cutrona, C.E. and Russell, D.W. (1990) Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In Sarason, B.R., Sarason, I.G. and Pierce, G.R. (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319–366). Wiley.

[12]. Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 1063–1070.

[13]. Griffiths, M.D. (2005) A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use 10, 191–197.

[14]. Andreassen, C.S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G.S. and Pallesen, S. (2012) Development of a Facebook addiction scale. Psychological Reports 110, 501–517.

[15]. Hu, B., Mao, Y. and Kim, K.J. (2023) How social anxiety leads to problematic use of conversational AI: The roles of loneliness, rumination, and mind perception. Computers in Human Behavior 145, 107760.