Human-like conversational agents as social partners: a scoping review of socioaffective mechanisms, well-being outcomes, risks and governance in the post-Turing era

Reviews, theory, and governance2026FrontiersApproved editorial review

Authors: Qian Li, Han Geng, Xin Hu, Di Pan, Hongmei Liu, Yongxin Li, Jin Guo

Keywords: Theory, Methodology, Governance

Source: Open primary source (opens in a new tab)

7
Authors
4
Findings
5
Limitations
3
Evidence

Editorial summary

English

PRISMA-ScR-informed scoping review of sources from 2016 through 15/01/2026. Seven databases and targeted searches yield 1,760 records; after 480 duplicates, 1,280 are screened, 240 full texts assessed, 182 excluded, and 58 included. Two reviewers screen and three assess full text; evidence is narratively calibrated.

Evidence map of 58 heterogeneous sources: empirical studies, preprints, technical reports, and policy or governance documents. There is no meta-analysis or new human sample. The strongest evidence supports short-term symptom improvements for some therapeutic chatbots. Sustained loneliness reduction in open companions remains emerging. Anthropomorphism, social presence, and self-disclosure can facilitate bonding and dependency. The relational safety stack is an author proposal, not a validated standard.

It does not conduct formal risk-of-bias assessment or GRADE. It includes preprints, system cards, and normative documents. Platforms and filters change and hinder replication. Heterogeneity prevents a pooled effect estimate. It includes English only and closes on 15/01/2026. It does not demonstrate clinical benefit of open-domain companions. It does not causally quantify displacement of human relationships. It does not validate regulatory or clinical thresholds for its safety stack.

Español

Scoping review guiada por PRISMA-ScR de fuentes entre 2016 y 15/01/2026. Siete bases y búsquedas dirigidas producen 1.760 registros; tras 480 duplicados se criban 1.280, se leen 240 textos completos, se excluyen 182 y se incluyen 58. Dos revisores criban y tres revisan texto completo; la evidencia se calibra narrativamente.

Mapa de 58 fuentes heterogéneas: estudios empíricos, preprints, informes técnicos, documentos de política y gobernanza. No hay metaanálisis ni nueva muestra humana. La evidencia más sólida favorece mejoras sintomáticas breves en algunos chatbots terapéuticos. La reducción sostenida de soledad en compañeros abiertos sigue siendo emergente. Antropomorfismo, presencia social y autorrevelación pueden facilitar vínculo y dependencia. La relational safety stack es una propuesta de los autores, no un estándar validado.

No realiza evaluación formal de riesgo de sesgo ni GRADE. Incluye preprints, system cards y documentos normativos. Las plataformas y filtros cambian y dificultan replicación. La heterogeneidad impide estimar un efecto combinado. Solo incluye inglés y el cierre es 15/01/2026. No demuestra beneficio clínico de compañeros abiertos. No cuantifica causalmente desplazamiento de relaciones humanas. No valida umbrales regulatorios o clínicos de su safety stack.

Research question

How do conversational agents come to be experienced as social partners, what evidence exists on benefits and harms, and which relational controls are proposed?

Method

PRISMA-ScR-informed scoping review of sources from 2016 through 15/01/2026. Seven databases and targeted searches yield 1,760 records; after 480 duplicates, 1,280 are screened, 240 full texts assessed, 182 excluded, and 58 included. Two reviewers screen and three assess full text; evidence is narratively calibrated.

Sample: Evidence map of 58 heterogeneous sources: empirical studies, preprints, technical reports, and policy or governance documents. There is no meta-analysis or new human sample.

Findings

  • The strongest evidence supports short-term symptom improvements for some therapeutic chatbots.
  • Sustained loneliness reduction in open companions remains emerging.
  • Anthropomorphism, social presence, and self-disclosure can facilitate bonding and dependency.
  • The relational safety stack is an author proposal, not a validated standard.

Limitations

  • It does not conduct formal risk-of-bias assessment or GRADE.
  • It includes preprints, system cards, and normative documents.
  • Platforms and filters change and hinder replication.
  • Heterogeneity prevents a pooled effect estimate.
  • It includes English only and closes on 15/01/2026.

What the study does not establish

  • It does not demonstrate clinical benefit of open-domain companions.
  • It does not causally quantify displacement of human relationships.
  • It does not validate regulatory or clinical thresholds for its safety stack.

Traceability

Scope: Full text

Version: journal; 18-page full text reviewed 2026-07-18

Consulted source: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2026.1810097

Review: Codex full-text and visual 18-page methodological, statistical and claim-boundary review, 2026-07-18

Approval: Codex fidelity pass, 2026-07-18

English translation: approved, 2026-07-18

Models evaluated

  • Companion, therapeutic and assistant-first systems across the literature

Instruments and metrics

  • PRISMA-ScR flow
  • Narrative evidence calibration
  • Relational safety stack

Data used

  • 58-source evidence map

Evidence and location

  • Research question, method, results, and discussion: Full text, pp. 1-18, visually reviewed on 18/07/2026
  • Figures, tables, results, and limitations: Primary PDF sha256 8e34c190dc110f8edbb51c6ac9491003442e8599c347f1e0baec7ab571af09d4; methods, results, limitations, and appendices
  • Editorial decision and claim boundary: Critical record article-413, complete cross-check of 18 pages