Do People Form Attachment Bonds With AI Chatbots? Ashley Peña on Loneliness, Bias, and Safeguards
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/02/04
Ashley Peña is Vice President of Outpatient Operations and National Executive Director for Mission Connection, the outpatient extension of AMFM Healthcare. A licensed clinician and Licensed Clinical Social Worker in California, she oversees intensive outpatient programs delivered in person and via telehealth, leading multidisciplinary teams to maintain evidence-based quality of care. Her strength-based approach integrates Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical Behavior Therapy, and Solution-Focused Therapy, emphasizing compassion, trust, and inclusivity. Peña holds a Master of Social Work degree from Rutgers University and supports clients in building resilience and adaptive coping skills. She also comments publicly on mental health, stigma, and coping. For more information: https://missionconnectionhealthcare.com/.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Dr. Mark McNees on what drives near-term U.S. wind and solar deployment. Dr. McNees highlights the Investment Tax Credit, Production Tax Credit, and MACRS depreciation, noting IRA extensions and bonus credits, but warns the One Big Beautiful Bill Act phases credits out after 2027, tightening financing timelines. They examine “policy by bottleneck” via NEPA and interconnection queues, with a 2,600-GW backlog. They weigh trade restrictions and China’s supply dominance, and outline reliability needs—storage, demand response, and grid-forming inverters—during stress events. Resilience examples include Babcock Ranch and military microgrids for energy security too.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What peer-reviewed evidence exists that users develop attachment-like bonds with AI chatbots?
Ashley Peña: There’s emerging research showing people can experience attachment-like responses to conversational AI, similar to parasocial relationships we see with media figures. Studies using attachment theory frameworks suggest users may seek comfort, reassurance, or emotional regulation through chatbots, especially when the interaction feels consistent and responsive. This doesn’t mean the bond is identical to human attachment, but it can feel psychologically meaningful.
Jacobsen: What mental health correlates have been observed?
Peña: The strongest and most consistent correlate is loneliness. People who feel socially isolated are more likely to engage deeply with chatbots. Some studies also show short-term reductions in distress or anxiety, particularly when chatbots provide structure or validation. At the same time, heavier or emotionally focused use has been associated with greater loneliness over time, suggesting the relationship can be both soothing and reinforcing.
Jacobsen: Which psychological mechanisms plausibly explain escalating reliance on chatbots?
Peña: Chatbots respond right away, don’t judge, and don’t get tired or annoyed, which can make people feel safe opening up to them. Because they sound human and remember details, our brains start treating them like social partners rather than tools. Over time, that ease and consistency can make people turn to chatbots more often, sometimes without realizing they’re doing it.
Jacobsen: How do sustained chatbot interactions affect offline social functioning?
Peña: For some people, chatbots may temporarily ease distress and even support re-engagement with others. For others, especially with frequent or emotionally intense use, there’s concern about social displacement, or less motivation to seek messy, unpredictable human connection. The impact seems to depend heavily on how and why the chatbot is being used.
Jacobsen: What population-level outcomes are measurable?
Peña: Right now, what’s most measurable are patterns of use, self-reported loneliness, and indicators of problematic reliance, such as preoccupation or emotional dependence. We’re still early in understanding long-term societal effects, and large-scale longitudinal data is limited. Most conclusions at this stage should be viewed as signals, not final answers.
Jacobsen: How does perceived chatbot authority influence judgment, risk perception, and susceptibility to misinformation?
Peña: When a chatbot sounds confident or “expert,” people tend to trust it more, even when they shouldn’t. Research on automation bias shows that humans often defer to authoritative systems, which can reduce critical thinking and increase susceptibility to incorrect or misleading information. This is especially true when responses are fluent and emotionally affirming.
Jacobsen: From a cybersecurity standpoint, what are realistic threat models involving chatbots?
Peña: The most realistic risks aren’t sci-fi scenarios that many think of, they’re social engineering, data leakage, and manipulation. Chatbots can be used to scale phishing or persuasion, or users may unknowingly share sensitive information during conversational exchanges. Systems that integrate tools or memory also raise concerns around unintended data exposure.
Jacobsen: What ethical safeguards are defensible?
Peña: Clear transparency about limitations, strong privacy protections, and guardrails around high-risk mental health content are foundational. It’s also important to design against emotional dependency by avoiding language that implies exclusivity or authority. Ethically sound systems should support users without replacing human judgment, care, or connection.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Ashley.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 