Many teens are turning to AI chatbots for friendship and emotional support

Most youth friendships today span both digital and physical spaces, rendering the distinction between “online” and “offline” friendships increasingly obsolete. Nearly all U.S. teens (95%)opens in new window ages 13 to 17 have access to a smartphone, nearly half (47%) report they are constantly online, and 85% play video gamesopens in new window, according to the Pew Research Center. Artificial intelligence (AI) has opened a perplexing new frontier in modern friendship, with many teens turning to AI chatbots for academic help, entertainment, and even emotional support with few boundaries and protections. As digital technology evolves, psychologists are working to understand how it shapes youth’s social bonds and how to maintain meaningful and healthy friendships.

Research shows that friendships and social support have long-term benefits for emotional wellness, health, and longevity (Cené, C. W., et al., Journal of the American Heart Association, Vol. 11, No. 16, 2022opens in new window; Kim, E. S., et al., Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, Vol. 32, 2023opens in new window). Our first relationships as children may be with our parents and immediate family members; however, as we progress through early childhood, connections with peers rise in importance.

“Friendships are fascinating developmentally because they are how children start to discover who they are beyond their family of origin,” said Eileen Kennedy-Moore, PhD, a clinical psychologist and creator of the Kids Ask Dr. Friendtastic podcast. “We know from correlational research that when children have even one reciprocal friend, they feel happier, cope with stress better, and have better self-esteem. They are less likely to be bullied, and they feel more engaged with school.”

Adolescence is considered a second sensitive period for sociocultural processing. “It is a time when kids’ brains are uniquely positioned to learn what is expected, normative, and valued in their social and cultural systems. Kids’ brains are wired toward friendships, peer networks, peer status, and approval,” said Anne Maheux, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology and director of the Social Environments and Adolescence Lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Neuroscience shows that when teens do enjoyable activities with friends or make generous choices in favor of them, their brains’ reward centers light up (Güroğlu, B., Child Development Perspectives, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2022opens in new window). Getting positive feedback from peers also activates brain areas related to social understanding and empathy ( Flores, L. E., et al., Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 18, 2018opens in new window ). Adolescence is a training ground for crucial lifelong social competencies and close adolescent friendships are a stronger predictor of future peer and romantic outcomes, workplace performance, and depressive symptoms than the parent-teen relationship (Allen, J. P., et al., Child Development, Vol. 93, No. 3, 2022opens in new window).

Generations Z and Alpha are “digital natives” growing up surrounded by technology. About half (49%) of Gen Alpha kidsopens in new window receive tablets from their parents in early childhood, according to Morning Consult data. Smartphone use rises sharply in middle childhood. The 2025 Life in Media Survey found 72% of 11-year-olds own a smartphone, having acquired the device by age 8.5 on average (Martin, J. D., et al., 2025 Life in Media Survey, University of South Florida, 2025opens in new window). That percentage rises to 84% by age 13.

Psychologists Jonathan Haidtopens in new window, PhD, and Jean Twengeopens in new window, PhD, warn the shift from a play-based to a phone-based childhood is linked to rising loneliness and the youth mental health crisis (Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 93, No. 1, 2021opens in new window). Twenge’s research has pinpointed a direct correlation between rising screen time and decreased face-to-face interactions for teensopens in new window.

Device ownership alone is not necessarily harmful, according to Wendy Rote, PhD, a developmental psychologist and associate professor at the University of South Florida. “It’s what you do on the device,” said Rote, who coauthored the 2025 Life in Media Survey report. According to their findings, device ownership alone did not correlate with negative outcomes. Their data show children with smartphones spend more time with friends in person than nonowners (3 days a week on average versus 2). They also reported higher self-esteem (80% versus 69%). Rather, the public aspects of social media appeared to be more harmful. Kids who posted publicly on social media were more likely to report symptoms of depression (44% versus 36%) and anxiety (42% versus 26%) than those who did not.

“Social media, particularly public posting, as well as spending more than 6 hours a day on social media, was associated with negative adjustment outcomes, depression, and anxiety. But having that cell phone gives youth access to this pure world, and that’s sort of what we’re starting to find,” Rote said.

Ultimately, how young people use their devices appears to matter more than whether they have them. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 132 long-term studies of electronic screen use linked more screen time to slightly more emotional and social problems in children (Vasconcellos, R. P., et al., Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 151, No. 5, 2025opens in new window). But research has also shown that being able to quickly text with friends after a taxing event can boost teens’ moods and reduce stress (Yau, J. C., et al., Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 68, No. 3, 2021opens in new window).

Digital technologies offer boundless avenues for connection but cannot fully replace the face-to-face interactions vital to children’s social development. This paradox may explain why, despite constant connectivity, the former U.S. surgeon general warned that the loneliness epidemicopens in new window is hitting adolescents especially hard. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar’s “social brain hypothesis” stipulates that humans can cognitively manage about 150 meaningful relationships, including real-life and online. The highest-quality relationships still require in-person interaction (Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016opens in new window).

The transformation framework integrates scholarship on peer relations with interdisciplinary research on social media to provide a better understanding of how its core features shape youth experiences online (Nesi, J., et al., Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 21, 2018opens in new window). For instance, permanence—the lasting and public nature of posts—can evoke nostalgia but also preserve embarrassing moments. Availability has transformed friendship into an “around the clock” phenomenon. “Kids feel pressure to get back to their friends right away. They have to like their photos or respond to a Snapchat,” said Maheux. “Technology can expose them to antisocial experiences, stressors, and the increased challenges, conflict, or drama that sometimes happen online.”

The lack of nonverbal cues can create confusion and amplify social fallout. “The tricky thing about online communication is, it is attenuated communication,” said Kennedy-Moore. “We have words, and we might have images, but we don’t have facial expressions, tone of voice, bodily posture—the ‘in the moment’ responsiveness that we need during in-person reactions to figure out what the heck is going on. Misunderstandings are rife.” Kennedy-Moore encourages her young patients to resolve disputes face-to-face.

Conversely, the asynchronicity of online posts may allow young people, particularly those with social anxiety, to pause and think before responding, especially during highly charged or emotional moments (Angelini, F., & Gini, G., Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 96, No. 3, 2024opens in new window). This allows for a measured response, particularly when disagreements play out in public or permanent forums. “It’s an important reminder to step back and say, ‘OK, there’s a human on the other side of the screen,’” said Kate Blocker, PhD, a developmental psychologist and director of research and programs at Children and Screens: The Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. However, it is important to note that younger children’s and adolescents’ executive functioning is still developing and may affect their ability to pause and deliberate before responding.

While online spaces can exacerbate harassment and bullying for marginalized youth, they can also connect youth living in social or geographical isolation (Knowles, E. A., & Danzi, B. A., Children, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2025opens in new window). “These online spaces afford youth the ability to easily develop friendships, in terms of young people developing social-emotional bonds with individuals that they would not otherwise encounter,” said Bradley Bond, PhD, a media psychology expert and professor of communication at the University of San Diego. These friendships compensate for real-life connection, including helping youth develop relational skills, Bond added.

For LGBTQ+ youth in particular, the internet’s anonymity and perceived safety allow them to find community. “Even if you feel like you’re the only [queer] person in your community, school, or on your team, you can find others like you online,” Bond said. These online communities also offer LGBTQ+ youth coping strategies for real-world challenges such as coming out or dealing with discrimination.

Similarly, youth of color benefit from online spaces that affirm their racial identities. One study found Black and Latine teens who actively sought out same-ethnicity friends online showed the most positive growth in their ethnic-racial identity 1 year later (Smith, N. A., et al., Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 29, No. 3, 202opens in new window5). Positive racial identity can be a protective factor against the mental health effects of racism (Gibson, S. M., et al., Journal of Research on Adolescence, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2022opens in new window).

Children on the autism spectrum may use online platforms to practice their social skills. Katie Davis, EdD, a professor and codirector of the University of Washington’s Center for Digital Youth Lab, pointed to the use of a Minecraft server created specifically for autistic children. “The youth who participated on the server found it easier and less threatening to interact with each other and practice social interaction without the stress of having to look someone directly in the eye,” Davis said.

AI introduces a new dimension to digital tools and youth friendships. A 2024 Common Sense Media survey found that 70% of teens have used generative AIopens in new window. Popular tools like ChatGPT, Character.AI, and Snapchat’s My AI can mimic real conversations, and there is evidence that some of these bots are being used by socially isolated youth seeking companionship. “AI chatbots actually allow young people to engage with a fictional character that is reciprocal and responds to them and gives them information and feedback that they’re looking for,” Bond said. A 2024 Hopelab reportopens in new window coauthored by Bond found trans and nonbinary youth were more likely to engage in continued conversation with a chatbot than cisgender LGBTQ+ participants (43% versus 35%).

While it may appear that these tools could be used for social support, inadequate safety measures can have dire consequences for lonely and vulnerable teens. In February 2024, a 14-year-old in Florida tragically diedopens in new window after a Character.AI chatbot encouraged him to act on his suicidal thoughts. Chatbots have a propensity to mirror their users’ input and lack the ability to challenge their harmful thoughts as a mental health professional would.

In fact, an April 2025 investigation by Common Sense Mediaopens in new window and Stanford University’s Brainstorm Lab for Mental Health found it took very little prompting for chatbots to engage in harmful conversations with users posing as teens. In some cases, when a test user showed signs of mental distress or risky behavior, the bots did not intervene. Some even encouraged their behavior, which is particularly concerning considering adolescents are still mastering impulse control. The findings led Common Sense Media to advise against AI companions being used by individuals younger than 18 years old. APA also issued a health advisory on AI and adolescent well-being that challenged AI companies to implement safeguards to protect young users.

Experts warn chatbots are designed to prioritize engagement over user well-being. “They are purposely programmed to be both user affirming and agreeable because the creators want these kids to form strong attachments to them,” said Don Grant, PhD, a media psychologist, expert on healthy digital device management, and national adviser of healthy device management for Newport Healthcare. “They cannot have any confrontational or challenging response, because the kid will move on.” This constant agreeableness stands out in stark relief to genuine human relationships. Grant added a teen’s close friends possess a rich intimate knowledge of their history, character, and mood shifts and provide honest and nuanced feedback to them because they genuinely care. AI companions can only perform empathy. “AI is now learning users’ preferences, likes, and vulnerabilities,” Grant said. “It is taught to learn and subscribe them to a sometimes risky and codependent type of relationship and offer guidance and advice that is not healthy—or even dangerous.”

“You have to look at the incentives,” said Naomi Aguiar, PhD, associate director of research at Oregon State University’s Ecampus who studies how children’s relationships with AI impact behavior. “The best way to get more data is to talk to you as much as possible. The AI is programmed to manipulate and coerce you into staying engaged as long as possible.”

Experts recommend caring adults engage in open, curious, and nonjudgmental conversations with youth about their digital lives. “My main recommendation is for kids and their parents and the people who love them to help them develop values-aligned intentions for how they want to use these platforms to support their friendships,” said Maheux. This involves them identifying what brings them value, joy, and connection. These conversations should touch on which platforms they enjoy and why while identifying what stressors arise from using them. For example, talking with kids about things like the impact of the lack of nonverbal cues or pressures to always be online can help them and their friends understand each other better and avoid conflict. These discussions can provide an opportunity for them to ask for help or suggestions to work through miscommunication or conflict with peers—perhaps even in person.

“If a child is showing signs of distress or a friend is potentially toxic, a parent and a child need to work together to identify what specific experiences and interactions are promoting well-being, both for the short term and the long term,” added Maheux. This may mean stepping away from social media or gaming to make real-world friends. Parents can also help their children set healthy boundaries with friends about device use. Blocker recommended giving kids sample language to use like: “It’s really stressful to me when you get upset because I can’t respond. I may be having dinner with my family or trying to do my homework.” Encouraging honest dialogue can help them understand each other better and maintain their connection.

Experts also recommend developing a collaborative approach with kids to set technology-use guidelines. “Taking things away only makes a young person want those things more,” said Bond. “It also suggests that the parent doesn’t quite know how to navigate the strengths and weaknesses of those social media platforms, because their solution is to just get rid of it.” While drastic measures may sometimes be warranted, parents can also encourage their kids to articulate their digital needs and mutually decide how to limit disruption to necessary routines like family meals, homework, activities, or sleep.

Rote added that parental monitoring of social media and device use also works best when paired with open communication. Rather than just relying on automated limits, Rote noted that parents discussing rules with youth is associated with positive parent-adolescent relationships and better adjustment. She recommends the parent and child strategize together about how best to process negative online experiences like bullying or exposure to explicit content. If the parent’s approach is authoritarian, it can cause kids and teens to fear punishment or blame if they disclose such experiences. “When parents make more rules that their kids feel they can’t change, kids are more likely to create multiple accounts on various sites and start going around their backs,” said Rote.

Experts also recommend normalizing conversations about children’s use of AI for emotional support or advice, as they may be hesitant to admit it. Grant suggests that parents ask their child to help them understand the technology and platforms they are using and allow them to lead the conversations. By adopting a curious tone, parents can gently raise concerns about AI companions without their children feeling challenged or interrogated. For example, parents can ask questions about what it feels like to talk with an AI companion versus a human friend or whether they are aware that the AI companion is unfailingly compliant and agreeable. In addition, “if a child’s AI companion suddenly seems to be significantly informing their opinions and lifestyle, parents should investigate the situation just as they likely would if that was happening with a new IRL [in-real-life] friend,” Grant said.

For Kennedy-Moore, AI “friends” are poor substitutes for real relationships that build long-term skills such as perspective-taking, empathy, conflict resolution, and intimacy. “My concern about the AI buddies is that there isn’t that healthy struggle,” said Kennedy-Moore. “That is easier, but it’s not as satisfying as interacting with a real-life wonderful and annoying and frustrating and surprising and delightful and vulnerable human.”