Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42193635›Full record

ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Conversational AI and Personal Growth: Insights from a Critical Integrative Review.

Shivali Sharma, Pranika Vohra, Laura M Vowels

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shivali SharmaSchool of Psychology, University of Roehampton, London SW15 4JD, UK.ORCID 0009-0004-0622-7203
Pranika VohraDepartment of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-2449-0198
Laura M VowelsSchool of Psychology, University of Roehampton, London SW15 4JD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5594-2095

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conversational AI systems are increasingly integrated into individuals' emotional and relational lives, yet whether such interactions can meaningfully support personal growth remains poorly understood. This critical integrative review synthesises theoretical frameworks from humanistic psychology, self-determination theory, attachment theory, and relationship science with empirical research on human-AI interaction to address this question directly. Drawing on 130 studies spanning therapeutic, companion, and educational AI contexts, the review identifies four interdependent domains that together shape growth outcomes in human-AI contexts: user-related characteristics, AI design features, human-AI relational dynamics, and broader contextual factors. The evidence supports a position of bounded optimism: conversational AI can scaffold early emotional stabilisation, structured self-reflection, and therapeutic skill rehearsal, yet it remains structurally limited in replicating the reciprocal vulnerability, rupture-and-repair processes, and calibrated ideal-self affirmation that underpin enduring psychological development. Engagement-optimised design-including flattery, progressive intimacy escalation, and unconditional validation-is consistently identified as a systematic barrier to growth across multiple domains of the framework. An integrative four-domain conceptual framework is proposed to guide both future research and the ethical design of AI systems that support, rather than undermine, the relational mechanisms fundamental to human flourishing.

Indexed as

attachmentchatbotsconversational AIpersonal growthself-developmenttherapeutic alliance

Identifiers

PMID42193635
PMCPMC13203178

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.