ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Conversational AI and Personal Growth: Insights from a Critical Integrative Review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.