As the use of artificial intelligence tools in psychological and emotional support continues to rise, a recent study by Drexel University sheds light on how users interact with these technologies and the resulting benefits and risks.
AI as a Psychological Ally: Growth and Trends
The study indicates that the use of AI models for psychological support has significantly increased in recent years. According to data from the American Psychological Association for 2025, nearly half of adults in the United States have used AI technologies for mental health purposes. Another study from Brown University revealed that one in eight young people turn to these tools for psychological guidance.
The rapid spread of these tools is attributed to their accessibility, availability around the clock, and the absence of social judgments that individuals might face in traditional sessions with psychologists. For many, these tools serve as a temporary bridge when human therapies are unavailable or costly.
The Emotional Paradox: Balancing Benefits and Risks
The study highlights the concept of the “emotional paradox,” the contradiction between using AI as an effective tool and the risk of harmful emotional dependency. When these tools are used for specific purposes like planning or learning coping mechanisms, the outcomes are often positive. However, seeking to build a deep emotional relationship without clear goals can lead to excessive emotional dependency and worsen psychological symptoms.
The study notes that many users have reported negative feelings such as guilt and shame due to over-reliance on these tools.
Integrating with Human Therapy: The Need for Clear Boundaries
Despite the widespread acceptance of these tools, most users view them as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, human therapy. More than 51% of the analyzed study participants expressed concerns about the risks and limitations associated with using AI in psychological treatment.
Researchers emphasize the importance of designing AI programs with clear boundaries and safeguards, especially in cases requiring companionship or frequent reassurance. These tools should be based on proven scientific principles and within secure frameworks to ensure they do not become a source of excessive dependency.
Conclusion
This study provides important insights into the use of AI for psychological and emotional support. While researchers note that users approach these tools cautiously, it is essential that they are designed to ensure safety and effectiveness. As these technologies continue to spread, it remains crucial for users to be aware of both the potential benefits and the associated risks.