What does this research mean for the field?

Seeking emotional support from generative AI is associated with higher emotional problem scores and serves as a unique marker of psychological distress in children and adolescents, independent of feelings of mattering or loneliness. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.NOVEL_FINDING. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.ESTABLISHES_NEW_DIRECTION.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the relationship between affective generative artificial intelligence use and emotional problems in a large, diverse cohort of school-aged youth.

August 31, 2026Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine

Affective Generative Artificial Intelligence Use and Youth Mental Health

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

KBKamilla Bonnesen AKAmanda Krygsman SHSarah Hobson

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Cross-sectional study finds elevated emotional problems in youth seeking emotional AI support, highlighting affective chatbot reliance as a potential marker of distress.

Key Points

To evaluate the relationship between affective generative artificial intelligence use and emotional problems in a large, diverse cohort of school-aged youth.
Cross-sectional study evaluating survey responses from 39 761 students in grades 4 through 12 across 4 school boards in Ontario, Canada (mean age, 12.8 years).
Assessed affective AI use (seeking emotional support or guidance) and functional AI use (schoolwork tasks), controlling for mattering, loneliness, and demographic factors.
Measured emotional problems against a validated clinical threshold using the Ontario Child Health Study Emotional Behavioral Scales.
Overall, 21.1% of students (8408 of 39 761) reported using generative AI for emotional support, with higher uptake among female, gender-diverse, and racially minoritized students.
In unadjusted models, affective AI use was associated with higher emotional problem scores (mean score, 1.04 vs 0.67; B = 0.37 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.39]) and a doubled risk of clinical emotional problems (57.7% vs 29.2%; prevalence ratio, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.91 to 2.04]).
Affective AI use remained significantly linked to emotional problems in fully adjusted models (B = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.15]), whereas functional AI use demonstrated only a modest dose-response relationship (B = 0.01 to 0.04).

Cite This Study

Bonnesen et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a97d69bd72f642c28a669ff https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.3904

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

August 31, 2026Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine

Affective Generative Artificial Intelligence Use and Youth Mental Health

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

KBKamilla Bonnesen AKAmanda Krygsman SHSarah Hobson

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Cross-sectional study finds elevated emotional problems in youth seeking emotional AI support, highlighting affective chatbot reliance as a potential marker of distress.

Key Points

To evaluate the relationship between affective generative artificial intelligence use and emotional problems in a large, diverse cohort of school-aged youth.
Cross-sectional study evaluating survey responses from 39 761 students in grades 4 through 12 across 4 school boards in Ontario, Canada (mean age, 12.8 years).
Assessed affective AI use (seeking emotional support or guidance) and functional AI use (schoolwork tasks), controlling for mattering, loneliness, and demographic factors.
Measured emotional problems against a validated clinical threshold using the Ontario Child Health Study Emotional Behavioral Scales.
Overall, 21.1% of students (8408 of 39 761) reported using generative AI for emotional support, with higher uptake among female, gender-diverse, and racially minoritized students.
In unadjusted models, affective AI use was associated with higher emotional problem scores (mean score, 1.04 vs 0.67; B = 0.37 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.39]) and a doubled risk of clinical emotional problems (57.7% vs 29.2%; prevalence ratio, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.91 to 2.04]).
Affective AI use remained significantly linked to emotional problems in fully adjusted models (B = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.15]), whereas functional AI use demonstrated only a modest dose-response relationship (B = 0.01 to 0.04).

Cite This Study

Bonnesen et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a97d69bd72f642c28a669ff https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.3904

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark