The Relational Tradeoff Model: The Effects of Socially Interactive Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Human-AI Relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the proliferation of artificially intelligent systems capable of social interaction, how and why social interaction influences users over time remains poorly understood. We draw on theories of technology adoption and research in affective computing, social psychology, and management to introduce the concept of human-AI relationships involving interdependence, temporality, and intensity. We develop the Relational Tradeoff Model, extending current theorizing on technology adoption by accounting for a critical third factor in addition to cognitive acceptance and behavioral use: human subjective well-being. The model reveals an important unexplored tradeoff in relationships with socially interactive AI: short-term acceptance and use gains but long-term subjective well-being costs for trust, psychological safety, and emotional labor, depending on AI social function and exacerbating and mitigating individual and relational factors. We discuss implications and suggestions for future exploration, including intrapersonal, interpersonal, and team relational dynamics and evolving expectations of AI in organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it