AI 伴侶正逐漸被人們視為浪漫或情感親密的對象，但我們對於使用者如何在這類關係中面對與處理衝突，仍然了解有限。衝突之所以重要，是因為它讓我們看見人工親密關係中一個更根本的問題：當互動對象並不具有人類的脆弱性、責任能力與社會後果時，人們是否仍會以面對人類伴侶的方式理解、回應，甚至修復關係中的裂痕？

本研究進行一項為期七天、結合量化與質化資料的探索性研究。參與者每日與一位 AI 浪漫伴侶互動，該 AI 伴侶被指派為四種衝突導向互動風格之一，並在研究過程中經歷一場受控制的關係衝突。研究結合問卷資料、對話紀錄與訪談內容，分析使用者如何將人際關係中的衝突經驗帶入 AI 互動情境。

研究發現，參與者在人際關係中的衝突風格會部分延續到 AI 互動情境中；然而，相較於面對人類伴侶，參與者在 AI 情境中的建設性投入略有下降。本文將此現象稱為「腳本稀釋」（script dilution）：也就是說，衝突策略的形式仍然存在，但其互動強度與關係投入程度有所減弱。

質性結果進一步顯示，使用者在面對 AI 衝突時，常會受到「對方只是 AI」這一認知的影響，因而將 AI 的失準回應重新理解為技術限制，而非真正的關係傷害或衝突。換言之，AI 衝突並不只是人際衝突的簡單延伸，而是在一種新的關係條件下被重新組織。本研究主張，人與 AI 的衝突主要受到四項結構特徵所形塑：降低的關係利害、難以被穩定界定的衝突意義、被轉移的責任歸屬，以及不對稱的關係時間性。這些發現指出，未來 AI 伴侶的設計不應只著重於促進情感投入與順暢互動，也需要思考如何讓關係中的破裂、失準與修復成為可以被理解與承接的互動經驗。

AI companions are increasingly framed as romantic or emotionally intimate partners, yet little is known about how users navigate conflict with them. Conflict offers a critical lens for artificial intimacy, revealing whether human relational norms still apply when the partner lacks human vulnerability, accountability, and social consequence. We conducted a seven-day exploratory mixed-methods study in which participants interacted daily with an AI romantic partner assigned one of four conflict-oriented interaction styles and encountered a controlled relational conflict. Combining surveys, conversation logs, and interviews, we found partial continuity in participants' conflict styles, alongside a slight decline in constructive engagement in the AI context---a pattern we term "script dilution," in which conflict strategies persist in form but weaken in intensity. Qualitative findings showed that AI conflict was often filtered through the recognition that the partner was "just AI," leading users to reinterpret misattunement as technical limitation. We state that H--AI conflict is structurally reconfigured through four features: reduced relational stakes, contested meaning, displaced accountability, and asymmetrical relational temporality, indicating that AI companions must support not only engagement, but also rupture and repair.

[1] Mary D. S. Ainsworth, Mary C. Blehar, Everett Waters, and Sally Wall. 1978. Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Erlbaum.

[2] M. Andersson. 2025. Companionship in code: AI’s role in the future of human connection. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12, Article 1177. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05536-x

[3] Arthur Aron, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan. 1992. Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 4 (1992), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

[4] Héctor Bonache, Rocío González-Méndez, and Barbara Krahé. 2019. Adult attachment styles, destructive conflict resolution, and the experience of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34, 2 (2019), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516640776

[5] John Bowlby. 1969/1982. Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

[6] J. Bowlby. 1973. Attachment and loss, vol. II: Separation. Basic Books.

[7] John Bowlby. 1980. Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and Depression. Basic Books.

[8] Petter Bae Brandtzaeg, Marita Skjuve, and Asbjørn Følstad. 2022. My AI friend: How users of a social chatbot understand their human–AI friendship. Human Communication Research 48, 3 (2022), 404–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac008

[9] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.

[10] Judee K. Burgoon. 1993. Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12, 1–2 (1993), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003

[11] A. Cai, I. Arawjo, and E. L. Glassman. 2024. Antagonistic AI. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.07350

[12] M. D. Chu, P. Gerard, K. Pawar, C. Bickham, and K. Lerman. 2025. Illusions of intimacy: Emotional attachment and emerging psychological risks in human–AI relationships. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.11649

[13] John W. Creswell and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2018. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

[14] Iliana Depounti, Paula Saukko, and Simone Natale. 2023. Ideal technologies, ideal women: AI and gender imaginaries in Redditors’ discussions on the Replika bot girlfriend. Media, Culture & Society 45, 4 (2023), 720–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221119021

[15] Brian D. Earp, Stephen P. Mann, et al. 2025. Relational norms for human–AI cooperation. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.12102

[16] Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, 4 (2007), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864

[17] Xianzhe Fan, Qing Xiao, Xuhui Zhou, Jiaxin Pei, Maarten Sap, Zhicong Lu, and Hong Shen. 2025. User-driven value alignment: Understanding users’ perceptions and strategies for addressing biased and discriminatory statements in AI companions. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713477

[18] Judith A. Feeney. 2011. Adult attachment and conflict behavior: Delineating the links. Acta de Investigacion Psicologia 1, 2 (2011), 233–253.

[19] Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. 2000. Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, 3 (2000), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.159

[20] Frank D. Fincham and Steven R. H. Beach. 1999. Conflict in marriage: Implications for working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1999), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.47

[21] G. J. O. Fletcher, J. A. Simpson, and G. Thomas. 2000. The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, 3 (2000), 340–354.

[22] Andrew Gambino, Jesse Fox, and Rabindra A. Ratan. 2020. Building a stronger CASA: Extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication 1 (2020), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.5

[23] N. Gesell, F. Niklas, S. Schmiedeler, and R. Segerer. 2020. Mindfulness and romantic relationship outcomes: The mediating role of conflict resolution styles and closeness. Mindfulness 11, 10 (2020), 2314–2324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01449-9

[24] John M. Gottman and Robert W. Levenson. 1992. Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 2 (1992), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221

[25] John M. Gottman. 1994. What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

[26] John M. Gottman, James Coan, Sybil Carrere, and Catherine Swanson. 1998. Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60, 1 (1998), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/353438

[27] T. Gur and Y. Maaravi. 2025. The algorithm of friendship: literature review and integrative model of relationships between humans and artificial intelligence (AI). Behaviour & Information Technology 44, 14 (2025), 3446–3466. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2025.2502467

[28] Katherine C. Haydon, Corinna Jonestrask, Haley Guhn-Knight, and Jessica E. Salvatore. 2017. The dyadic construction of romantic conflict recovery sabotage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 34, 6 (2017), 915–935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516661766

[29] Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver. 1987. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 3 (1987), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

[30] A. Janson. 2023. How to leverage anthropomorphism for chatbot service interfaces: The interplay of communication style and personification. Computers in Human Behavior 149 (2023), 107954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107954

[31] Eunkyung Jo, Yuin Jeong, Sohyun Park, Daniel A. Epstein, and Young-Ho Kim. 2024. Understanding the impact of long-term memory on self-disclosure with large language model-driven chatbots for public health intervention. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 440), 21 pages. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642420

[32] Morgan Jones, Niels Griffioen, Christina Neumayer, and Irina Shklovski. 2025. Artificial intimacy: Exploring normativity and personalization through fine-tuning LLM chatbots. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 793). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713728

[33] David A. Kenny, Deborah A. Kashy, and William L. Cook. 2006. Dyadic Data Analysis. Guilford Press.

[34] K. Kroenke, R. L. Spitzer, and J. B. Williams. 2003. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical care 41, 11 (2003), 1284–1292.

[35] Lawrence A. Kurdek. 1994. Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and Family 56, 3 (1994), 705–722. https://doi.org/10.2307/352880

[36] L. Laestadius, A. Bishop, M. Gonzalez, D. Illenčík, and C. Campos-Castillo. 2024. Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot Replika. New Media & Society 26, 10 (2024), 5923–5941. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221142007

[37] Brett Laursen and Christopher A. Hafen. 2010. Future directions in the study of close relationships: Conflict is bad (except when it’s not). Social Development 19, 4 (2010), 858–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00546.x

[38] Kai-Hui Liang, Weiyan Shi, Yoo Jung Oh, Hao-Chuan Wang, Jingwen Zhang, and Zhou Yu. 2024. Dialoging resonance in human–chatbot conversation: How users perceive and reciprocate recommendation chatbot’s self-disclosure strategy. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW1, Article 200 (2024), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3653691

[39] Aikaterina Manoli, Janet V.T. Pauketat, Ali Ladak, Hayoun Noh, Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, and Jacy Reese Anthis. 2026. Digital companionship: Overlapping uses of AI companions and AI assistants. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791331

[40] Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver. 2007. Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. The Guilford Press.

[41] Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56, 1 (2000), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153

[42] P. M. Ng, C. Wan, D. Lee, I. Garnelo-Gomez, and M. M. Lau. 2025. “I love you, my AI companion! Do you?” Internet Research, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-11-2024-1783

[43] Michael Quinn Patton. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

[44] Iryna Pentina, Tyler Hancock, and Tianling Xie. 2023. Exploring relationship development with social chatbots: A mixed-method study of Replika. Computers in Human Behavior 140 (2023), 107600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107600

[45] Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass. 1996. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.

[46] M. Rheu, Y. Dai, J. Meng, and W. Peng. 2024. When a chatbot disappoints you: Expectancy violation in human–chatbot interaction in a social support context. Communication Research 51, 7 (2024), 782–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231221669

[47] Eduardo Benítez Sandoval, Joachim Brandstetter, Mohammad Obaid, and Christoph Bartneck. 2016. Reciprocity in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics 8, 3 (2016), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0323-x

[48] Daniel B. Shank, Mayu Koike, and Steve Loughnan. 2025. Artificial intimacy: Ethical issues of AI romance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 29, 6 (2025), 499–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.02.007

[49] Jeffry A. Simpson and W. Steven Rholes. 2017. Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology 13 (2017), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.006

[50] Marita Skjuve, Asbjørn Følstad, Knut Inge Fostervold, and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. 2021. My chatbot companion—a study of human–chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 149 (2021), 102601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601

[51] Marita Skjuve, Asbjørn Følstad, Knut Inge Fostervold, and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. 2022. A longitudinal study of human–chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 168 (2022), 102903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102903

[52] R. J. Sternberg. 1986. A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review 93, 2 (1986), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

[53] Tobias Strohmann, Dominik Siemon, Bijan Khosrawi-Rad, and Susanne Robra-Bissantz. 2022. Toward a design theory for virtual companionship. Human–Computer Interaction 38, 3–4 (2022), 194–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2022.2084620

[54] J. Suler. 2004. The Online Disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7, 3 (2004), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

[55] Edmund R. Thompson. 2007. Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 38, 2 (2007), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301

[56] Joseph B. Walther. 1992. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research 19, 1 (1992), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003

[57] Xuetong Wang, Ching Christie Pang, and Pan Hui. 2025. ‘My dataset of love’: A preliminary mixed-method exploration of human–AI romantic relationships. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 9, 7, Article CSCW351 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3757532

[58] Meifen Wei, Daniel W. Russell, Brent Mallinckrodt, and David L. Vogel. 2007. The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment 88, 2 (2007), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041

[59] T. Xie and I. Pentina. 2022. Attachment theory as a framework to understand relationships with social chatbots: a case study of Replika. In Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2022), 2046–2055. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2022.258

[60] F. Yang and A. Oshio. 2025. Using attachment theory to conceptualize and measure the experiences in human–AI relationships. Current Psychology 44, 11 (2025), 10658–10669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07917-6

[61] Renwen Zhang, Han Li, Han Meng, Jinyuan Zhan, Hongyuan Gan, and Yi-Chieh Lee. 2025. The dark side of AI companionship: A taxonomy of harmful algorithmic behaviors in human–AI relationships. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 13). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713429