Human interaction with artificial intelligence as a factor in professional loneliness

Context and relevance. The concept described in foreign literature as workplace loneliness has no established equivalent in Russian psychology. In national research, this term is used exclusively as a descriptive expression in the context of professional burnout, identity crises, and teacher isolation, but not as an independent construct with an operational definition and diagnostic instruments. At the same time, one in five employees worldwide experiences workplace loneliness on a daily basis, and the digitalization of work processes — most notably the integration of AI — is one of the key drivers of its intensification. Objective. To systematize foreign empirical studies documenting professional loneliness generated by AI-mediated interaction in professional activity, and to identify the psychological mechanisms underlying its emergence. Hypothesis. Workplace loneliness in AI-mediated professional settings may manifest in four interrelated forms, each reflecting a unified process of loss of genuine co-participation in professional activity. Methods. A systematic review of English-language articles indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases for 2019—2026 was conducted. Only peer-reviewed scientific publications were included in the analysis, ensuring its rigor and reliability. Results. Through thematic synthesis of foreign sources, four manifestations of professional loneliness were identified and described: (1) relational energy drain, (2) false connection effect, (3) moral disengagement and responsibility diffusion, (4) emotional synchrony breakdown. Conclusions. Professional loneliness under conditions of AI mediation is shown to represent not a quantitative deficit of contacts, but a loss of genuine co-participation in professional interaction and authorship of one's own activity. The key condition determining the depth of loneliness experienced is the specialist's subjective stance toward the AI tool.

1. Сорокоумова, Е.А., Кочнева, А.Ю. (2026). Гибридная антропотехническая реальность «Человек-ИИ-Человек» как новая форма социально-психологического взаимодействия. Психолого-педагогический поиск, 2(78), 160—169. https://doi.org/10.37724/RSU.2026.78.2.016
2. Sorokoumova, E.A., Kochneva, A.Yu. (2026). Hybrid anthropotechnical reality «human-AI-human» as a new form of socio-psychological interaction. Psychological and Pedagogical Search. Academic Journal, 2(78), 160—170. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37724/RSU.2026.78.2.016
3. Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. New York: Worth Publishers.
4. Borinca, I. (2025). AI as moral cover: How algorithmic bias exploits psychological mechanisms to perpetuate social inequality. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 25(3), Article e70031. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.70031
5. Bleher, H., Braun, M. (2022). Diffused responsibility: Attributions of responsibility in the use of Al-driven clinical decision support systems. AI and Ethics, 2, 747—761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00135-x
6. Bryan, B.T., Andrews, G., Thompson, K.N., Qualter, P., Matthews, T., Arseneault, L. (2023). Loneliness in the workplace: A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis. Occupational Medicine, 73(9), 557—566. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqad138
7. Cheong, J.H., Molani, Z., Sadhukha, S., Chang, L.J. (2023). Synchronized affect in shared experiences strengthens social connection. Communications Biology, 6, Article 1099. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05461-2
8. Dennis, A.R., Lakhiwal, A., Sachdeva, A. (2023). Al agents as team members: Effects on satisfaction, conflict, trustworthiness, and willingness to work with. Journal of Management Information Systems, 40(2), 307—337. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2023.2196773
9. Dellermann, D., Ebel, P., Söllner, M., Leimeister, J.M. (2019). Hybrid intelligence. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 61(5), 637—643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00595-2
10. Einola, K., Khoreva, V. (2023). Best friend or broken tool? Exploring the co-existence of humans and artificial intelligence in the workplace ecosystem. Human Resource Management, 62(1), 117—135. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22147
11. Folk, D., Dunn, E.W. (2026). How does turning to AI for companionship predict loneliness and vice versa?. Psychological Science, 37(4), 276-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976261427747
12. Gallup. (2024). State of the Global Workplace: The human side of the AI revolution: 2024 report. Washington: Gallup, Inc. URL: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/645608/state-of-the-global-workplace-2024-report.aspx (viewed: 03/08/2026).
13. Gutman, J., Gordon, I., Vilchinsky, N. (2022). Is social presence indeed present in remote social interactions? A call for incorporating physiological measures of synchrony when assessing the social nature of interpersonal interactions via videoconferencing platforms. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 822535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.822535
14. Hai, S., Long, T., Honora, A., Japutra, A., Guo, T. (2025). The dark side of employee-generative AI collaboration in the workplace: An investigation on work alienation and employee expediency. International Journal of Information Management, 83, Article 102905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102905
15. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T., Rapson, R.L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Hu, B., Mao, Y., Kim, K.J. (2023). How social anxiety leads to problematic use of conversational AI: The roles of loneliness, rumination, and mind perception. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, Article 107760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107760
17. Huang, M.-H., Rust, R.T. (2024). The caring machine: Feeling AI for customer care. Journal of Marketing, 88(5), 1—23. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429231224748
18. Jacobs, K.A. (2024). Digital loneliness — changes of social recognition through AI companions. Frontiers in Digital Health, 6, Article 1281037. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1281037
19. Jolly, A.A., Dunlop, P.D., Parker, S.K., Kanse, L. (2026). It's not my responsibility: Working with autonomy-restricting algorithms facilitates unethical behavior and displacement of responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 203, 405—424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06034-5
20. Magni, G., Amadini Genovese, L., Riva, G., Repetto, C. (2025). Embodied metaphors and interpersonal synchrony in the digital age: The case of remote working. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1648733. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1648733
21. Marriott, H.R., Pitardi, V. (2024). One is the loneliest number... Two can be as bad as one. The influence of AI friendship apps on users' well-being and addiction. Psychology & Marketing, 41(1), 86—101. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21899
22. Meng, Q., Wu, T.-J., Duan, W., Li, S. (2025). Effects of employee — artificial intelligence (AI) collaboration on counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs): Leader emotional support as a moderator. Behavioral Sciences, 15(5), Article 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050696
23. Owens, B.P., Baker, W.E., Sumpter, D.M.D., Cameron, K.S. (2016). Relational energy at work: Implications for job engagement and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 35—49. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000032
24. Ozcelik, H., Barsade, S.G. (2018). No employee an island: Workplace loneliness and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2343—2366. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1066
25. Perry, A. (2023). AI will never convey the essence of human empathy. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 1808—1809. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01675-w
26. Raisch, S., Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation — augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192—210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
27. Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R.O., de Vreede, T., de Vreede, G.-J., Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A.B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., Schwabe, G., Söllner, M. (2020). Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Information and Management, 57(2), Article 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103174
28. Shteynberg, G., Halpern, J., Sadovnik, A., Garthoff, J., Perry, A., Hay, J., Montemayor, C., Olson, M.A., Hulsey, T.L., Fairweather, A. (2024). Does it matter if empathic AI has no empathy? Nature Machine Intelligence, 6, 496—497. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00841-7
29. Streuber, S., Rogula, S., Quirós-Ramírez, M.A., Pruessner, J. (2026). Remote collaboration in virtual reality induces physiological synchrony comparable to face-to-face interaction. Scientific Reports, 16, Article 3721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-35955-y
30. Sullins, J.P. (2006). When is a robot a moral agent? International Review of Information Ethics, 6(12), 23—30. https://doi.org/10.29173/irie136
31. Tang, P.M., Koopman, J., Mai, K.M., De Cremer, D., Zhang, J.H., Reynders, P., Ng, C.T.S., Chen, I.-H. (2023). No person is an island: Unpacking the work and after-work consequences of interacting with artificial intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(11), 1766—1789. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001103
32. Wallach, W., Allen, C. (2009). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374049.001.0001
33. Wu, J. (2024). Social and ethical impact of emotional AI advancement: The rise of pseudo-intimacy relationships and challenges in human interactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1410462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1410462
34. Xia, H., Chen, J., Qiu, Y., Liu, P., Liu, Z. (2025). The impact of human—chatbot interaction on human—human interaction: A substitution or complementary effect. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 41(2), 848—860. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2305985