•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Artificial intelligence systems designed around continuous affirmation and minimal friction are becoming increasingly prominent as social and relational partners in everyday life. This article examines how sustained interaction with such frictionless AI systems may reshape the developmental conditions under which social selfhood forms and is maintained. Drawing on Cooley's (1902) looking glass self, Kohut's (1971) concept of optimal frustration, and the developmental literature on social competence, the article argues that frictionless AI may distort the social mirror through which identity forms, remove the manageable frustration that appears necessary for psychological growth, weaken empathic capacity, and erode the social stakes that ordinarily motivate careful relational attention. These mechanisms appear to converge on two related outcomes: what this article terms the algorithmic narcissus, a gradual reorientation of the self toward the expectation of consistent affirmation, and the atrophy of the athletic social self, the gradual weakening of social competence capacities through a form of relational disuse that may masquerade as genuine social engagement. The article also acknowledges that not all human relationships are healthy or constructive, and that for some individuals frictionless AI may serve a genuinely protective function. Three responses are proposed: designing AI systems with intentional friction, preserving institutional contexts for unmediated human encounter, and treating social competence as a recognized developmental priority. The analysis suggests that what is at stake extends beyond individual communication habits into the conditions of social development and democratic participation itself.

Bahasa Abstract

Sistem kecerdasan buatan yang dirancang untuk memberikan validasi berkelanjutan dan meminimalkan gesekan sosial semakin banyak berperan sebagai mitra sosial dan relasional dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. Artikel ini mengkaji bagaimana interaksi yang berkelanjutan dengan sistem AI tanpa gesekan semacam itu dapat membentuk ulang kondisi perkembangan di mana diri sosial terbentuk dan dipertahankan. Dengan berpijak pada konsep cermin diri (looking glass self) dari Cooley (1902), konsep frustrasi optimal dari Kohut (1971), serta literatur psikologi perkembangan tentang kompetensi sosial, artikel ini berargumen bahwa AI tanpa gesekan dapat mendistorsi cermin sosial yang menjadi dasar pembentukan identitas, menghilangkan kekecewaan yang terkelola yang tampaknya diperlukan bagi pertumbuhan psikologis, melemahkan kapasitas empati, dan mengikis konsekuensi sosial yang biasanya mendorong perhatian relasional yang cermat. Mekanisme-mekanisme ini tampaknya bermuara pada dua hasil yang saling berkaitan: yang pertama disebut narsisus algoritmik, yaitu pergeseran bertahap orientasi diri menuju ekspektasi konfirmasi yang terus-menerus, dan yang kedua adalah atrofi diri sosial atletis, yaitu melemahnya kapasitas kompetensi sosial secara bertahap melalui bentuk disuse relasional yang dapat menyerupai keterlibatan sosial yang sesungguhnya. Artikel ini juga mengakui bahwa tidak semua hubungan antarmanusia bersifat sehat atau konstruktif, dan bahwa bagi sebagian individu, AI tanpa gesekan dapat menjalankan fungsi perlindungan yang nyata. Tiga respons diusulkan: merancang sistem AI dengan gesekan yang disengaja, mempertahankan konteks institusional untuk perjumpaan manusia yang tidak dimediasi, dan menjadikan kompetensi sosial sebagai prioritas perkembangan yang diakui secara formal. Analisis ini menunjukkan bahwa yang dipertaruhkan bukan sekadar kebiasaan komunikasi individual, melainkan kondisi perkembangan sosial dan partisipasi demokratis itu sendiri.

References

Baumeister, R. F., Bibby, M. T., Tice, D. M., & Bushman, B. J. (2026). Socializing while alone: Loss of impact and engagement when interacting remotely via technology. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251404368

Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (Vol. 2, Issues 59–68, pp. 56–64).

Boyd, D. (2014). Its complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.

Boyd, R. L., & Markowitz, D. M. (2026). Artificial intelligence and the psychology of human connection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 21(2), 192–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251404394

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101.

Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 337–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.008

Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In Cognitive perspectives on children’s social and behavioral development (pp. 77–126). Psychology Press.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002

Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. A. (2020). Building a stronger CASA: Extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 1, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.5

Gigerenzer, G. (2024). Psychological AI: Designing algorithms informed by human psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(5), 839–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231180597

Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press.

Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.355

Joseph, E. (2025). Leveraging ai to inspire innovation in traditional and digital business ecosystems. Journal of Business Ecosystems, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/jbe.383049

Kirk, H. R., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Vidgen, B., & Hale, S. A. (2025). Why human–AI relationships need socioaffective alignment. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04532-5

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. The University of Chicago Press.

Levinas, E. (1991). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (4th editio). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lodge, J. M., Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Gniel, H., Harper, R. L., D., M., J., U., & Associates, L. &. (2025). Enacting assessment reform in a time of artificial intelligence. In Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. Australian Government. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/enacting-assessment-reform-in-a-time-of-artificial-intelligence.pdf

Malfacini, K. (2025). The impacts of companion AI on human relationships: risks, benefits, and design considerations. AI & SOCIETY, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02318-6

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1

National Research Council, & Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development (J. P. Shonkoff & D. A. Phillips (eds.)). National Academy Press.

Østergaard, S. D. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots and mental health: Have we learned nothing from the global social media experiment? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 153(2), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.70057

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.

Rubin, M., Li, J. Z., Zimmerman, F., Ong, D. C., Goldenberg, A., & Perry, A. (2025). Comparing the value of perceived human versus AI-generated empathy. Nature Human Behaviour, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02247-w

Shanmugasundaram, M., & Tamilarasu, A. (2023). The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review. Frontiers in Cognition, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077

Skjuve, M., Følstad, A., Fostervold, K. I., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2021). My chatbot companion - a study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 149(December 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wang, Y., Chen, H., Long, R., & Gu, X. (2024). Mechanical modeling of friction phenomena in social systems based on friction force. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03272-2

Download

Share

COinS