From Mourning to Manipulation: Navigating the Psychological Terrain of AI Grief Therapy

Year : 2025 | Volume : 02 | Issue : 01 | Page : 34 41
    By

    Evan Bose,

  • Chaitanya Anil Kumar,

  • Meenakshi N.,

  1. Student, Department of Psychology, Bangalore University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
  2. Student, Department of Psychology, Bangalore University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
  3. Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Bangalore University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Abstract

This literature review explores the psychological and ethical dimensions of virtual conversations with AI-based digital representations of deceased individuals. Specifically, it examines the therapeutic affordances of these interactions, as well as potential maladaptive coping mechanisms, including prolonged mourning, emotional exploitation, and memory distortion. Based on a review of 13 academic studies from 2021 to 2024, this paper critically analyzes ethical dilemmas related to informed consent, data commodification, and the autonomy of grieving individuals. Digital afterlife technologies, often utilized for grief therapy, significantly impact the grieving process by allowing sustained, albeit artificial, interaction with loved ones. The review draws attention to the mixed nature of these technologies, recognizing their potential to offer comfort but also expressing worries about how they can worsen emotional dependence or obstruct normal grieving processes. It investigates the ways in which cultural norms and individual values impact people’s experiences with these tools, illuminating a range of responses in various demographic and cultural contexts. Along with the significance of protecting vulnerable users’ emotional wellbeing, the ethical dilemmas raised by the monetization of personal data and the possibility of consent violations are also thoroughly investigated. The review also considers the cultural context of grief, with a focus on how cultural relativism shapes attitudes toward digital afterlife practices. The study ends with suggestions for creating ethical standards and legal frameworks to lessen any risks, highlighting the necessity of interdisciplinary cooperation and more study to fill in the gaps in this developing sector.

Keywords: Therapeutic affordances, prolonged mourning, emotional exploitation, digital afterlife, grief practices

[This article belongs to International Journal of Behavioral Sciences ]

How to cite this article:
Evan Bose, Chaitanya Anil Kumar, Meenakshi N.. From Mourning to Manipulation: Navigating the Psychological Terrain of AI Grief Therapy. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2025; 02(01):34-41.
How to cite this URL:
Evan Bose, Chaitanya Anil Kumar, Meenakshi N.. From Mourning to Manipulation: Navigating the Psychological Terrain of AI Grief Therapy. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2025; 02(01):34-41. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/ijbsc/article=2025/view=194874


References

  1. Hollanek T, Nowaczyk-Basińska K. Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars: on Responsible Applications of Generative AI in the Digital Afterlife Industry. Philosophy & Technology. 2024 Jun;37(2):1-22.
  2. Rodríguez Reséndiz H, Rodríguez Reséndiz J. Digital Resurrection: Challenging the Boundary between Life and Death with Artificial Intelligence. Philosophies. 2024 May 18;9(3):71.
  3. Figueroa-Torres M. Affection as a service: Ghostbots and the changing nature of mourning. Computer Law & Security Review. 2024 Apr 1; 52:105943.
  4. Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Baabdullah AM, Ribeiro-Navarrete S, Giannakis M, Al-Debei MM, Dennehy D, Metri B, Buhalis D, Cheung CM, Conboy K. Metaverse beyond the hype: Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International journal of information management. 2022 Oct 1; 66:102542.
  5. Dwivedi YK, Kshetri N, Hughes L, Slade EL, Jeyaraj A, Kar AK, Baabdullah AM, Koohang A, Raghavan V, Ahuja M, Albanna H. Opinion Paper:“So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management. 2023 Aug 1; 71:102642.
  6. Lindemann NF. The Ethics of ‘deathbots’. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2022 Dec;28(6):60.
  7. Puzio A. When the Digital Continues After Death. Ethical Perspectives on Death Tech and the Digital Afterlife. Communicatio Socialis (ComSoc). 2023 Sep 5;56(3):427-36.
  8. Besser A, Morse T, Zeigler-Hill V. Who Wants to (Digitally) Live Forever? The Connections That Narcissism Has with Motives for Digital Immortality and the Desire for Digital Avatars. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023 Aug 23;20(17):6632.
  9. Hutson J, Ratican J. Life, death, and AI: Exploring digital necromancy in popular culture—Ethical considerations, technological limitations, and the pet cemetery conundrum. Metaverse. 2023;4(1).
  10. Coghlan S, Leins K, Sheldrick S, Cheong M, Gooding P, D’Alfonso S. To chat or bot to chat: Ethical issues with using chatbots in mental health. Digital health. 2023;9: 1-11. Doi: 10.1177/20552076231183542.
  11. Parsons TD. Ethical challenges of using virtual environments in the assessment and treatment of psychopathological disorders. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021 Jan 20;10(3):378.
  12. Morse T. Digital necromancy: Users’ perceptions of digital afterlife and posthumous communication technologies. Information, Communication & Society. 2024 Jan 25;27(2):240-56.
  13. Hatfield HR, Ahn SJ, Klein M, Nowak KL. Confronting whiteness through virtual humans: a review of 20 years of research in prejudice and racial bias using virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2022 Nov 1;27(6):1-11.
Regular Issue Subscription Review Article
Volume 02
Issue 01
Received 19/11/2024
Accepted 07/12/2024
Published 07/01/2025
Publication Time 49 Days
562

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics