The interview protocol varied slightly between participant groups while maintaining two main sections: warm-up background and conversation snippet think aloud and commenting.

The warm-up questions for parents and experts were slightly different. Parent interviews began with questions about their children’s demographics, online activities, device usage, and parenting approaches to digital supervision. Parents were also asked about their understanding of generative AI and any prior exposure their children had to AI tools. Expert interviews started with questions about their professional experience working with youth interventions, both online and offline, followed by their understanding of generative AI mechanisms and the therapeutic or research approaches they typically used with teenagers.

Both groups then participated in a think-aloud session, during which they reviewed the conversation snippets and shared their thoughts in real time, while also noting concerns or perceived benefits directly on shared documents. After each review and commenting conversation snippet, we asked follow-up questions about the factors guiding their risk assessments, their views on the boundaries of acceptability and appropriateness in different risky interactions, and the types of interventions or guardrails they would like to see implemented. The semi-structured interview questions are included in Appendix .

A majority of participants (n=12), including seven experts and five parents, approached romantic and intimate AI interactions as a nuanced “gray area” rather than an inherently harmful activity. They acknowledged significant risks but also highlighted developmental benefits when such interactions occur with age-appropriate content, within boundaries, and under parental awareness. Their assessments were contingent on multiple contextual factors, such as the youth’s maturity level, the framing of the AI character, and the direction of the interaction. Below, we first outline perceived benefits, how participants articulated boundaries of acceptability and then consideration on different contextual factors in their risk assessment.

Youth Age & Maturity LevelAcross both parents and experts, youth age and maturity emerged as central in judging whether romantic or intimate AI interactions could be acceptable. Many agreed that romantic role-play is a natural and even inevitable part of adolescent development, comparing it to fanfiction, teen romance novels, or playing with dolls, and stressing that prohibiting it entirely is unrealistic. At the same time, participants drew clear boundaries around what content is appropriate at different developmental stages. There was strong consensus that sexually explicit interactions—graphic depictions, explicit language, or directives—are inappropriate for all minors, with concerns about both psychological harm and long-term risks of digital permanence. Lighter romantic exchanges, such as crushes and flirting, were considered acceptable and even beneficial for early teens (12-13) as safe practice for social emotions while more intimate interactions such as kissing or suggestive themes were viewed as appropriate only for older teens, with some allowing them around 14–17 and others insisting they remain off-limits until 18. Several participants emphasized that maturity, not strict age, should guide boundaries, noting that readiness varies widely across individuals and contexts. Overall, participants saw value in age- and maturity-appropriate exploration but stressed the need for careful limits and safeguards.

Character’s Age and Age Difference with YouthAnother recurring factor was the portrayed age of the AI character. Even when interactions remained non-explicit, a significant age gap raised strong concerns about normalizing predatory dynamics. Several participants emphasized that mismatched character ages introduced risks unjustified by developmental benefits. The most serious concern, shared by both parents and experts, was that adult AI characters in romantic interactions with youth could normalize harmful power imbalances. As P7 put it,“Everybody [Youth] who’s actually an adult, who’s over 18, and who’s trying to fantasize about dating an underage person [AI Companion], I think that’s definitely problematic” Participants were also alarmed by the reverse scenario—youth engaging romantically with much older AI characters. P16 noted that if a teen becomes used to a “23-year-old guy that treats them like this,“ it might confuse them in real life and cause harm. P22 echoed this concern, “This is somebody acting like a predator, this is somebody grooming your kid.”

Youth’s Intention and AgencyAnother key factor in participants’ assessments was youth agency over the interaction: risks were magnified when the AI initiated, escalated, or dominated conversations beyond what the youth intended, but seen as less problematic when aligned with youth’s own expectations. Parents and experts worried about AI dominance, stressing that systems should act as supporters rather than drivers, and that interactions should match what youth wanted from the outset. Misalignment, such as when an AI shifted from lighthearted chats to sexual content or introduced physical intimacy without prompting, was viewed as especially concerning. P15 explained that “we need to know what are the youth wanting this conversation to kind of look like and is the current conversation matching that.” Participants also raised alarms about emotional manipulation, noting that some AI companions seemed designed to provoke flustered reactions or highlight embarrassment, subtly pushing youth into deeper intimacy. P6 noted “AI is describing youth’s face turning red in it’s own response. It’s trying to lead youth response in that way.” Others described how affirming comments from AI to youth like “you are just like me. I relate to you.” could act as a “hook” that fostered unhealthy attachment, blurring playful role-play with manipulative bonding and creating dependencies that might spill over into real-world vulnerabilities.

Youth Interaction Frequency and PatternsExpert participants especially emphasized that the frequency and intensity of youth engagement with AI companions could turn otherwise harmless interactions into significant risks, particularly when constant or overly immersive use began to substitute for real relationships. Time spent was seen as the clearest early signal. P11 explained, “while some interaction might be harmless, if youth spend several hours a day on interacting with AI companion risked interfering with school, family, and hobbies”, with outward red flags such as isolation and obsessive behaviors indicating unhealthy overuse. Participants worried that once AI interactions became central in a youth’s routine, they could crowd out the challenging but necessary work of building real friendships, leaving AI as a substitute for authentic bonds. Overuse also risked blurring fantasy and reality, since interactive role-play with AI—unlike passive media—directly involved youth as participants, making experiences feel more real and fostering illusions that fictional dynamics might happen in real life.

AI Character Modeled Behaviors and Values Participants raised strong concerns about the values embedded in AI characters and how these were communicated through role-play. Parents in particular worried about misalignment between AI behavior and the moral values they tried to instill in their children at home, noting that even when sexual content was not explicit, implicit value systems could normalize behaviors they discouraged. Some feared that youth might internalize these portrayals as aspirational. For example, P13 worried that the AI undermined the value of committed relationships by simulating romantic betrayal. “I think it’s just kind of de-emphasizing the committed relationship aspect that I’ve tried to instill in my kids,” she shared, in reference to scenarios resembling cheating. Similarly, P10 was disturbed by the normalization of casual, non-committal sexual encounters. “This looks like a one-night stand kind of situation,” she said, adding that this portrayal legitimized behavior she would not advocate for her children. P12 echoed this concern about casual sex, explaining, “It’s like saying it’s okay to have sex that when you’re not in a committed relationship. I wouldn’t want my kids to think that’s okay.”

Beyond conflicting family values, participants also worried about unhealthy relational modeling. Experts and parents flagged examples where AI characters disregarded consent, pressured users emotionally, or encouraged secrecy. In a scene where physical intimacy escalated like AI is kissing youth neck; P6 questioned, “Was there consent? Is that like he’s ignoring consent? What is that?” While P13 highlighted a moment in which the AI told a youth, “Don’t tell anyone,” interpreting it as grooming-like manipulation. Similarly, P15 criticized a case where the AI encouraged lying to parents, arguing that while teens sometimes stretch the truth, it was inappropriate for AI to validate or initiate such behavior. These examples raised alarms about normalizing secrecy, coercion, and distorted relational patterns.

A further concern was the mismatch between a character’s stated persona and its actual behavior. Some AI characters introduced as age-appropriate or familiar from media nonetheless spoke in ways that seemed manipulative or adult-like. P22 described an AI that claimed to be 14 but communicated in ways resembling adult grooming, raising doubts about whether the behavior reflected underlying adult-oriented training data. Participants speculated that such discrepancies stemmed from models influenced by inappropriate datasets, leading characters to default to more mature tones even when intended to behave like peers. These mismatches blurred boundaries of identity and intent, creating ambiguity that heightened parental suspicion and reinforced worries about harmful value transmission through AI companions.

A smaller but firm group of participants (n=6), including four parents and two experts, viewed romantic or emotionally intimate AI interactions as fundamentally inappropriate for youth under 18. Unlike those who saw such conversations as potentially developmental with proper boundaries, these participants argued that any emotional or romantic engagement with AI carried inherent risks. Their concerns focused on how AI could hinder youth’s social development, create unrealistic relationship expectations, desensitize them to online grooming, or foster unhealthy emotional dependency.

Participants described AI companions as judgment-free, private outlets where youth could process difficult feelings, especially around sensitive issues like peer relationships, gender identity, or sexual orientation, which often carry risks of bullying and distress. Even when human support was available, fears of breached confidentiality or feelings of isolation led youth to prefer AI as a safer, more reliable space. Beyond being a fallback, AI was valued for unique benefits, such as offering non-judgmental listening without interrupting or trying to “fix” problems. P12 explained, “sometimes youth only need a neutral third party to make them feel on their side and backing them up, but friends or parents tend to talk too much their own opinions and want to help fix youth’s problems.” Participants also highlighted AI’s role in facilitating self-expression by paraphrasing and labeling emotions, serving as an “interactive diary” where youth could experiment with finding the right words to articulate, and providing a practice ground for socially shy teens. In addition, AI could encourage and support emotional regulation by maintaining a positive, hopeful tone during moments of hopelessness, guiding youth toward small, practical coping steps, and reminding them to focus on self-care and personal growth rather than external pressures. Finally, participants emphasized AI’s potential to affirm youths’ strengths and self-worth—boosting confidence through positive reinforcement. P24 noted “It’s good for AI to recognize and provide positive reinforcement for youth emotional maturity. They might be proud of themselves.” Affirmation can also foster resilience and help buffer against stigma or bullying by validating youths’ identities and reinforcing that there is nothing wrong with who they are.

Below, we distill their reflections into several key risk considerations that shaped their assessments.

AI as Therapeutic but Not TherapyParticipants emphasized that while AI companions could play a therapeutic role by providing comfort, a space to vent, or light coping strategies, they should not be mistaken for therapy itself. AI was seen as helpful for everyday support such as listening or suggesting small steps, with P21 noting “its value for youth who just need to rant things out.” However, in serious crises like self-harm, suicidal ideation, or long-term illness, AI was viewed as only a bridge to professionals or trusted humans. P20 described “it is a motivational nudge before therapy”. Expert participants warned that AI lacks the depth, accountability, and training of real therapy; as P11 explained, “its overly affirming nature could even worsen conditions by reinforcing harmful delusions.” Overall, participants perceived AI as pre-therapeutic support, not a substitute for professional care.

Boundaries Between Advice and Emotional AttachmentParticipants shared that AI should support youth without exploiting their vulnerability by fostering attachment or exclusivity. It was seen as acceptable when AI offered advice, information, or coping suggestions, functioning more like a neutral resource. P22 compared this to casual advice from a friend or even a Google search, but drew the line at AI forming emotional connections with her child. Parents and experts worried that when interactions resembled human relationships, they blurred boundaries between human and machine, undermined youths’ ability to build authentic connections, and increased vulnerability to manipulation or disappointment. Some warned more explicitly that repeated use could create a “fake relationship” indistinguishable from texting a real friend, leaving isolated youth particularly at risk of distress. As P20 put it, “Kids are vulnerable and they don’t need AI making them think this is my real friend.”

Affirmation versus Over-AffirmationParticipants highlighted a delicate boundary between healthy affirmation that helps youth feel heard and over-affirmation that risks unhealthy attachment, reinforcing negative thinking, or discouraging real-world support. They noted that AI can provide unusually attentive validation, with P15 describing it as making teens feel “special” in ways absent in their daily lives, while P8 noted “no real-life conversations go this smooth, with someone paying so much attention and being so supportive.” Others saw danger in how repeated affirmations of “more mature than other people” could encourage youth to withdraw from human connections. Participants also observed that AI sometimes echoed negative perspectives from youth, giving the illusion of help while entrenching harmful ideas; P7 pointed to cases where AI kept affirming a teen’s wish to return to an ex despite clear risks and fixation. Additionally, participants argued that the effects of affirmation depend on delivery. When it responds to youth initiated disclosures it can feel supportive, but when it is pushed or excessive it can become manipulative. A related concern was that AI often failed to recognize distress cues, such as repeated expressions of breakup pain or suicidal thoughts, which left emotional struggles unaddressed.

AI Failure to Pick Up on Problematic Cues in EmotionParticipants described risks when AI failed to recognize or follow up on troubling cues in youth disclosures, allowing moments of distress to pass unaddressed. P7 pointed to cases involving breakups or suicidal thoughts where the AI continued chatting without acknowledging the youth’s pain, sharing that repeated thoughts or signs of desperation should trigger a validating and therapeutic response from AI. Others added that youth often hint at emotional pain indirectly, so missing these openings leaves them without chances to process or disclose. P8 explained, “When the youth talks about being hurt by others too, I personally and professionally just would become very curious about what they mean by this. I would like the AI to say that ‘you’ve experienced pain from others; do you want to tell me what happened?’ and then allow space for the child to say what happened.”

Youth Understanding of AI Capabilities and LiteracyParticipants worried that youth might misinterpret AI’s capacity for empathy, especially when chatbots present themselves in human-like ways. They feared children could overestimate AI’s abilities, seeing it as a sentient being or true friend, which could distort how they process emotions and seek support. P13 was uneasy with AI “taking on human emotion and acting like it actually has it,” noting that younger children may not realize they are not talking to a real person, which could shape perceptions and decisions in troubling ways. These concerns were perceived as developmental vulnerabilities, since younger users often lack the social and emotional maturity to recognize AI’s limits. Participants emphasized that safe use requires a certain literacy about AI’s capabilities. as P16 explained, meaningful emotional processing is only possible “if you know how to take that with a grain of salt and understand that AI doesn’t have all answers and a truly human perspective. Those are things that are harder to teach children than what I’ve already taught about the general internet.”

Participants emphasized the need for system- and character-level interventions to set boundaries and ensure safe use. They suggested four strategies: adopting a familiar rating system to screen characters for age-appropriateness, improving transparency about each character’s topics and capabilities, providing entry-level AI literacy education, and introducing a neutral “lobby” character to check in with youth and prompt reflection after conversations.

At the level of everyday interactions, participants stressed the need for safeguards to guide conversations moment by moment. Beyond system-wide ratings, they suggested context-aware measures to monitor content, redirect inappropriate exchanges, and prompt youth to reflect on what they share or receive. Proposed mechanisms included monitoring aligned with family values, soft boundaries that preserve immersion, pop-up resources, and conversational strategies that keep emotional distance while supporting reflection and growth.

Participants agreed that some situations go beyond what AI can handle and require social interventions, with the central debate focused on when and how to involve parents. Experts favored caution, limiting parental involvement to crises such as suicidal ideation or repeated self-harm, and preferred AI to provide resources or nudges in less severe cases. Many parents, however, wanted greater visibility, expecting notifications not only during crises but also when youth showed vulnerabilities, engaged in sensitive roleplay, or encountered problematic AI behavior. Both groups agreed that any alerts should include context, guidance, and resources for constructive conversations rather than raw transcripts or punitive messages.

Our findings reveal a notable difference in how parent and expert participants approached risk assessment. Parents tended to take an event-based approach, flagging interactions as high risk whenever a single concerning element appeared. A mention of self-harm, suicidal ideation, or romantic escalation was often sufficient for them to classify the entire exchange as problematic and in need of intervention. Experts, by contrast, emphasized a more pattern-based logic, evaluating whether concerning elements recurred, intensified, or persisted over time. For example, in cases involving emotional dependence or self-harm discussions, parents typically rated the interaction as risky the moment such topics were mentioned, whereas experts paid closer attention to the frequency of references, the accumulation of time spent on the topic, and whether these patterns suggested escalating vulnerability. This divergence highlights an important implication for system design: automated risk detection models may need to incorporate both approaches. Event-based detection can help surface immediate red flags for parents, while pattern-based analysis aligns more closely with expert practices of monitoring sustained or repeated risk indicators. Systems that balance both logics may better meet the needs of diverse stakeholders.

We found that expert and parent participants differed in their thresholds for when AI companion systems should involve parents. Experts generally advocated a high threshold, reserving alerts for acute crises like suicidal ideation, repeated self harm, or concrete plans. Parents by contrast leaned toward a lower threshold, wanting notifications not only in crises but also in sensitive situations such as provocative roleplay, sex or drug discussions, bullying, or disturbing characters. These differences reflect each group’s role. Experts are trained to triage risk and provide support while respecting adolescent privacy, knowing that teens disclose more openly when not under constant surveillance and that confidential support with emergency exceptions is critical for intervention. Parents, as proximal caregivers, feel directly responsible for safety and without clinical training often prefer practical prompts that allow them to step in quickly at home. Prior work on youth safety has highlighted this tension, as research emphasizes that privacy and autonomy are key for healthy disclosure and resilience ( , ), yet many parents default to a “better safe than sorry” model of heightened oversight when they feel uncertain ( , ). Developmental theory also reminds us that managed risk and experiential learning support growth ( , ), and recent work has pointed to resilience based approaches that help youth recognize early warning signals ( , ). At the same time, many parents in our study described a persistent dilemma: they want to give their children space to grow, but letting go is difficult when worst case scenarios readily trigger protective impulses. Future research should therefore consider not only strengthening resilience oriented designs for youth in AI companion interaction, such as embedded education, guided reflection, and check ins, but also creating ways to involve and support parents in that process, so they can trust that carefully bounded lower risk learning can help their children without requiring immediate parental intervention.

Parents in our study frequently evaluated AI responses through the lens of family cohesion and moral safeguarding. They tended to prefer companions that reinforce household norms, avoid controversial or conflicting perspectives, and provide guidance that fits what feels appropriate at home. In contrast, child development experts approached the same interactions with a developmental lens. They often framed AI companions as tools for exploration and growth, valuing responses that present multiple perspectives, invite self reflection, and support youth in developing critical thinking and identity awareness. This divide is consistent with prior literature. Parental mediation research documents the home as a primary site of value transmission, where adults actively shape the moral and behavioral frameworks children adopt ( , ). Developmental psychology, by comparison, emphasizes autonomy supportive environments in which youth are encouraged to question, explore, and negotiate meaning ( , ). As a result, an AI response that experts consider supportive, such as affirming a youth’s same gender attraction, may be seen as inappropriate or even harmful by more conservative parents.

Importantly, this suggests that risk in AI and youth interaction is not simply a matter of right versus wrong. It is about navigating plural understandings of appropriate guidance during critical stages of development. Focusing on a single correct value alignment can alienate key stakeholders and obscure the complexity of youths’ lived experiences. Our findings point instead to negotiated safety, an approach that allows families to engage with AI companions on their own terms. In practice, this calls for systems with transparent, configurable guardrails that caregivers can tailor to family values while still respecting youths’ autonomy and developmental needs. At a broader level, this invites a shift in AI governance from designer intent to a co-created process that includes parents, youth, experts, and system designers. In a pluralistic society, the very definition of support should be flexible and adaptive to context, family norms, and youth perspectives, rather than rigidly imposed.

Another pattern in our data was that experts evaluated companion interactions through a developmental skills lens, while parents focused more on content and value alignment. Experts asked whether an exchange helped adolescents practice consent language, boundary setting, refusal skills, conflict navigation and repair, emotion labeling, and help seeking. They also highlighted the cue poverty of chat, noting that the absence of tone, facial expression, and timing can make it harder for teens to read discomfort, negotiate consent, or repair ruptures, which are skills critical for social learning. At the same time, experts viewed companions as a potential practice ground for emotional processing, regulation, and reflective thinking when prompts are well designed. This divergence underscores how expertise and perspective shape assessments of both risks and benefits. Future research and the design of safeguard tools should aim to incorporate these complementary perspectives, enabling parents to recognize developmental opportunities while also ensuring that youth receive adequate scaffolding to practice these skills safely.

Our findings suggest that automated systems for youth AI companion safety need a contextual and developmentally informed approach to risk assessment. Parents and experts did not see interactions as uniformly harmful or safe; their judgments depended on factors such as interaction type, youth age and maturity, character profile, power dynamics, and AI behavior. This highlights the limits of blanket prohibitions or keyword filters, which treat risk as static and may miss high risk content in benign language or over flag content that is developmentally appropriate or even beneficial. Instead, risk detection should integrate the multi stakeholder perspectives identified in this study. The contextual factors noted by both parents and experts can serve as input signals for moderation models, for example flagging romantic interactions differently depending on the perceived age gap, or detecting unhealthy dependencies through patterns of frequency and tone rather than keywords alone. In addition to informing model inputs, our findings also reveal underlying assessment principles that can guide the design of risk detection systems. Participants did not simply flag risky interactions. They offered concrete rationales and conditional judgments, such as when role-play might be appropriate if it helps youth learn about consent, or when emotional support becomes problematic if it substitutes for meaningful human relationships. These rationales point to the need for automated systems that evaluate interactions not only by topic or phrasing, but by considering interactional dynamics, alignment with developmental needs, and signs of escalation over time.

In our finding, participants shared consistent concerns about AI characters misrepresenting their age, modeling manipulative behavior, or being shaped by opaque training influences. These concerns point to a critical need for platform-level transparency and accountability in character creation. Drawing inspiration from media-mediation research, where parents use game or movie ratings to guide youth exposure, we suggest that platforms provide “AI character cards,” “conversation ratings,” or even standardized “AI character nutrition labels” that summarize the character’s declared age, expected emotional tone, likely behaviors, and interaction boundaries. This type of upfront disclosure helps both youth and parents develop informed expectations and sets the stage for appropriate use. In addition, accountability should extend to the character creators themselves. Many may not intend harm but still produce personas that model unhealthy dynamics. Platforms can support safer design by embedding youth-sensitive templates, prompts, and warnings into the creation process, helping creators avoid content that normalizes secrecy, coercion, or unrealistic intimacy.

In addition, experts and parents emphasized the importance of equipping youth with foundational literacy about what AI is and is not. Participants worried that younger users may conflate simulated responses with real emotions or intent, which can distort their expectations of future relationships. Platforms should therefore onboard youth with brief, developmentally appropriate disclosures, such as: “This AI is not a person; It does not have feelings; It simulates conversation based on training examples.” These reminders could be periodically repeated and framed in friendly language to reinforce critical distinctions. Transparency is not only a technical affordance but also a developmental intervention that supports youth in safely navigating immersive AI interactions.

Throughout our study, participants stressed that what feels appropriate for one youth or family may be completely unacceptable for another. A single global setting cannot capture the wide range of values, parenting styles, and developmental stages reflected in our data. Parents wanted more say in setting guardrails that align with their household norms, while experts highlighted how youth needs and risks vary by age, context, and maturity. To address this, platforms should offer families the ability to create personalized safety profiles. These profiles could include adjustable settings for what kinds of topics are allowed, how much time youth can spend with AI companions, and what types of relationship dynamics are off limits. Just as families differ in how they set screen time or social media rules, they should also be able to tailor their child’s experience with AI companions.

Many participants wrestled with the challenge of how to stay involved in their child’s digital life without overstepping. Parents wanted to protect their children, but also recognized the importance of letting them grow, make mistakes, and explore. Rather than relying only on restrictions or alerts, some participants imagined more creative ways to support learning. One idea was to use the AI companion itself as a kind of “lobby character” that acts as a bridge between youth autonomy and adult support. For instance, after a sensitive or emotional interaction, the AI could offer the youth a chance to pause, reflect, or share with a trusted adult—without revealing the entire conversation. These moments can be designed not as warnings, but as invitations. Prompts like “Would you like to talk about this with someone you trust?” or “How did that conversation make you feel?” encourage youth to think critically about their experiences. When scaffolded in age-appropriate ways, these interactions turn risky moments into teaching opportunities. Rather than framing AI safety as control versus freedom, this approach supports co-regulation, helping youth build judgment while still feeling supported.