← Kindness · 20 readings

Parenting Journal · Volume 2 · Issue 5 · Licensed source edition

How US Youth Use AI Chatbots: Conversation Patterns From Naturalistic Keystroke Observations

Originally published 2026-07-27 · Journal of Medical Internet Research
JMIR Publications Inc. · DOI 10.2196/95819 ↗

KindnessNaturalistic observational content studyCC BY 4.0
Ask this paper · Find source passages →

AI / system type

Contemporary generative AI chatbots and companions; observational use, not an intervention

Child-facing evidence

Examines children or child-focused systems. Transfer to everyday family life must be assessed separately.

The AI connection

Actual use of 88 apps whose main function was GenAI interaction; includes general-purpose and companion systems. An LLM also assisted research coding, which is distinct from the youth-facing systems.

Why this reading matters

Offers rare behavioral evidence of real GenAI support-seeking rather than survey intentions, while exposing major limits to interpreting apparent companionship.

Editorial reading guide · Kindness

What might my child be seeking when an AI conversation feels supportive or friend-like?

Shows what youth type into contemporary GenAI apps, including social practice, friend-like exchange and emotional support. Tool use dominated app-days; emotional-support codes were relatively uncommon but involved longer text. These observations can start a curious family discussion about the needs behind chatbot use; they do not show that AI provides effective care.

Study context

3363 US users of the paid Aura parental-monitoring app with its optional keyboard enabled; 42,355 user-app-days, January–September 2025.

Age / stage: Parent-reported ages 1–17; most users 10–17; ages below 10 especially uncertain

Read with three questions

  1. How do percentages of users differ from percentages of user-app-days when judging how common emotional support is?
  2. What can outgoing keystrokes reveal about a child’s needs when the researchers cannot see the chatbot’s replies?
  3. How might paid parental monitoring, optional keyboard use and uncertain birth dates change the apparent age patterns?

Keep the limits in view

Only outgoing mobile-app text was observed, with no chatbot responses or psychological outcomes. The selected monitored sample is not nationally representative. Parent-entered birth dates, shared devices and missing keyboard periods complicate age comparisons; toddler entries cannot establish toddler use. LLM coding with human checks may still misclassify themes.

The text below is the original article’s licensed repository edition. Its wording is not rewritten. Use the Paper Agent beside the text to locate evidence; open the source for figures, tables and complete context.

Opening the verified paper and agent…

Checking the article identity, license record, and saved source text.

Open the repository record

Attribution & reuse

Follow the original.

Original authorship, publication date, journal and DOI are preserved. This issue’s TRICK placement and reading questions are editorial additions, not claims made by the original authors.

Anne J Maheux; Debra Boeldt; Samir Akre-Bhide; Jessica Flannery; Allison Paige; Giavanna Villella; Kaitlyn Burnell; Eva H Telzer; Scott H Kollins (2026). How US Youth Use AI Chatbots: Conversation Patterns From Naturalistic Keystroke Observations Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/95819

Permissions checked against the saved article notice; repository publication notices screened 2026-11-04. This is not a new peer-review decision. The source authors and publishers are not represented as endorsing this issue.