Counseling Chatbot Design: The Effect of Anthropomorphic Chatbot Characteristics on User Self-Disclosure and Companionship

References

• Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Merget, D., & Schroeder, R. (2006). The effect of behavioral realism and form realism of real-time avatar faces on verbal disclosure, nonverbal disclosure, emotion recognition, and copresence in dyadic interaction. Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(4), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.15.4.359
   Google Scholar
• Baptist, A. P., Thompson, M., Grossman, K. S., Mohammed, L., Sy, A., & Sanders, G. M. (2011). Social media, text messaging, and email: Preferences of asthma patients between 12 and 40 years old. The Journal of Asthma, 48(8), 824–830. https://doi.org/10.3109/02770903.2011.608460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendig, E., Erb, B., Schulze-Thuesing, L., & Baumeister, H. (2019). The next generation: Chatbots in clinical psychology and psychotherapy to foster mental health – A scoping review. Verhaltenstherapie, 2019 Aug 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1159/000501812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beutler, L. E., Malik, M., Alimohamed, S., Harwood, T. M., Talebi, H., Noble, S., & Wong, E. (2004). Therapist variables. In M. J. Lambert, A. E. Bergin and S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 227–306). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bickmore, T. W., Caruso, L., Clough-Gorr, K., & Heeren, T. (2005). “It’s just like you talk to a friend” Relational agents for older adults. Interacting with Computers, 17(6), 711–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickmore, T. W., Puskar, K., Schlenk, E. A., Pfeifer, L. M., & Sereika, S. M. (2010). Maintaining reality: Relational agents for antipsychotic medication adherence. Interacting with Computers, 22(4), 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickmore, T., Schulman, D. (2007, April). Practical approaches to comforting users with relational agents. In CHI’07 extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2291–2296). https://doi.org/10.1145/1240866.1240996
   Google Scholar
• Biswas, M., Murray, J. C. (2015, September). Towards an imperfect robot for long-term companionship: Case studies using cognitive biases. In Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 5978–5983). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Blow, A. J., Sprenkle, D. H., & Davis, S. D. (2007). Is who delivers the treatment more important than the treatment itself? The role of the therapist in common factors. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(3), 298–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00029.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child development, 58(4), 1101–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callejas, Z., López-Cózar, R., Ábalos, N., & Griol, D. (2011). Affective conversational agents: The role of personality and emotion in spoken interactions. In Conversational agents and natural language interaction: Techniques and effective practices (pp. 203–222). IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Catrambone, R., Stasko, J., Xiao, J. (2019, April). Anthropomorphic agents as a user interface paradigm: Experimental findings and a framework for research. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 166–171). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, C. W., & Heo, J. (2014). Visiting theories that predict college students’ self-disclosure on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 30(January), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatfuel. (2015). Chatfuel. https://chatfuel.com.
   Google Scholar
• Cormier, S., & Hackney, H. L. (2013). Counseling strategies and interventions: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological bulletin, 79(2), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowther, B., & More, D. M. (1972). Occupational stereotyping on initial impressions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(72)90010-3
   Google Scholar
• Crutzen, R., Peters, G. J. Y., Portugal, S. D., Fisser, E. M., & Grolleman, J. J. (2011). An artificially intelligent chat agent that answers adolescents’ questions related to sex, drugs, and alcohol: An exploratory study. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(5), 514–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.09.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui, L., Huang, S., Wei, F., Tan, C., Duan, C., Zhou, M. (2017, July). Superagent: A customer service chatbot for e-commerce websites. In Proceedings of ACL 2017, System Demonstrations (pp. 97–102). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-4017
   Google Scholar
• De Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016). Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000092
   Google Scholar
• Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00480.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012, January). Social role theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2, 458–476.
   Google Scholar
• Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality (Vol. 689). Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire (junior & adult). Hodder and Stoughton Educational.
   Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feine, J., Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., & Maedche, A. (2020). Gender bias in chatbot design [Paper presentation]. International Workshop on Chatbot Research and Design (pp. 79–93), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Gabrielli, S., Rizzi, S., Bassi, G., Carbone, S., Maimone, R., Marchesoni, M., & Forti, S. (2021). Engagement and effectiveness of a healthy-coping intervention via chatbot for university students during the covid-19 pandemic: Mixed methods proof-of-concept study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(5), e27965. https://doi.org/10.2196/27965
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gong, L. (2008). How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1494–1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gratch, J., Kang, S. H., & Wang, N. (2013). Using social agents to explore theories of rapport and emotional resonance. In J. Gratch, & S. Marsella (Eds.), Social emotions in nature and artifact (pp. 181–197). OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Guo, Y., Yin, X., Liu, D., & Xu, S. X. (2020). “She is not just a computer”: Gender role of AI chatbots in debt collection [Paper presentation]. ICIS 2020 Proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2020/hci_artintel/hci_artintel/20
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, C. E., Wobbrock, J. O. (2000, June). Put your best face forward: Anthropomorphic agents, e-commerce consumers, and the law. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents (pp. 435–442).
   Google Scholar
• Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., Owen, J., & Wang, K. T. (2015). Research design in counseling. Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, E. E., & Zoppel, C. L. (1982). Impact of client and therapist gender on psychotherapy process and outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(2), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.50.2.259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jourard, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, D. M., Wampold, B. E., & Bolt, D. M. (2006). Therapist effects in psychotherapy: A random-effects modeling of the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program data. Psychotherapy Research, 16(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300500264911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S., Zhang, K., & Park, D. (2018). Don’t want to look dumb? The role of theories of intelligence and humanlike features in online help seeking. Psychological Science, 29(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617730595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. K. (2013). The dimensionality of clients’ perceptions of counselor’s factors as therapeutic factors. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 25(2), 203–226. https://kiss.kstudy.com/thesis/thesis-view.asp?key=3144279
   Google Scholar
• Koda, T. (1996). Agents with faces: A study on the effects of personification of software agents (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, K. M., Peng, W., Jin, S. A., & Yan, C. (2006). Can robots manifest personality? An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 754–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00318.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. C., Yamashita, N., Huang, Y., Fu, W. (2020, April 25–30). “I Hear You, I Feel You”: Encouraging deep self-disclosure through a chatbot [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12), Honolulu, HI, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Li, J., Zhou, M. X., Yang, H., Mark, G. (2017, March). Confiding in and listening to virtual agents: The effect of personality. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 275–286).
   Google Scholar
• Lutz, W., Leon, S. C., Martinovich, Z., Lyons, J. S., & Stiles, W. B. (2007). Therapist effects in outpatient psychotherapy: A three-level growth curve approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.1.32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, M. L. Y., & Leung, L. (2006). Unwillingness-to-communicate, perceptions of the Internet and self-disclosure in ICQ. Telematics and Informatics, 23(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2005.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Mairesse, F., Walker, M. (2007, June). PERSONAGE: Personality generation for dialogue. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 496–503).
   Google Scholar
• McTear, M., Callejas, Z., & Griol, D. (2016). Affective conversational interfaces. In The conversational interface (pp. 329–357). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, Y. (2000). Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1086/209566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass, C., & Lee, K. M. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7(3), 171–181.
   Google Scholar
• Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberlander, J., & Gill, A. J. (2006). Language with character: A stratified corpus comparison of individual differences in e-mail communication. Discourse Processes, 42(3), 239–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4203_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oost, E. V., & Reed, D. (2010). June Towards a sociological understanding of robots as companions. In International conference on human-robot personal relationship (pp. 11–18). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Park, H.-J., & Kim, K.-W. (2013). A review of the literature on the concept and content of intake interview. Korean Journal of Play Therapy, 16(2), 107–123. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001772092
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1296–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1296
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogler, L. H., & Cortes, D. E. (1993). Help-seeking pathways: A unifying concept in mental health care. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(4), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.150.4.554
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savin-Baden, M., Tombs, G., & Bhakta, R. (2015). Beyond robotic wastelands of time: Abandoned pedagogical agents and new pedalled pedagogies. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(3–4), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753015571835
   Google Scholar
• Seeger, A. M., Pfeiffer, J., & Heinzl, A. (2017, December). When do we need a human? Anthropomorphic design and trustworthiness of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Pre-ICIS Workshop on HCI Research in MIS (Vol 10). AISeL.
   Google Scholar
• Shumanov, M., & Johnson, L. (2021). Making conversations with chatbots more personalized. Computers in Human Behavior, 117(April), 106627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., Norton, M. I. (2009, October). Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 2563–2568). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Silvervarg, A., Raukola, K., Haake, M., Gulz, A. (2012, September). The effect of visual gender on abuse in conversation with ECAs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 153–160). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Snell, W. E. Jr., Hampton, B. R., & McManus, P. (1992). The impact of counselor and participant gender on willingness to discuss relational topics: Development of the relationship disclosure scale. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(3), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1992.tb01625.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tay, B., Jung, Y., & Park, T. (2014). When stereotypes meet robots: The double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human–robot interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 38(September), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terada, K., Jing, L., Yamada, S. (2015, April). Effects of agent appearance on customer buying motivations on online shopping sites. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 929–934).
   Google Scholar
• Thorne, A. (1987). The press of personality: A study of conversations between introverts and extraverts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 718–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.718
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracey, T. J. (1986). The stages of influence in counseling and psychotherapy. In F. J. Dorn (Ed.), The social influence process in counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 107–116). Charles C Thomas, Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Urbanbrush. (2019). Urbanbrush. https://www.urbanbrush.net/.
   Google Scholar
• Vaidyam, A. N., Wisniewski, H., Halamka, J. D., Kashavan, M. S., & Torous, J. B. (2019). Chatbots and conversational agents in mental health: A review of the psychiatric landscape. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64(7), 456–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743719828977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Lee, C., Croes, E., de Wit, J., & Antheunis, M. (2019). Digital confessions: Exploring the role of chatbots in self-disclosure. In Proceeding of Third International Workshop, CONVERSATIONS 2019 (p. 21). https://conversations2019.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/conversations_2019_position-paper_21_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wampold, B. E., & Brown, G. S. J. (2005). Estimating variability in outcomes attributable to therapists: A naturalistic study of outcomes in managed care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(5), 914–923. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.5.914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014). The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52(May), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welfel, E. R., & Patterson, L. E. (2005). The counseling process: A multitheoretical integrative approach. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Wheeless, L. R. (1976). Self‐disclosure and interpersonal solidarity: Measurement, validation, and relationships. Human Communication Research, 3(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00503.x
   Google Scholar
• Zanbaka, C., Goolkasian, P., Hodges, L. (2006, April). Can a virtual cat persuade you? The role of gender and realism in speaker persuasiveness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1153–1162).
   Google Scholar