Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Advertisement

Citing this Article

Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)

Published on 15.04.19 in Vol 7, No 4 (2019): April

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at http://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/11245, first published Jun 06, 2018.

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

    Viewpoint

    Mobile Health Interventions: Exploring the Use of Common Relationship Factors

    1Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States

    2Merrill-Palmer Skillman Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States

    3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States

    Corresponding Author:

    Emily R Grekin, PhD

    Department of Psychology

    Wayne State University

    5057 Woodward Ave

    Detroit, MI, 48202

    United States

    Phone: 1 313 577 2366

    Fax:1 313 577 7636

    Email:


    ABSTRACT

    The use of mobile health (mHealth) interventions has risen dramatically over the past two decades. It is important to consider mHealth intervention research within the broader therapy outcome literature. Among other key findings, this broader literature suggests that common relationship factors such as empathy, positive regard, and genuineness may play a critical role in therapy effectiveness. These findings raise intriguing questions for mobile interventions. For example, can mobile interventions incorporate aspects of common factors to augment their efficacy? Will the absence of relationship-based common factors make mobile interventions less effective? This viewpoint paper addresses these questions as well as related issues such as how to operationalize relationship qualities in the context of a mobile intervention and whether common relationship factors apply to computers or computerized narrators. The paper concludes by outlining a future research agenda guided by theory and empirical studies.

    JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019;7(4):e11245

    doi:10.2196/11245

    KEYWORDS



    Mobile Health Interventions and the Use of Common Relationship Factors

    Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have become increasingly prevalent in the scientific literature [1,2]. Currently, there are 7811 publications using the terms mobile intervention or e-intervention indexed on PsycINFO, including multiple meta-analyses within subareas of the field [3-5]. There are also more than 100,000 iPhone and Android apps specifically designed to target health-related behaviors [2]. Researchers working in this area often cite the potential of mHealth interventions to reach a large audience at low cost, regardless of barriers related to language, geographic location, or time. These factors make mHealth interventions uniquely applicable to nontreatment-seeking individuals, who may refuse extended, in-person treatment but accept a minimal, opportunistic intervention.

    However, it is important to consider this research within the broader, person-delivered therapy outcome literature. Among other key findings, this literature suggests that common relationship factors such as empathy, alliance, positive regard, and genuineness play a critical role in therapy effectiveness and account for unique variance in treatment efficacy above and beyond specific therapeutic techniques [6]. Specifically, ratings of therapist-client relationship factors have been shown to predict therapy outcome across rater type (eg, client, therapist, observer), observed relationship characteristics (eg, empathy, genuineness, alliance, cohesion), patient characteristics (eg, age, gender, race, diagnosis), stage of therapy (eg, early, middle, late), and theoretical orientation [6,7].

    These findings raise intriguing questions for mHealth interventions [1-4]. For example, will the absence of relationship-based common factors make mobile interventions less effective? Can mobile interventions incorporate aspects of common factors to augment their efficacy? Do qualities such as empathy and positive regard matter in the context of a mobile intervention? This review will address these questions as well as related issues such as how to operationalize relationship qualities in the context of a mobile intervention. In particular, we will (1) review research suggesting that humans react to computers in social ways and respond positively to software using human-like relational agents, (2) describe studies directly testing the hypothesis that common factors increase mHealth intervention efficacy, and (3) outline a future research agenda guided by both comprehensive theory and empirical studies.


    Responding to Computers in Social Ways

    Literature from the field of human-computer interaction suggests that people automatically and unconsciously react to computers in social ways [8,9]. Much of the early work in this area was conducted by Nass and colleagues who, through a wide-ranging series of studies, found that human-computer interactions, in some ways, mirrored human-human interactions. For example, Nass and colleagues [10] assigned participants to work with a computer on an interactive tutoring task in which the computer presented and tested participants on a series of facts. After the task, participants were asked to evaluate the computer’s performance. Participants completed the evaluation either (1) on the same computer that administered the task, (2) on a different computer in another room, or (3) on a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Results showed that participants gave more positive evaluations when the computer asked about its own performance versus when participants completed the evaluation on a separate computer or on a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Thus, participants appeared to apply social norms of politeness to the computer (despite denying that they did so in postexperimental interviews).

    In a similar study, Moon [11] examined how norms of self-disclosure were applied to computers. Participants were asked a series of interview questions by a computer (eg, “What have you done in your life that you feel most guilty about?” and “What do you dislike about your physical appearance?”). In the no-reciprocity condition, the computer simply asked each question without presenting additional information. In the reciprocity condition, the computer preceded each question with information about itself (eg, “There are times when this computer crashes for reasons that are not apparent to its user. It usually does this at the most inopportune time, causing great inconvenience for the user. What have you done in your life that you feel most guilty about?”). Results showed that participants in the reciprocity condition provided more and longer disclosures than participants in the no-reciprocity condition. They also reported being more attracted to the computer.

    Other studies suggest that humans respond positively to flattery from a computer. For example, Fogg and Nass [12] instructed participants to play a guessing game with a computer (similar to 20 questions). As part of the game, participants were asked to suggest guesses that might be useful to the computer in the future. They then received feedback about their suggestions from the computer (eg, “Your question makes an interesting and useful distinction. Great job!”). Participants in the sincere praise condition were told that feedback from the computer was directly related to their suggestions, participants in the flattery condition were told that computerized feedback was preprogrammed and unrelated to their suggestions, and participants in the generic feedback condition were given a neutral message (“Begin next round”). In reality, all feedback was preprogrammed and identical. Results showed that participants in the flattery condition reported more positive affect and gave higher ratings to the computer than participants in the generic feedback condition, even though they were told that computer feedback was unrelated to their responses. Moreover, responses from participants in the flattery and sincere praise conditions did not differ.

    Other data indicate that humans automatically apply social categories (eg, gender, ethnicity, ingroup, and outgroup) to computers. For example, Nass and colleagues [13] asked Korean male participants to read a series of hypothetical scenarios in which they had to choose between a risky versus a safe course of action. Participants were then instructed to ask a computerized agent what course of action he would recommend and why. Afterward, participants were asked to rate the computerized agent and the quality of his arguments. In some cases, the computerized agent was Asian (ie, the same ethnicity as the participant), whereas in other cases, he was white (ie, a different ethnicity than the participant). Results showed that participants rated same-ethnicity agents as being more attractive, trustworthy, persuasive, and intelligent than different ethnicity agents. Participants also felt that the same-ethnicity agent’s decision was closer to their own.

    In a similar study, Nass and colleagues [14] examined whether humans could feel in-group bias toward a computer. In this study, participants were assigned to either a shared identity condition or a nonshared identity condition. In the shared identity condition, participants and their computer were referred to as the blue team. Participants were asked to wear a blue armband and to work with a computer that had a blue border around its monitor. Participants in this condition were reminded that they were dependent upon the computer. In the nonshared identity condition, participants wore a blue armband and were referred to as the blue person, whereas the computer had a green border and was referred to as the green computer. Participants in this condition were asked to focus on individual responsibility. After being assigned to an identity condition, participants worked with the computer on a desert survival problem. They then ranked their interaction with the computer along a variety of indices. Results showed that participants in the shared identity condition rated the computer as being more friendly, intelligent, and similar to themselves than did participants in the nonshared identity condition. They were also more likely to cooperate with the computer and conform to its suggestions.

    Finally, data suggest that humans can feel ostracized by computers. For example, Zadro and colleagues [15] instructed participants to control the actions of an avatar who was playing a game of catch with 2 other avatars on a computer screen. Participants were told that, when they received the ball, they should click on 1 of the other 2 avatars to indicate where the ball should go next. In the low ostracism condition, participants received the ball multiple times throughout the game. In the high ostracism condition, participants only received the ball once or twice at the beginning of the game. Data revealed that, compared with low ostracism participants, high ostracism participants experienced a host of negative feelings, including anger and lowered feelings of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningfulness. Moreover, these feelings were produced even when participants (1) knew that they were playing against a computer rather than another human and (2) were explicitly told that the other characters’ actions were determined by a prewritten script.


    Electronic Coaches and Relational Agents

    Notably, although the studies described above demonstrate social responses to computers, the effect sizes reported in this literature have been small, suggesting that social reactions to computers, while consistently detectable, are smaller in magnitude than social reactions to actual humans. In addition, the extent to which these basic social reactions translate into therapeutic or long-term relationships is unclear (ie, we know that people apply social categories and in-group bias to computers, but can they also form therapeutic relationships with them?).

    Relevant to this issue are findings from the electronic intervention (e-intervention) literature suggesting that computerized interventions may be more effective when coupled with human support. In particular, recent studies have shown that human electronic coaches (e-coaches; ie, individuals such as nurses, therapists, or research assistants who provide support and assistance throughout an intervention) can increase intervention effectiveness and adherence [16,17]. For example, Tate and colleagues [18] randomly assigned a group of overweight adults to 1 of 3 e-interventions. In the no counseling condition, participants attended a single group session in which they were given specific weight loss strategies. They were then taught to use an interactive website that provided weekly weight loss tips, prompts to report weight, recipes, and the potential to connect online with others trying to lose weight. In the automated feedback condition, participants used the website described above in addition to receiving automated, weekly, tailored feedback from a preprogrammed computer. In the human counseling group, participants used the interactive website and received regular, personalized emails from a trained, human counselor. Results showed that, at 3-month follow-up, the automated feedback and the human counseling groups had greater weight loss than the no-counseling group, and there was no difference in weight loss between the 2 counseling conditions. In contrast, at 6-month follow-up, the human counseling group had greater weight loss than both the automated feedback and the no-counseling conditions.

    In a similar study, Gabriele and colleagues [19] assigned overweight adults to 1 of 3 weight loss intervention conditions: (1) a minimal support condition in which participants engaged with a Web-based weight loss program and were sent weekly lessons and feedback graphs; (2) a directive e-coach condition in which participants engaged with a Web-based online weight loss program and also received weekly emails from a directive coach who prescribed specific goals and plans; or (3) a nondirective e-coach condition in which participants engaged with a Web-based weight loss program and received weekly emails from a nondirective coach who allowed them to decide what goals to set and what strategies to follow. Results showed that females in the directive e-coach condition lost more weight, had greater increases in physical activity, and had greater changes in waist circumference than females in the nondirective or minimal support conditions.

    Building upon these and other studies, Mohr and colleagues outlined the supportive accountability model, which describes how human support can enhance electronic health interventions [20]. According to this model, adherence to e-interventions is enhanced by coaches who are trustworthy, collaborative, able to provide patients with clear benefits and expertise, and explicit about expectations and accountability processes. Mohr and colleagues also hypothesize that the relationship between human support and e-intervention adherence is moderated by patient motivation and communication medium.

    Notably, the supportive accountability model focuses exclusively on human support and does not address the degree to which e-interventions can be enhanced by support from nonhuman coaches, such as relational agents, or by purposeful inclusion of lifelike characteristics. Relational agents are “computational artifacts, such as animated, screen-based characters or social robots, that are designed to establish a sense of rapport, trust, and even therapeutic alliance with patients,” by whatever means are appropriate [21]. A growing body of literature suggests that computerized relational agents are satisfying to work with, can provide support, and can help with a variety of diverse tasks [22,23]. For example, Bickmore and colleagues [24] developed an animated relational agent designed to help individuals find cancer-related clinical trials using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) database. Participants were 89 individuals with a cancer diagnosis and varying levels of health literacy. All participants were asked to search the NCI database for 1 clinical trial that met their needs and 1 clinical trial that met the needs of a hypothetical patient. Half of the participants were assigned to use the standard database search engine; the other half interacted with a relational agent who facilitated the search by asking questions, helping to narrow down search criteria, and explaining characteristics of identified clinical trials. The relational agent was an animated female who used synthetic speech and nonverbal behaviors (such as hand gestures, facial displays, gaze, and use of props). Results revealed that participants in the relational agent group were more satisfied and pleased and less frustrated with the search task than participants in the control group. In addition, participants with low health literacy in the relational agent group were significantly better at identifying clinical trials for a hypothetical patient than participants with low health literacy in the control group.

    In a related study, Gardiner and colleagues [25] assigned 61 women to (1) a condition in which they interacted with a computerized relational agent who provided information on stress management, mindfulness, healthy eating, and physical activity or (2) a control condition in which they met for 60 min with a technician who reviewed education sheets about stress management, mindfulness, healthy eating, and physical activity and were given a CD containing meditation and mindfulness exercises. Results showed that, compared with the control group, women who interacted with the computerized relational agent increased their fruit consumption and decreased their use of alcohol to cope with stress. They also made positive comments about their interactions with the relational agent, such as, “She relates to my stress” and “She helped me relax.”

    Chattaraman and colleagues [26] created a relational agent to help older adults navigate through a Web-based retail store. A total of 60 participants (mean age: 69 years) were assigned to purchase a set of clothing on a mock website. In addition, half of the participants were assisted by a relational agent (Gina) who interacted with them throughout the task. Results showed that the presence of a relational agent increased perceived social support, trust, and intentions to use the Web-based store. In addition, the effects of the agent on trust were mediated by perceived social support, and the effects of the agent on intentions to use the store were mediated by trust.

    The effectiveness of relational agents has also been demonstrated by studies of social robots (ie, robots that interact with humans and exhibit social behaviors; [27,28]. Similar to computerized relational agents, social robots have demonstrated acceptability and usefulness [27,29]. They also tend to elicit social behaviors and anthropomorphization. For example, de Graaf and colleagues [27] conducted a qualitative study examining older adults’ acceptance of an in-home social robot (Harvey, a 12-inch-tall rabbit with moving ears and blinking lights). The robot was designed to initiate at least three conversations per day with participants and alternated between 3 states: sleeping, alert, and engaged (ie, listening and talking). The robot was installed in each participant’s home for three 10-day periods. Afterward, participants were interviewed about their experience, and their responses were coded for content. Participants tended to attribute human-like qualities to the robot (from de Graaf and colleagues [27]):

    The rabbit itself was kind of sweet. If it was furry, I would stroke it.
    Because Harvey was Harvey, I talked to him as a male, and males do tend to get on your nerves from time to time...

    Participants also followed social rules, such as politeness, when interacting with the robot:

    So whether it’s a machine that talks to you or somebody who’s going to stay, you have got to have some communication with them just out of sheer politeness and friendliness...

    All but one participant noted Harvey’s potential for companionship:

    I got used to the idea that it would greet me in the morning.

    Finally, studies from the intervention literature have shown that individuals are able to establish working alliances with relational agents and software programs. For example, Kiluk and colleagues [30] assessed working alliance in a sample of cocaine-dependent patients who were assigned to either treatment as usual (TAU: methadone maintenance plus regular sessions with a counselor) or TAU plus 7 sessions of a computerized cognitive behavioral intervention. Several times throughout the study, participants completed the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI), a measure designed to assess alliance with the therapist along 3 dimensions: task (therapist responsiveness to client needs), bond (mutual liking between therapist and client), and goal (extent to which therapy goals are agreed upon and attainable). In addition, participants who completed the computerized intervention were given an adapted version of the WAI (the WAI-Tech) designed to assess alliance with the computer program. Results showed that mean scores on the task and goal scales of the WAI-Tech were similar to (and sometimes higher than) mean scores on the task and goal scales on the WAI. In contrast, bond scores on WAI-Tech, while consistently above the neutral midpoint, were lower than bond scores on the WAI.


    Strengthening the Effects of Relational Agents

    As the literature on computerized relational agents has expanded, researchers have begun to focus on factors that strengthen their effects. In particular, some studies suggest that greater agent anthropomorphism and behavioral realism lead to high-quality social interaction. For example, Gong [31] asked undergraduates to work through a series of social dilemma scenarios with a computerized agent. The agents represented 4 levels of anthropomorphism, ranging from humanoid robot characters to actual human faces. After completing the task, participants rated the agent on competency, trust, homophily, and social judgment. Results showed that, as the agent became more anthropomorphic, ratings in all domains became more positive. Similarly, Lee and Nass [32] asked undergraduates to participate in a conformity experiment with 1 to 4 fictional participants whose opinions were represented with a text box, a stick figure with a speech bubble, or a fully animated figure with facial expressions, body movements, and a speech bubble. Although the text box condition unexpectedly elicited the most conformity, the animated character was rated as the most trustworthy, competent, and socially attractive.

    Notably, some studies in this area have yielded null results [33,34]. Others have failed to control for agent attractiveness or have confounded anthropomorphism with modality; that is, rather than varying anthropomorphism within modality (ie, comparing faces or agents with varying levels of humanness), these studies compare text on the computer screen (the low anthropomorphic stimulus) with faces or agents (the high anthropomorphic stimulus [31]). It should also be noted that the effects of anthropomorphism may be moderated by individual difference variables such as need for social connection [35] or participant/agent ethnicity match [36]. Finally, some data suggest that when agents are too realistic (ie, when they have a near perfect human likeness), they can elicit negative reactions and cause discomfort (ie, the uncanny valley phenomenon [37,38]).

    Another body of literature compares relational agents (animated figures whose speech and actions reflect computer algorithms) with avatars (animated figures whose speech and actions are controlled by a real person in real time). It is often assumed that avatars have more social influence than relational agents because they are controlled by real people (ie, the agency assumption). However, research testing this assumption has yielded mixed results, with some studies finding that avatars elicit more social behavior than agents [39-41] and others finding no difference between the 2 types of digital representations [42]. Recent meta-analytic data suggest that avatars do, in fact, have more influence over behavior than agents but that the effect of agency (ie, avatar vs agent) is moderated by several variables including task type (cooperative/competitive/neutral), level of immersion, subjective versus objective dependent variables, and whether the representation is actually controlled by a human [43].


    Implications for Mobile Interventions

    The findings reviewed above suggest that (1) humans automatically relate to computers/agents in social ways, (2) certain relational characteristics (anthropomorphism, agency, etc) may strengthen the social response to computers/agents, and (3) relational agents with human-like qualities can facilitate behavior change. These findings have important implications for mHealth/e-interventions and their therapeutic mechanisms. Specifically, they suggest that mobile interventions—particularly those with anthropomorphic agents or avatars—may activate social cognitions and expectations that may, in turn, affect intervention response. However, the degree to which these social reactions can be harnessed to improve mHealth or e-intervention efficacy is only beginning to be examined. In fact, only a small handful of studies have directly tested whether relational factors (eg, empathy, positive regard, humor, and genuineness) can increase the acceptability and/or efficacy of these interventions.

    In 1 of the few studies directly examining this question, Bickmore and Picard [44] assigned 101 healthy adults to work with 1 of 3 exercise promotion programs: a relational program, a nonrelational program, or a control program. In all 3 programs, participants recorded their daily activity for 30 days. Participants in the relational program interacted with a computerized, relational agent who used social dialogue, empathic feedback, humor, and a variety of other relational behaviors. Participants in the nonrelational program interacted with a computerized, nonrelational agent who provided information about exercise in the absence of relational behaviors (she did not provide empathy, humor, dialogue, etc). Participants in the control condition did not interact with a computerized agent. Results showed that participants liked, trusted, and respected the relational agent more than the nonrelational agent. In addition, participants expressed more desire to continue working with the relational versus the nonrelational agent.

    Similarly, Berry and colleagues [45] presented a healthy eating message to undergraduates using either text, a voice, a human actor, or a relational agent named GRETA. GRETA either (1) expressed emotion consistent with the message she was presenting (eg, smiling while talking about health benefits), (2) expressed emotion inconsistent with the message she was presenting (eg, looking concerned while talking about health benefits), or (3) did not express emotion (neutral condition). Participants rated evidence provided by the neutral version of GRETA as more convincing, more trustworthy, and of higher quality than the evidence provided by the emotional versions of GRETA. However, participants had the greatest recall for the healthy eating message that was presented by the consistent emotion version of GRETA, suggesting that emotionally consistent facial cues may aid in encoding and recall.

    Other studies have focused specifically on empathy in relational agents. For example, Brave and colleagues [46] instructed 96 participants to play a game of blackjack with a computerized relational agent. At the end of each blackjack round, the agent made 1 comment about his/her performance and 1 comment about the participant’s performance. A total of 2 primary variables were manipulated: the presence versus absence of empathic emotion and the presence versus absence of self-oriented emotion (the authors also manipulated the gender of the agent). When empathic emotion was present, the agent made empathic comments about the participant’s performance after each round (“You won! That’s wonderful!”). When self-oriented emotion was present, the agent made emotional comments about his/her own performance after each round (“The dealer beat me, I’m disappointed”). When empathic and/or self-oriented emotion were absent, the agent’s comments were factual and did not contain emotion words (eg, “I won” or “The dealer beat you”). At the end of the game, participants rated the agent on a variety of dimensions. Similar to Bickmore and Picard [44] and Berry and colleagues [45], empathic agents were rated as more caring, likeable, trustworthy, and supportive than nonempathic agents. In contrast, self-oriented emotion had little effect on perceptions of the agent.

    In another direct test of agent empathy, Ellis and colleagues [47] examined whether expressions of empathy from an animated relational agent improved the efficacy of a brief, motivational intervention for alcohol use. A total of 100 heavy-drinking undergraduates were randomly assigned to either a high or a low empathy version of the intervention. In the high empathy intervention, a relational agent used standard motivational interviewing techniques and made a series of personalized empathic reflections (eg, “You really like the way alcohol helps you to relax.”). In the low empathy intervention, the agent used motivational interviewing strategies but did not make any empathic reflections. Intentions to reduce drinking were assessed both before and after the intervention, and a change score was calculated. Similar to previously reviewed studies, results showed that participants who worked with high empathy relational agents felt more supported and less criticized than participants who worked with low empathy relational agents. In addition, participants who worked with high empathy agents reported greater increases in intentions to reduce drinking over the course of the study than those who worked with low empathy agents. Thus, the presence of an empathic relational agent improved likeability and led to greater increases in intention to change alcohol use.

    In sum, early studies imply that mHealth and e-interventions can be effective, not just by providing information and/or skills training but also by establishing a therapeutic relationship with a client based on qualities such as respect and empathy. Although more research is clearly needed, existing data are promising and suggest the potential for improving computerized intervention outcomes.


    Mobile Interventions as a Platform for Testing Relationship Factors

    The studies reviewed above also highlight the methodological advantages of using mobile interventions as a platform for testing relational factors. In particular, computerized interventions facilitate testing of relationship factors using random assignment. To date, virtually all in-person common factors research has been correlational because of the practical and ethical barriers associated with manipulating common factors during in-person therapy (eg, therapists cannot reliably alter their levels of empathy and positive regard for clients in different study conditions). As a result, it is unclear whether client traits elicit reactions from therapists (eg, motivated clients may elicit more positive, empathic responses than unmotivated clients) or whether therapist behavior elicits reactions from clients (eg, empathic therapists may elicit more motivation from clients). In addition, it is unclear whether common factors are the cause or the result of a successful therapy outcome (eg, does empathy cause less substance use or does less substance use elicit more empathy?). Software, on the other hand, can be easily programmed to include (or not include) common factors such as reflections, statements of affirmation, humor, etc. Moreover, clients can be randomly assigned to different versions of a computer program (eg, a version with an empathic vs a nonempathic relational agent), with the knowledge that the computer will not be affected by the clients’ behavior in undesired ways. Finally, mHealth interventions can reach large numbers of participants by reducing barriers associated with cost, transportation, and treatment-related stigma. These increased sample sizes allow researchers to examine moderators (ie, for whom and in what contexts do relational factors increase intervention effectiveness). Thus, by using random assignment, reaching large numbers of participants, and systematically manipulating the presence of relationship factors in mobile interventions, it is possible to examine associations between computerized interventions and common factors in a novel and effective way.


    Future Research

    Despite the widespread use of both mHealth interventions and relational agents, few studies have systematically examined ways in which relational factors affect the acceptability and efficacy of mobile interventions. There are also some notable gaps in the literature. For example, the ways in which relational factors have been operationalized, delivered, and analyzed has varied widely, making it difficult to generalize across studies. In addition, few studies have examined whether individual difference factors (eg, impulsiveness and loneliness), target behaviors (eg, substance use and weight loss), or contextual factors (eg, social support and impairment) moderate the relationship between relational factors and outcomes. Finally, studies have not examined whether intervention length (ie, single vs multiple session) moderates the effects of relational factors.

    As the field moves forward, there are a multitude of potential investigative avenues to explore. However, the following research designs may be particularly fruitful in providing information and helping to make mHealth interventions more powerful:

    1. Studies directly comparing mHealth interventions with and without relational factors using random assignment to condition. Few studies have attempted these direct comparisons. Those that have done so have examined widely varying target behaviors, intervention techniques, and relational factors, making it difficult to generalize across studies or draw firm conclusions.
    2. Studies examining how to best operationalize relational factors in the context of mobile interventions. For example, what is the best way for a relational agent to express empathy? Are certain types of humor ineffective when expressed by a computerized agent? Can individuals perceive computerized agents as genuine? Although many studies have used relational agents, few have systematically examined ways to operationalize the common factors expressed by these agents.
    3. Studies examining interactions between relational factors. For example, it is possible that expressions of empathy work best when they are delivered by highly realistic agents who use gestures and dynamic facial expressions. Similarly, it is possible that a participant/agent therapeutic alliance can only be established when the role of humans in developing the agent is emphasized.
    4. Studies examining the degree to which computerized relational factors interact with individual difference variables. It is possible that specific traits or characteristics (eg, extraversion or loneliness) affect how individuals respond to computerized expressions of common factors. For example, individuals who are high in agreeableness may value empathy or humor within an mHealth intervention more than individuals who are low on these traits.
    5. Studies comparing the effects of relational factors on single session versus more extended mHealth interventions. It is possible that certain relational factors (eg, empathy and genuineness) are more effective when delivered in extended interventions, whereas others (eg, humor) may be effective in brief and extended interventions.
    6. Studies comparing interactions with real people with interactions with relational agents. There have been few direct comparisons between the use of an e-coach and the use of a computerized relational agent, and the degree to which relational agents can produce equivalent results as human e-coaches is unclear.

    The above are but a few examples of how research using mobile interventions could evaluate the potential role of common factors in facilitating key outcomes such as engagement, retention, and efficacy. Although extensive research is needed in this field, it appears that incorporation of relational factors is a promising strategy that may make a meaningful difference in mHealth intervention efficacy.

    Acknowledgments

    This study was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Grant R21 AA02366001A1 to ERG.

    Conflicts of Interest

    SJO reports part ownership of a company marketing authorable e-intervention software. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.

    References

    1. Shingleton RM, Palfai TP. Technology-delivered adaptations of motivational interviewing for health-related behaviors: a systematic review of the current research. Patient Educ Couns 2016 Jan;99(1):17-35 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Zhao J, Freeman B, Li M. Can mobile phone apps influence people's health behavior change? An evidence review. J Med Internet Res 2016 Oct 31;18(11):e287 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Boumparis N, Karyotaki E, Schaub MP, Cuijpers P, Riper H. Internet interventions for adult illicit substance users: a meta-analysis. Addiction 2017 Sep;112(9):1521-1532 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Lindhiem O, Bennett CB, Rosen D, Silk J. Mobile technology boosts the effectiveness of psychotherapy and behavioral interventions: a meta-analysis. Behav Modif 2015 Nov;39(6):785-804. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Spijkerman MP, Pots WT, Bohlmeijer ET. Effectiveness of online mindfulness-based interventions in improving mental health: a review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin Psychol Rev 2016 Apr;45:102-114 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Norcross JC, Wampold BE. Evidence-based therapy relationships: research conclusions and clinical practices. Psychotherapy (Chic) 2011 Mar;48(1):98-102. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Norcross JC, Lambert MJ. Psychotherapy relationships that work II. Psychotherapy (Chic) 2011 Mar;48(1):4-8. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Nass C, Moon Y. Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 2000 Jan;56(1):81-103 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    9. Reeves B, Nass C. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, And New Media Like Real People And Places (csli Lecture Notes S). Stanford, CA: Center For The Study Of Language And Inf; 2019.
    10. Nass C, Moon Y, Carney P. Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. J Appl Soc Pyschol 1999 May;29(5):1093-1109. [CrossRef]
    11. Moon Y. Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self‐disclosure from consumers. J Consum Res 2000 Mar;26(4):323-339. [CrossRef]
    12. Fogg B, Nass C. Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. Int J Hum Comput Stud 1997 May;46(5):551-561. [CrossRef]
    13. Justine C. Embodied Conversational Agents (mit Press). Cambridge, MA: The Mit Press; 2019.
    14. Nass C, Fogg BJ, Moon Y. Can computers be teammates? Int J Hum Comput Stud 1996 Dec;45(6):669-678 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    15. Zadro L, Williams KD, Richardson R. How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. J Exp Soc Psychol 2004 Jul;40(4):560-567. [CrossRef]
    16. Tate DF, Wing RR, Winett RA. Using internet technology to deliver a behavioral weight loss program. J Am Med Assoc 2001 Mar 7;285(9):1172-1177. [Medline]
    17. Tate DF, Jackvony EH, Wing RR. Effects of internet behavioral counseling on weight loss in adults at risk for type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc 2003 Apr 9;289(14):1833-1836. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Tate DF, Jackvony EH, Wing RR. A randomized trial comparing human e-mail counseling, computer-automated tailored counseling, and no counseling in an internet weight loss program. Arch Intern Med 2006 Aug;166(15):1620-1625. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Gabriele JM, Carpenter BD, Tate DF, Fisher EB. Directive and nondirective e-coach support for weight loss in overweight adults. Ann Behav Med 2011 Apr;41(2):252-263 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Mohr DC, Cuijpers P, Lehman K. Supportive accountability: a model for providing human support to enhance adherence to eHealth interventions. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(1):e30 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Bickmore T, Gruber A. Relational agents in clinical psychiatry. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2010;18(2):119-130. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Sillice MA, Morokoff PJ, Ferszt G, Bickmore T, Bock BC, Lantini R, et al. Using relational agents to promote exercise and sun protection: assessment of participants' experiences with two interventions. J Med Internet Res 2018 Feb 07;20(2):e48 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Scholten MR, Kelders SM, Van Gemert-Pijnen JE. Self-guided web-based interventions: scoping review on user needs and the potential of embodied conversational agents to address them. J Med Internet Res 2017 Dec 16;19(11):e383 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Bickmore TW, Utami D, Matsuyama R, Paasche-Orlow MK. Improving access to online health information with conversational agents: a randomized controlled experiment. J Med Internet Res 2016;18(1):e1 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Gardiner PM, McCue KD, Negash LM, Cheng T, White LF, Yinusa-Nyahkoon L, et al. Engaging women with an embodied conversational agent to deliver mindfulness and lifestyle recommendations: A feasibility randomized control trial. Patient Educ Couns 2017 Sep;100(9):1720-1729. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Chattaraman V, Kwon W, Gilbert JE. Virtual agents in retail web sites: benefits of simulated social interaction for older users. Comput Human Behav 2012 Nov;28(6):2055-2066 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    27. de Graaf MM, Allouch SB, Klamer T. Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Comput Human Behav 2015 Feb;43:1-14. [CrossRef]
    28. Young JE, Hawkins R, Sharlin E, Igarashi T. Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J of Soc Robotics 2008 Nov 18;1(1):95-108. [CrossRef]
    29. Kanda T, Sata R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H. A two month trial in an elementary school for long term interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 2007;23:962-971 [FREE Full text]
    30. Kiluk BD, Serafini K, Frankforter T, Nich C, Carroll KM. Only connect: the working alliance in computer-based cognitive behavioral therapy. Behav Res Ther 2014 Dec;63:139-146. [CrossRef]
    31. Gong L. How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Comput Human Behav 2008 Jul;24(4):1494-1509. [CrossRef]
    32. Lee EJ, Nass C. Experimental tests of normative group influence and representation effects in computer-mediated communication: when interacting via computers differs from interacting with computers. Human Comm Res 2002 Jul;28(3):349-381. [CrossRef]
    33. Nowak KL. The influence of anthropomorphism and agency on social judgment in virtual environments. J Comput Mediat Commun 2004;9:00-00. [CrossRef]
    34. Nowak KL, Biocca F. The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence (Camb) 2003 Oct;12(5):481-494. [CrossRef]
    35. Powers KE, Worsham AL, Freeman JB, Wheatley T, Heatherton TF. Social connection modulates perceptions of animacy. Psychol Sci 2014 Oct;25(10):1943-1948 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Pratt JA, Hauser K, Ugray Z, Patterson O. Looking at human–computer interface design: effects of ethnicity in computer agents. Interact Comput 2007 Jul;19(4):512-523. [CrossRef]
    37. Mori M, MacDorman K, Kageki N. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot Automat Mag 2012 Jun;19(2):98-100. [CrossRef]
    38. Tinwell A, Grimshaw M, Nabi D, Williams A. Facial expression of emotion and perception of the Uncanny Valley in virtual characters. Comput Human Behav 2011 Mar;27(2):741-749 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    39. Guadagno R, Blascovich J, Bailenson J, McCall C. Virtual humans and persuasion: the effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychol 2007;10:22. [CrossRef]
    40. Hoyt CL, Blascovich J, Swinth KR. Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence (Camb) 2003 Apr;12(2):183-195. [CrossRef]
    41. Morkes J, Kernal HK, Nass C. Effects of humor in task-oriented human-computer interaction and computermediated communication: a direct test of SRCT theory. Hum Comput Interact 2009 Nov 12;14(4):395-435. [CrossRef]
    42. Appel J, von der Pütten A, Krämer NC, Gratch J. Does humanity matter? Analyzing the importance of social cues and perceived agency of a computer system for the emergence of social reactions during human-computer interaction. Adv Hum Comput Interact 2012;2012:1-10. [CrossRef]
    43. Fox J, Ahn S, Janssen J, Yeykelis L, Segovia K, Bailenson J. Avatars versus agents: a meta-analysis quantifying the effect of agency on social influence. Hum Comput Interact 2015:A [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    44. Bickmore TW, Picard RW. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 2005 Jun 01;12(2):293-327. [CrossRef]
    45. Berry DC, Butler LT, de Rosis F. Evaluating a realistic agent in an advice-giving task. Int J Hum Comput Stud 2005 Sep;63(3):304-327. [CrossRef]
    46. Brave S, Nass C, Hutchinson K. Computers that care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. Int J Hum Comput Stud 2005 Feb;62(2):161-178 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    47. Ellis JD, Grekin ER, Beatty JR, McGoron L, LaLiberte BV, Pop DE, et al. Effects of narrator empathy in a computer delivered brief intervention for alcohol use. Contemp Clin Trials 2017 Oct;61:29-32. [CrossRef] [Medline]


    Abbreviations

    e-coach: electronic coach
    e-intervention: electronic intervention
    mHealth: mobile health
    NCI: National Cancer Institute
    TAU: treatment as usual
    WAI: Working Alliance Inventory


    Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 06.06.18; peer-reviewed by M Schaub, A Kassavou, T Bickmore; comments to author 06.10.18; revised version received 06.11.18; accepted 12.11.18; published 15.04.19

    ©Emily R Grekin, Jessica R Beatty, Steven J Ondersma. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 15.04.2019.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.