CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Digital Mental Health InterventionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

“Clicking vs. Writing”—The Impact of a Chatbot’s Interaction Method on the Working Alliance in AI-based Coaching

Open access
Mai, Vanessa, Neef, Caterina, Richert, Anja·2022·Coaching | Theorie & Praxis
DOI 10.1365/s40896-021-00063-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Coaching has become an important didactic tool for reflecting learning processes in higher education. Digital media and AI-based technologies such as chatbots can support stimulating self-coaching processes. For the use case of student coaching on the topic of exam anxiety, the working alliance between a coaching chatbot and a human coachee is investigated. Two coachbot interaction methods are compared: A click-based chatbot (implemented in a rule-based system), where the coachee can only click on one answer, and a writing-based chatbot (implemented in a conversational AI), which allows the coachee to freely type in their answers. The focus is on which coachbot interaction method enables a stronger working alliance between coach and coachee: a click-based or a writing-based chatbot. The working alliance and the technical realization of the chatbot systems were investigated in an exploratory quantitative study with 21 engineering students. The results indicate that the working alliance in both study conditions can be classified as medium to high overall. The results further show higher values for bonding on a writing-based platform than when using a click-based system. However, click-based systems seem to be more helpful as a low-threshold entry point to coaching, as they guide coachees better through the process by providing predefined answers. An evaluation of the technical realization shows that self-reflection processes through digital self-coaching via chatbot are generally well accepted by students. For further development and research, it is therefore recommendable to develop a “mixed” coachbot that allows interaction via clicking as well as via free writing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1365/s40896-021-00063-3

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Chatbots show promise to improve end user eHealth engagement and may help users develop a therapeutic alliance with the eHealth application.

    “Chatbots show promise to improve end user eHealth engagement and may help users develop a therapeutic alliance with the eHealth application [17–19].”

    From Patient Engagement with Conversational Agents in Health Applications 2016–2022: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    Section 5.1 reports a medium-to-high working alliance with the coaching chatbot, and Section 2.3 reports that users established a working alliance with a health care chatbot. These passages support the possibility of an alliance, but the paper does not show that chatbots improve end-user eHealth engagement. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Conversational agents offer a potential solution to improve eHealth app uptake and treatment adherence.

    “Conversational agents, or ‘chatbots’, offer a potential solution to improve eHealth app uptake and treatment adherence [17–19].”

    From Patient Engagement with Conversational Agents in Health Applications 2016–2022: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Introduction describes chatbots used to support mental or emotional health, and §5.1 discusses working alliance in chatbot coaching. Neither passage addresses whether conversational agents improve eHealth app uptake or treatment adherence; searches for those outcomes found no supporting passage in our copy. Page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Barton, T., & Müller, C. (2021). Künstliche Intelligenz in der Anwen- dung. Springer.
  2. Berninger-Schäfer, E. (2018). Online-Coaching. Springer.
  3. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic con- cept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252-260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00858855. · DOI
  4. Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2017). Why people use chatbots. Internet Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10673, 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_30. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Brandão, T. K., & Wolfram, G. (2018). Digital Connection: Die bessere Customer Journey mit smarten Technologien -Strategie und Praxisbeispiele. Springer.
  6. Deepika, K., Tilekya, V., Mamatha, J., & Subetha, T. (2020). Jollity chatbot-a contextual AI assistant. 2020 Third International Con- ference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT). (pp. 1196-1200). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSIT48917.2020. 9214076. · DOI
  7. Følstad, A., & Brandtzæg, P. B. (2017). Chatbots and the new world of HCI. interactions, 24(4), 38-42.
  8. Følstad, A., Skjuve, M., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2019). Different chat- bots for different purposes: towards a typology of chatbots to V. Mai et al. understand interaction design. Internet Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11551, 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-17705-8_13. · DOI
  9. Grant, A. M. (2014). Autonomy support, relationship satisfaction and goal focus in the coach-coachee relationship: which best predicts coaching success? Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 7(1), 18-38.
  10. Graßmann, C., & Schermuly, C. (2016). Side effects of business coach- ing and their predictors from the coachees' perspective. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(4), 152-163.
  11. Graßmann, C., & Schermuly, C. C. (2021). Coaching with artificial in- telligence: concepts and capabilities. Human Resource Develop- ment Review, 20(1), 106-126.
  12. Graßmann, C., Schölmerich, F., & Schermuly, C. C. (2019). The rela- tionship between working alliance and client outcomes in coach- ing: a meta-analysis. Human Relations, 73(1), 35-58.
  13. Gratch, J., Lucas, G. M., King, A. A., & Morency, L. P. (2014). It's only a computer: The impact of human-agent interaction in clinical in- terviews. In Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 85-92). https:// doi.org/10.5555/2615731.2615748. · DOI
  14. Gratch, J., Wang, N., Gerten, J., Fast, E., & Duffy, R. (2007). Creating rapport with virtual agents. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, 4722, 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74997-4_12. · DOI · Paper page
  15. de Haan, E., Grant, A. M., Burger, Y., & Eriksson, P.-O. (2016). A large-scale study of executive and workplace coaching: the rel- ative contributions of relationship, personality match, and self- efficacy. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68(3), 189-207. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000058. · DOI
  16. Huang, L., Morency, L. P., & Gratch, J. (2011). Virtual Rapport 2.0. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6895, 68-79. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-642-23974-8_8. · DOI
  17. Hussain, S., Ameri Sianaki, O., & Ababneh, N. (2019). A survey on conversational agents/chatbots classification and design tech- niques. Web, Artificial Intelligence and Network Applications. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,, 927, 946-956. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15035-8_93. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2008). Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Prentice Hall.
  19. Kanatouri, S. (2020). The digital coach. Routledge.
  20. Kellner, A. (2001). Dialogsysteme. In K.-U. Carstensen, C. Ebert, C. Endriss, S. Jekat, R. Klabunde & H. Langer (Eds.), Computer- linguistik und Sprachtechnologie: Eine Einführung (pp. 115-138).
  21. Klopfenstein, L. C., Delpriori, S., Malatini, S., & Bogliolo, A. (2017). The rise of bots: a survey of conversational interfaces, patterns, and paradigms. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on design- ing interactive systems (pp. 555-565). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3064663.3064672. · DOI
  22. Künzli, H. (2019). Spielstand 1:0 -Die Wirksamkeit von Coaching. In A. Ryba & G. Roth (Eds.), Coaching und Beratung in der Praxis: Ein neurowissenschaftlich fundiertes Integrationsmodell (pp. 102-124).
  23. Lee, N., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2019). Exploring social bias in chatbots using stereotype knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 workshop on widening NLP (pp. 177-180).
  24. Lindart, M. (2016). Was Coaching wirksam macht: Wirkfaktoren von Coachingprozessen im Fokus. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-658-11761-0. · DOI
  25. Lippmann, E. (2013). Coaching: Angewandte Psychologie für die Be- ratungspraxis. Springer.
  26. Lömker, M., Moskaliuk, J., & Weber, U. (2021). Chatbots im Coach- ing. essentials. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658- 32830-6_22. · DOI
  27. Mai, V. (2020). Projektcoaching und Leadership-Coaching als in- tegrative Elemente in der Ingenieurausbildung. Eine Wirk- samkeitsstudie zur Entwicklung von Metakompetenzen. In S. Heuchemer, R. Hochmuth, N. Schaper, & B. Szczyrba (Eds.), Forschung und Innovation in der Hochschulbildung, 8, Research Paper. https://cos.bibl.th-koeln.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/ 926. Accessed December 15, 2021
  28. Mai, V., & Richert, A. (2020). AI Coaching: Effectiveness factors of the working alliance in the coaching process between coach- bot and human coachee -an explorative study. In I. Gómez Chova & A. López Martínez (Eds.), EDULEARN20 Proceedings (pp. 1239-1248). https://library.iated.org/view/MAI2020AIC. Accessed September 25, 2021
  29. Mai, V., & Richert, A. (2021). StudiCoachBot an der TH Köln -Reflex- ionsprozesse KI-basiert begleiten. fnma Magazin -Forum neue Medien in der Lehre Austria (01/2021), pp. 21-23. https://www. fnma.at/publikationen/magazin. Accessed September 25, 2021
  30. Mai V., Wolff A., Richert A., Preusser I. (2021). Accompanying Reflection Processes by an AI-Based StudiCoachBot: A Study on Rapport Building in Human-Machine Coaching Using Self Disclosure. In HCI International 2021 -Late Breaking Papers: Cognition, Inclusion, Learning, and Culture. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 439-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 90328-2_29. · DOI
  31. Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. (1994). Computers are social actors. In SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 72-78). https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Reindl, R., Hergenreider, M., & Hünniger, J. (2012). Schriftlichkeit in virtuellen Beratungssettings. In H. Geißler & M. Metz (Eds.), E-Coaching und Online-Beratung (pp. 339-357). VS. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-531-19155-3_20. · DOI
  33. Reis, (2006). Gruppencoaching für Lehramtsstudierende -Ein leis- tungsfähiger Beitrag zur Studienreform. In J. Wildt, B. Szczyrba & B. Wildt (Eds.), Consulting. Coaching, Supervision. Eine Einführung in Formate und Verfahren hochschuldidaktischer Beratung (pp. 158-173). Bertelsmann.
  34. Schumacher, E.-M. (2006). LernCoaching. In B. Berendt, A. Fleis- chmann, N. Schaper, B. Szczyrba, M. Wiemer & J. Wildt (Eds.), Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre (Griffmarke A 3.5). DUZ Medi- enhaus.
  35. Sharpley, C. F. (1997). The influence of silence upon client-perceived rapport. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 10(3), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515079708254176. · DOI
  36. Shevat, A. (2017). Designing bots: creating conversational experi- ences. O'Reilly Media.
  37. Singh, S., & Thakur, H. K. (2020). Survey of various AI chatbots based on technology used. In 8th International Conference on Reliabil- ity, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions) (ICRITO) (pp. 1074-1079). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICRITO48877.2020.9197943. · DOI
  38. Sugisaki, K., & Bleiker, A. (2020). Usability guidelines and evalua- tion criteria for conversational user interfaces: a heuristic and lin- guistic approach. In Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch und Computer (MuC '20) (pp. 309-319). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3404983.34055055. · DOI
  39. Terblanche, N. (2020). A design framework to create artificial in- telligence coaches. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 18(2), 152-165. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICRITO48877.2020.919794310.24384/b7gs-3h05. · DOI
  40. Terblanche, N., & Cilliers, D. (2020). Factors that influence users' adoption of being coached by an artificial intelligence coach. Phi- losophy of Coaching: An International Journal, 5(1), 61-70.
  41. Traus, A., Höffken, K., Thomas, S., Mangold, K., & Schröer, W. (2020). Stu.diCo. -Studieren digital in Zeiten von Corona. Hildesheim: Universitätsverlag. https://doi.org/10.18442/150. · DOI
  42. Wasylyshyn, D. K. M. (2003). Executive coaching: an outcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55(2), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087. · DOI
  43. Wiemer, M. (2012). Begleitung anspruchsvoller Bildungswege: Coach- ing für Studierende. Organisatonsberatung, Supervision, Coach- ing, 19(1), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11613-012-0271-3. · DOI
  44. Wilmers, F., Munder, T., Leonhart, R., Herzog, T., Plassmann, R., Barth, J., & Linster, H. (2008). Die deutschsprachige Version des Working Alliance Inventory -Short revised (WAI-SR) -Ein schulenübergreifendes, ökonomisches und empirisch validiertes Instrument zur Erfassung der therapeutischen Allianz. Klinische Diagnostik & Evaluation, 1(3), 343-358.
  45. Wolf, C. (2017). Konzeption und Untersuchung eines technolo- giegestützten Selbstcoachings als Intervention zur Förderung von ergebnisorientierter Selbstreflexion bei Studierenden am Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT). https://d-nb.info/ 1138708682/34 Dissertation, Karlsruher Institut für Technolo- gie. Accessed December 15, 2021.
  46. You, Y., & Gui, X. (2020). Self-diagnosis through AI-enabled chatbot- based symptom checkers: user experiences and design considera- tions. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings (pp. 1354-1363).
  47. Zhao, R., Papangelis, A., & Cassell, J. (2014). Towards a dyadic com- putational model of rapport management for human-virtual agent interaction. Intelligent Virtual Agents, 8637, 514-527. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-09767-1_62. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mai, V., Neef, C., & Richert, A.
Affiliations
TH Köln - University of Applied Sciences (DE)
Corresponding author
Mai, Vanessa
ORCID
Venue
Coaching | Theorie & Praxis
Publisher
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH
Published
2022-01-14
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
15-31
ISSN
2364-5148 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1365/s40896-021-00063-3
OpenAlex
W4206251658
Cited by
33
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Coaching | Theorie & Praxis (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
chatbots, therapeutic relationship, self-coaching, test anxiety, rule-based chatbots, conversational AI, student coaching, self-reflection, engineering students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review