Cited by 273Digital Mental Health InterventionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRIEmotion and Mood Recognition

Towards an Artificially Empathic Conversational Agent for Mental Health Applications: System Design and User Perceptions

Open access
Morris, Robert R, Kouddous, Kareem, Kshirsagar, Rohan, Schueller, Stephen M·2018·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conversational agents cannot yet express empathy in nuanced ways that account for the unique circumstances of the user. Agents that possess this faculty could be used to enhance digital mental health interventions. OBJECTIVE: We sought to design a conversational agent that could express empathic support in ways that might approach, or even match, human capabilities. Another aim was to assess how users might appraise such a system. METHODS: Our system used a corpus-based approach to simulate expressed empathy. Responses from an existing pool of online peer support data were repurposed by the agent and presented to the user. Information retrieval techniques and word embeddings were used to select historical responses that best matched a user's concerns. We collected ratings from 37,169 users to evaluate the system. Additionally, we conducted a controlled experiment (N=1284) to test whether the alleged source of a response (human or machine) might change user perceptions. RESULTS: The majority of responses created by the agent (2986/3770, 79.20%) were deemed acceptable by users. However, users significantly preferred the efforts of their peers (P<.001). This effect was maintained in a controlled study (P=.02), even when the only difference in responses was whether they were framed as coming from a human or a machine. CONCLUSIONS: Our system illustrates a novel way for machines to construct nuanced and personalized empathic utterances. However, the design had significant limitations and further research is needed to make this approach viable. Our controlled study suggests that even in ideal conditions, nonhuman agents may struggle to express empathy as well as humans. The ethical implications of empathic agents, as well as their potential iatrogenic effects, are also discussed.

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 · 10.2196/10148

Cites

31 of 31 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?

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: 4

  1. [5]Sandbank T Shmueli-Scheuer M Herzig J Konopnicki D Shaul R EHCTool: managing emotional hotspots for conversational agents 2017 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces 2017 Limassol, Cyprus 125 128
  2. [20]Kusner M Sun Y Kolkin N Weinberger K From word embeddings to document distances 2015 International Conference on Machine Learning 2015 Lille, France 957 966
  3. [21]Mikolov T Sutskever I Chen K Corrado G Dean J Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality 2013 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2013 Lake Tahoe, USA 3111 3119
  4. [31]Nass C Steuer J Tauber E Computers are social actors 1994 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1994 Boston, MA 72 78

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morris, R. R., Kouddous, K., Kshirsagar, R., & Schueller, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Morris, Robert R
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2018-06-26
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
e10148
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2801150160
Cited by
273
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 2
FWCI
25.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (5R25MH08091607)
  • George Washington University
  • Washington University in St. Louis (5R25MH08091607)
  • Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (5R25MH08091607)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH080916)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
Keywords
digital mental health, peer support, information retrieval, word embeddings, iatrogenic disease
MeSH terms
Communication, Empathy, Humans, Mental Health, Perception, Information Storage and Retrieval

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