Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 253–260 | Cite as

Innovation in Technology-Aided Psychotherapy Through Human Factors/Ergonomics: Toward a Collaborative Approach

  • Patricia R. DeLucia
  • Stephanie A. Harold
  • Yi-Yuan Tang
Original Paper


Technologies are being used increasingly to aid psychotherapy and are becoming an integral part of mental health treatment. Although prior studies compared technology-aided psychotherapy (TAP) to traditional treatments, there are insufficient studies of the impact that specific design parameters and use of the technologies may have on the client and therapist, and treatment outcomes. This requires an understanding of human–technology interaction, which is the focus of the field of Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF/E). The goal of this article is to raise awareness of the importance of the human–technology interaction in TAP, and to foster collaborations between psychotherapists and HF/E professionals. Toward these aims, this article examines the implications of findings in HF/E for the use of technologies (videoconferencing, text-based communication, and virtual environments) in psychotherapy. It is suggested that the manner in which technologies are designed and used may have important effects on the therapeutic alliance and treatment outcomes, and in some cases (side effects of virtual reality) the health and safety of the client. Future research should examine effects of specific design factors on treatment including variables such as the visibility of gestures and degree of eye contact during videoconferencing, response delays during text-messaging, and presence and adverse effects when using virtual environments. Studies that compare TAP to traditional methods should report as much detail as possible about the human–technology interaction. It is essential that psychotherapists and HF/E professionals conduct research collaboratively to develop effective and innovative technologies and, ultimately, design principles for TAP.


Psychotherapy Telemental health Telehealth Human factors Ergonomics Human–computer interaction 


  1. Alsina-Jurnet, I., & Gutiérrez-Maldonado, J. (2010). Influence of personality and individual abilities on the sense of presence experienced in anxiety triggering virtual environments. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 68, 788–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. E. E., Spence, S. H., Donovan, C. L., March, S., Prosser, S., & Kenardy, J. (2012). Working alliance in online cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety disorders in youth: Comparison with clinic delivery and its role in predicting outcome. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14, e88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyle, M. (1972). The psychology of interpersonal behavior (2nd ed.). London: Cox & Wyman.Google Scholar
  4. Arnd-Caddigan, M. (2012). The therapeutic alliance: Implications for therapeutic process. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42, 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Backhaus, A., Agha, Z., Maglione, M. L., Ross, B., Zuest, D., Rice-Thorp, N. M., et al. (2012). Videoconferencing psychotherapy: A systematic review. Psychological Services, 9, 111–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barak, A., Hen, L., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Shapira, N. (2008). A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of Internet-based psychotherapeutic interventions. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 26, 109–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bee, P. E., Bower, P., Lovell, K., Gilbody, S., Richards, D., Gask, L., et al. (2008). Psychotherapy mediated by remote communication technologies: A meta-analytic review. BMC Psychiatry, 8, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bee, P. E., Lovell, K., Lidbetter, N., Easton, K., & Gask, L. (2010). You can’t get anything perfect: User perspectives on the delivery of cognitive behavioural therapy by telephone. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 1308–1315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradner, E. & Mark, G. (2002). Why distance matters: Effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 226–235). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bray, J. H. (2010). The future of psychology practice and science. American Psychologist, 65, 355–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brenes, G. A., Ingram, C. W., & Danhauer, S. C. (2011). Benefits and challenges of conducting psychotherapy by telephone. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42, 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clough, B. A., & Casey, L. M. (2011a). Technological adjuncts to enhance current psychotherapy practices: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 279–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clough, B. A., & Casey, L. M. (2011b). Technological adjuncts to increase adherence to therapy: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 697–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooke, N. J., & Durso, F. T. (2008). Stories of modern technology failures and cognitive engineering successes. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  16. DeLucia, P. R., & Harold, S. A. (2011). Should Human Factors/Ergonomics Go to Therapy? Bulletin of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Derrer, N. M., Fullwood, C., Davis, S. J., Martino, O. I., & Morris, N. (2006). An initial face-to-face meeting improves person perceptions of interviewees across VMC. In P. D. Bust (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics 2006 (pp. 296–298). Great Britain: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  18. Doherty, G., Coyle, D., & Matthews, M. (2010). Design and evaluation guidelines for mental health technologies. Interacting with Computers, 22, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Driskell, J. E., & Radtke, P. H. (2003). The effect of gesture on speech production and comprehension. Human Factors, 45, 445–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2005). Technological innovations in clinical assessment and psychotherapy. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 74, 336–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fussell, S. R., & Benimoff, N. I. (1995). Social and cognitive processes in interpersonal communication: Implications for advanced telecommunications technologies. Human Factors, 37, 228–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. García-Linzana, F., & Muñoz-Mayorga, I. (2010). Telemedicine for depression: A systematic review. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 46, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hancock, P. A., Pepe, A. A., & Murphy, L. L. (2005). Hedonomics: The power of positive and pleasurable ergonomics. Ergonomics in Design, 13, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hemsley, G. D., & Doob, A. N. (1978). The effect of looking behavior on perceptions of a communicator’s credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 136–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jerome, L. W., & Zaylor, C. (2000). Cyberspace: Creating a therapeutic environment for telehealth applications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 478–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, J. H., Godin, S. W., & Bloomquist, M. L. (1981). Human factors engineering in computerized mental health care delivery. Behavior, Research Methods & Instrumentation, 13, 425–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in electronically-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kantowitz, B. H., Roediger, H. L., & Elmes, D. G. (2009). Experimental Psychology (9th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  29. Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthl, M. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krijn, M., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Biemond, R., de Wilde de Ligny, C., Schuemie, M. J., & van der Mast, C. A. P. G. (2004). Treatment of acrophobia in virtual reality: The role of immersion and presence. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 229–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manning, T. R., Goetz, E. T., & Street, R. L. (2000). Signal delay effects on rapport in telepsychiatry. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyerbröker, K., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2010). Virtual reality exposure therapy in anxiety disorders: A systematic review of process-and-outcome studies. Depression and Anxiety, 27, 933–944.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moon, Y. (1999). The effects of physical distance and response latency on persuasion in electronically-mediated communication and human–computer communication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nelson, E.-L., Barnard, M., & Cain, S. (2003). Treating childhood depression over videoconferencing. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health, 9, 49–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson, E.-L., Bui, T. N., & Velasquez, S. E. (2011). Telepsychology: Research and Practice Overview. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America Journal, 20, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently and why. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Opris, D., Pintea, S., García-Palacios, A., Botella, C., Szamöskozi, S., & David, D. (2012). Virtual reality exposure therapy in anxiety disorders: A quantitative meta-analysis. Depression and Anxiety, 29, 85–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parsons, T. D., & Rizzo, A. A. (2008). Affective outcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety and specific phobias: A meta-analysis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 39, 250–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paxton, S. J., McLean, S. A., Gollings, E. K., Faulkner, C., & Wertheim, E. H. (2007). Comparison of face-to-face and Internet interventions for body image and eating problems in adult women: An RCT. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 40, 692–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Powers, B. M., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2008). Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 561–569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rappaport, M. (1970). Human factors applications in medicine. Human Factors, 12, 25–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rice, R. E., & Stohl, C. (2006). Communication and Human Factors. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd ed., pp. 150–176). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rocco, E. (1998, April). Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some initial face-to-face contact. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  44. Rothbaum, B. O., Anderson, P., Zimand, E., Hodges, L., Lang, D., & Wilson, J. (2006). Virtual reality exposure therapy and standard (in vivo) exposure therapy in the treatment of fear of flying. Behavior Therapy, 37, 80–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sadowski, W., & Stanney, K. M. (2002). Presence in virtual environments. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 791–806). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Simpson, S. (2009). Psychotherapy via videoconferencing: A review. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 37, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stanney, K. M., & Cohn, J. (2006). Virtual Environments. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1079–1096). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stanney, K. M., Graeber, D. A., & Kennedy, R. S. (2006). Virtual environment usage protocols. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), Handbook of Standards and Guidelines in Ergonomics and Human Factors (pp. 381–397). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Suwita, A., Böcker, M., Mühlbach, L., & Runde, D. (1997). Overcoming human factors deficiencies of videocommunications systems by means of advanced image technologies. Displays, 17, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tam, T., Cafazzo, J. A., Seto, E., Salenieks, M. E., & Rossos, P. G. (2007). Perception of eye contact in video teleconsultation. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 13, 35–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tang, Y., Zhang, W., Chen, K., Feng, S., Ji, Y., Shen, J., et al. (2006). Arithmetic processing in the brain shaped by cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 10775–10780.Google Scholar
  52. Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Electronically-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Titov, N. (2011). Internet-delivered psychotherapy for depression in adults. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24, 18–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wickens, C. D., Gordon, S. E., & Liu, Y. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  55. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7, 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yellowlees, P., Shore, J., & Roberts, L. (2010). Practice guidelines for videoconferencing-based telemental health—October 2009. Telemedicine and e-Health, 16, 1075–1089.Google Scholar
  57. Youngblut, C. (2006). What a decade of experiments reveals about factors that influence the sense of presence. Virginia: Institute for Defense Analyses.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia R. DeLucia
    • 1
  • Stephanie A. Harold
    • 1
  • Yi-Yuan Tang
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentMS 2051, Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations