Human Involvement in E-Coaching: Effects on Effectiveness, Perceived Influence and Trust

  • Bart A. Kamphorst
  • Michel C. A. Klein
  • Arlette van Wissen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8749)


Coaching practices are rapidly changing due to advances in pervasive computing: behavior of coachees can unobtrusively be monitored in real time, and coaching can be remote or even fully automated. Fully autonomous e-coaching systems hold promise for improving people’s self-management, but also raise questions about the importance of human involvement in the e-coaching process. This paper describes an empirical ‘Wizard of Oz’ study in which coachees (N=82) were coached to take the stairs by either another person (N=20) or the e-coaching system eMate. Crucially, some coachees were made to believe that they would receive one type of coaching (human or computerized), while in reality they received the other. Results show that the coaching was equally effective in all groups, but that people who believed to be coached by a human judged the coaching to be more influential. No difference was found between groups in how trustworthy coachees found their coaches.


Pervasive Computing Evaluation Survey Proactive Coping Human Involvement Coping Competence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.H., Kamphorst, B.A.: Ethics of e-coaching: Implications of employing pervasive computing to promote healthy and sustainable lifestyles. In: Proc. of IEEE SIPC Workshop 2014, in Conjunction with PerCom 2014, pp. 351–356. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandura, A.: Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares, F., Urdan, T. (eds.) Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, pp. 307–337. Adolescence and Education, Information Age Publishing (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bickmore, T.W., Picard, R.W.: Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions of Computer-Human Interaction 12(2), 293–327 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blount, S.: When social outcomes aren’t fair. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63(2), 131–144 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bode, C., Thoolen, B.J., de Ridder, D.T.D.: Het meten van proactieve copingvaardigheden. Psychometrische eigenschappen van de utrechtse proactieve coping competentie lijst (UPCC). Psychologie & Gezondheid 36, 81–91 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endler, N., Parker, D.: Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS): Manual. Multi Health Systems, Toronto (1999) (Dutch translation by De Ridder, D.T.D., Maes, S.)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fogg, B.J., Nass, C.: Silicon sycophants: The effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 46(5), 551–561 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gyllensten, K., Palmer, S.: The coaching relationship: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. International Coaching Psychology Review 2(2), 168–177 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kamphorst, B.A., Kalis, A.: Why option generation matters for the design of autonomous e-coaching systems. AI & Society (2014) (online)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kamphorst, B.A., Klein, M.C.A., Van Wissen, A.: Autonomous e-coaching in the wild: Empirical validation of a model-based reasoning system. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2014), pp. 725–732. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein, M., Mogles, N., van Wissen, A.: Why won’t you do what’s good for you? Using intelligent support for behavior change. In: Salah, A.A., Lepri, B. (eds.) HBU 2011. LNCS, vol. 7065, pp. 104–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein, M.C.A., Mogles, N.M., Van Wissen, A.: An intelligent coaching system for therapy adherence. IEEE Pervasive Computing 12(3), 22–30 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, J.R., Nass, C.I.: Trust in computers: The computers-are-social-actors (CASA) paradigm and trustworthiness perception in human-computer communication. In: Latusek, D., Gerbasi, A. (eds.) Trust and Technology in a Ubiquitous Modern Environment: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives, pp. 1–15. IGI Global (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Madsen, M., Gregor, S.: Measuring human-computer trust. In: Proc. of the 11th Australian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 6–8 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McAuley, E., Courneya, K.S.: The subjective exercise experiences scale (SEES): Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 16(2), 163–177 (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y., Carney, P.: Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29(5), 1093–1110 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prochaska, J., DiClemente, C.: The transtheoretical approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood (1984)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pruitt, D.G., Carnevale, P.J.: Negotiation in social conflict. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Belmont (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reed, G.R., Velicer, W.F., Prochaska, J.O., Rossi, J.S., Marcus, B.H.: What makes a good staging algorithm: Examples from regular exercise. American Journal of Health Promotion 12(1), 57–66 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reeves, B., Nass, C.: The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. CSLI Lecture Notes Series, vol. 63, Center for the Study of Language and Informatics (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P.: Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(5), 749–761 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sorbi, M.J., Mak, S.B., Houtveen, J.H., Kleiboer, A.M., Van Doornen, L.J.P.: Mobile web-based monitoring and coaching: Feasibility in chronic migraine. Journal of Medical Internet Research 9(5) (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sutton, S.: Back to the drawing board? A review of applications of the transtheoretical model to substance use. Addiction 96(1), 175–186 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Dongen, K., Van Maanen, P.P.: Under-reliance on the decision aid: A difference in calibration and attribution between self and aid. In: Proc. of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society’s 50th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, vol. 50, pp. 225–229 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Wissen, A., Gal, Y., Kamphorst, B.A., Dignum, M.V.: Human-agent teamwork in dynamic environments. Computers in Human Behavior 28(1), 23–33 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Wissen, A., Van Diggelen, J., Dignum, V.: The effects of cooperative agent behavior on human cooperativeness. In: Proc. of AAMAS, pp. 1179–1180 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Warner, T.: E-coaching systems: Convenient, anytime, anywhere, and nonhuman. Performance Improvement 51(9), 22–28 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart A. Kamphorst
    • 1
  • Michel C. A. Klein
    • 2
  • Arlette van Wissen
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Philosophy and Religious StudiesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations