Can robots do therapy?: Examining the efficacy of a CBT bot in comparison with other behavioral intervention technologies in alleviating mental health symptoms

Abstract

Artificial intelligence therapy bots are gaining traction in the psychotherapy marketplace. Yet, the only existing study examining the efficacy of a therapy bot lacks any meaningful controls for comparison in claiming its effectiveness to treat depression. The current study aims to examine the efficacy of Woebot against three control conditions, including ELIZA, a basic (non-“smart”) conversational bot, a journaling app, and a passive psychoeducation control group. In a sample of 65 young adults, a repeated measures ANOVA failed to detect differences in symptom reduction between active and passive groups. In follow-up analyses using paired samples t-tests, ELIZA users experienced mental health improvements with the largest effect sizes across all mental health outcomes, followed by daily journaling, then Woebot, and finally psychoeducation. Findings reveal that Woebot does not offer benefit above and beyond other self-help behavioral intervention technologies. They underscore that using a no-treatment control group study design to market clinical services should no longer be acceptable nor serve as an acceptable precursor to marketing a chatbot as functionally equivalent to psychotherapy. Doing so creates unnecessary risk for consumers of psychotherapy and undermines the clinical value of robotic therapeutics that could prove effective at addressing mental health problems through rigorous research.