A New Research Model for Artificial Intelligence–Based Well-Being Chatbot Engagement: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots have emerged as potential tools to assist individuals in reducing anxiety and supporting well-being. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the factors that impact individuals' intention to engage and their engagement behavior with AI-based well-being chatbots by using a novel research model to enhance service levels, thereby improving user experience and mental health intervention effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a web-based questionnaire survey of adult users of well-being chatbots in China via social media. Our survey collected demographic data, as well as a range of measures to assess relevant theoretical factors. Finally, 256 valid responses were obtained. The newly applied model was validated through the partial least squares structural equation modeling approach. RESULTS: ) of the variance in engagement behavior. Affect (β=.201; P=.002), social factors (β=.184; P=.007), and compatibility (β=.149; P=.03) were statistically significant for the intention to engage. Habit (β=.154; P=.01), trust (β=.253; P<.001), and intention to engage (β=.464; P<.001) were statistically significant for engagement behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The new extended model provides a theoretical basis for studying users' AI-based chatbot engagement behavior. This study highlights practical points for developers of AI-based well-being chatbots. It also highlights the importance of AI-based well-being chatbots to create an emotional connection with the users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".