Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students' attitudes and beliefs

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 2741-2756

  Rosenberg Kima, Rinat B ^a   Baylor, Amy L ^a   Plant, E Ashby ^b   Doerr, Celeste E ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Florida State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Engineering voice; Interface agents; Pedagogical agents; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

AGENTS;

ENGINEERING VOICE; INTERFACE AGENTS; PEDAGOGICAL AGENTS; PERSUASION; SELF-EFFICACY;

MODELS;

EID: 51349128999     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.017     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Adams J. Are traditional female stereotypes extinct at Georgia Tech?. The Technique (2001) F1-F3
2. Atkinson R.K. Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 2 (2002) 416-427
3. Atkinson R.K., Mayer R.E., and Merrill M.M. Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology 30 1 (2005) 117-139
4. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84 (1977) 191-215
5. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (1986), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
6. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (1997), W.H. Freeman and Company, New York
7. Bandura A., and Schunk D.H. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 3 (1981) 586-598
8. Baylor A.L. Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology, Research and Development 50 (2002) 5-22
9. Baylor, A. L. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. In Proceedings of workshop "affective interactions: the computer in the affective loop" at the international conference on intelligent user interfaces, San Diego, CA.
10. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2003). The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. In Proceedings of e-learn (world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, & higher education), Phoenix, AZ.
11. Baylor, A. L., Shen, E., & Huang, X. (2003). Which pedagogical agent do learners choose? the effects of gender and ethnicity. In Proceedings of e-learn (world conference on e learning in corporate, government, healthcare, & higher education), Phoenix, AZ.
12. Baylor A.L., and Kim Y. Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 15 1 (2005) 95-115
13. Baylor A.L., and Plant E.A. Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of appearance on female choice. In: Looi C.K., McCalla G., Bredeweg B., and Breuker J. (Eds). Artificial intelligence in education: Supporting learning through intelligent and socially informed technology Vol. 125 (2005), IOS Press, Amsterdam 65-72
14. Byrne E.M. Women and science: The snark syndrome (1993), Falmer Press, London
15. Chaiken S. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (1979) 1387-1397
16. Chaiken S., and Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (1994) 460-473
17. Debono K.G., and Harnish R.J. Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information - a functional-approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 4 (1988) 541-546
18. Eccles J.S. Gender roles and women's achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly 11 (1987) 135-172
19. Eccles J.S. Understanding women's educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly 18 (1994) 585-609
20. Goethals G.R., and Nelson R.E. Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25 1 (1973) 117-122
21. Goodman I.F., Cunningham C.M., Lachapelle C., Thompson M., Bittinger K., Brennan R.T., et al. Final report of the women's experiences in college engineering project (2002), Goodman Research Group, Inc, Cambridge, MA
22. Hersh M. The changing position of women in engineering worldwide. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 47 3 (2000) 345-359
23. Heyman G.D., Martyna B., and Bhatia S. Gender and achievement related beliefs among engineering students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 8 (2002) 41-52
24. Hovland C.I., and Weiss W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15 (1951) 635-650
25. Kim Y., and Baylor A.L. Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development 54 3 (2006) 223-243
26. Mayer R.E. Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?. Educational Psychologist 32 1 (1997) 1-19
27. Mayer R.E., Dow G.T., and Mayer S. Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds?. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 4 (2003) 806-812
28. Mayer R.E., Sobko K., and Mautone P.D. Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 2 (2003) 419-425
29. McIntyer B., Paulson R.M., and Lord C.G. Alleviating women's mathematics stereotype threat through salience of group achievements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 83-90
30. Moreno R. Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 22 3 (2006) 149-158
31. Moreno R., and Flowerday T. Students' choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology 31 2 (2006) 186-207
32. Moreno R., and Mayer R. Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review 19 3 (2007) 309-326
33. Moreno R., Mayer R.E., Spires H.A., and Lester J.C. The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?. Cognition and Instruction 19 2 (2001) 177-213
34. Mussweiler T. Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review 110 3 (2003) 472-489
35. Nass C., and Lee K.N. Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied 7 3 (2001) 171-181
36. Nass C., and Moon Y. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56 1 (2000) 81-103
37. Nass C., Moon Y., Fogg B.J., Reeves B., and Dryer D.C. Can computer personalities be human personalities. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43 2 (1995) 223-239
38. Nass C., Moon Y., and Green N. Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27 10 (1997) 864-876
39. NSF. (2003). (03-312) Women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA; 2002.
40. Reeves B., and Nass C. The media equation (1996), Cambridge University Press, New York
41. Schunk D.H. Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research 57 (1987) 149-174
42. Schunk D.H. Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19 (2003) 159-172
43. Schunk D.H., Hanson A.R., and Cox P.D. Peer-model attributes and children's achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (1987) 54-61
44. Shashaani L. Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research 16 (1997) 37-51
45. Sproull L., Subramani M., Kiesler S., Walker J.H., and Waters K. When the interface is a face. Human-Computer Interaction 11 2 (1996) 97-124
46. Suls J., Martin R., and Wheeler L. Three kinds of opinion comparison: The triadic model. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4 3 (2000) 219-237
47. Wood R., and Bandura A. Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (1989) 407-415