Visual stereotypes and virtual pedagogical agents

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1-15

  Haake, Magnus ^a   Gulz, Agneta ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY COGNITIVE SCIENCE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Gender; Learning; Pedagogical agent; Virtual character; Visual stereotype

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149354179     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Baylor, A. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Paper presented at the 2005 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2005) Workshop on Affective Interactions: Computers in the Affective Loop, January 9-12, 2005, San Diego, CA, retrieved June 11, 2007 from http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~abaylor/PDF/image-iui.pdf.
3. Baylor, A. & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15 (5), 95-115.
4. Baylor, A. & Plant, A. (2005). Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of appearance on female choice. In Looi, C-K., McCalla, G., Bredeweg, B. & Breuker J. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Supporting Learning through intelligent and socially informed technology, 125, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press, 65-72.
5. Baylor, A. & Rosenberg-Kima, R. (2006). Interface agents to alleviate online frustration. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, June 27 - July 1, 2006, Bloomington, IN, retrieved March 5, 2008 from http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~abaylor/PDF/ICLS-frustration.pdf.
6. Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 7, New York, NY: Academic Press, 158-216.
7. Bickmore, T. & Cassell, J. (2005). Social dialogue with embodied conversational agents. In van Kuppevelt, J., Dybkjaer, L. & Bernsen, N. (Eds.), Advances in Natural, Multimodal Dialogue Systems, New York, NY: Kluwer Academic / The Netherlands: Springer, 23-54.
8. Brahnam, S. (2001). Creating physical personalities for agents with faces: Modelling trait impressions of the face. Paper presented at the User Modelling 2001 (UM'01) Workshop on Attitudes, Personality and Emotions in User-Adapted Interactions, July 13-17, 2001, Sonthofen, Germany, retrieved March 23, 2006 from http://aos2.uniba.it:8080/sonthofen/brahnam-f.pdf.
9. Brewer, M. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In Wyer, R. & Srull, T. (Eds.), Advances in Social Cognition, 1, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1-36.
10. Cook, M. (1979). Perceiving others - The psychology of Interpersonal Perception, London, England: Methuen.
11. de Rosis, F., Pelachaud, C. & Poggi, I. (2004). Transcultural believability in embodied agents: A matter of consistent adaptation. In Payr, S. & Trappl, R. (Eds.), Agent Culture: Human-Agent Interaction in a Multicultural World, Manwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
12. GameGirlAdvance (2004). Comments: It's time for androgyny, it's just Vaan! Comment on weblog post at GameGirlAdvance by pseudonym kyoujin, May 20, 2004, retrieved March 5, 2008 from http://www.gamegirladvance.com/cgi-bin/ mt-comments.cgi?entry-id=532.
13. Graesser, A., Lu, S., Jackson, J., Mitchell, H., Vetnura, M. & Oleny, A. (2004). Autotutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &Computers, 36(2), 180-192.
14. Gulz, A. (2005). Social enrichment by virtual characters - differential benefits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (6), 405-418.
15. Gulz, A. & Haake, M. (2006a). Design of animated pedagogical agents - a look at their look. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64 (4), 322-339.
16. Gulz, A. & Haake, M. (2006b). Visual design of virtual pedagogical agents: Naturalism versus stylization in static appearance. Paper presented at the 3rd International Design and Engagability Conference @ NordiCHI 2006 (iDec3), October 15, 2006, Oslo, Norway.
17. Gulz, A., Ahlner, F. & Haake, M. (2007a). Visual femininity and masculinity in synthetic characters & patterns of affect. In Paiva, A., Prada. R. & Picard, R. (Eds.), Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 654-665.
18. Gulz, A., Haake, M. & Taming, B. (2007b). Visual gender and its motivational and cognitive effects - a user study. Lund University Cognitive Studies, 137.
19. Hall, L., Woods, S., Dautenhahn, K., Sobral, D., Paiva, A., Wolke, D. & Newall, L. (2004). Designing emphatic agents: Adults versus kids. In Lester, J., Vicari, R. M. & Paraguacu, F. (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 604-613.
20. Johnson, W. (2003). Interaction tactics for socially intelligent pedagogical agents. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2003), New York, NY: ACM Press, 251-253.
21. Kalick, S. (1988). Physical attractiveness as a status cue. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24,469-489.
22. Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as Theatre, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
23. Massaro, D. (2004). A framework for evaluating multimodal integration by humans and a role for embodied conversational agents. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI2004), New York, NY: ACM Press, 24-31.
24. McArthur, L. (1982). Judging a book by its cover: A cognitive analysis of the relationship between physical appearance and stereotyping. In Hastorf, A. & Isen, A. (Eds.) Cognitive Social Psychology, New York, NY: Elsevier, 149-209.
25. Moreno, R. & Flowerday, T. (2006). Students' choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 186-207.
26. Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H. & Lester, J. (2001). 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, 177-213.
27. Moreno, K., Person, N., Adcock, A., Van Eck, R., Jackson, G. & Marineau, J. (2002). Etiquette and efficacy in animated pedagogical agents: The role of stereotypes. In Working Notes of the 2002 AAAI Fall Symposium on Etiquette for Human Computer Work (Technical Report FS-02-02), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, retrieved June 11, 2007 from http://web.media.mit.edu/~bkort/ AAAI/Moreno-paper.pdf.
28. Nass, C., Isbister, K. & Lee, E-J. (2000). Designing and evaluating conversational interfaces with animated characters. In Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S. & Churchill, E. (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 374-402.
29. Next Generation (1998). Girl trouble. Next Generation Magazine, January 1998, 37, retrieved June 11, 2007 from http://www.electric-escape.net/ node/542?PHPSESSID=50a6bdb50478cae8b6d3424d2c79dd57.
30. Paiva, A., Dias, J., Sobral, D., Aylett, R., Sobreperez, P., Woods, S., Zoll, C. & Hall, L. (2004). Caring for agents and agents that care: Building emphatic relations with synthetic agents. Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), New York, NY: ACM Press, 194-201.
31. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Televisions and New Media Like Real People and Places, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32. Schleiner, A-M. (2000). Mutation.fem. Text for the "Alien Intelligence" Exhibit, Kiasma, Museum of Contemporary Art, Helsinki, Finland, retrieved June 11, 2007 from http://www.opensorcery.net/mutation/.
33. Schneider, D. (2003). The Psychology of Stereotyping, New York, NY: Guilford Press.
34. Smith, E. & Medin, D. (1981). Categories and Concepts, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Voelker, D. (1994). The Effects of Image Size and Voice Volume on the Evaluation of Represented Faces. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.