Interface agents as social models: The impact of appearance on females' attitude toward engineering

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 526-531

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

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RITL ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Anthropomorphic interface agents; Attitude change; Computer based social modeling; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOMORPHIC INTERFACE AGENT; ATTITUDE CHANGE; EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES; INTERFACE AGENT; PERSUASION; SELF EFFICACY; SOCIAL MODELING; SOCIAL MODELS;

HUMAN ENGINEERING;

ENGINEERING;

EID: 84869132291     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1125451.1125564     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. American Association of University Women. (2000). Tech savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
3. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598.
4. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 50, 5-22.
5. Baylor, A. L. (2005). The Impact of Pedagogical Agent Image on Affective Outcomes. Proceedings of Workshop "Affective Interactions: The Computer in the Affective Loop" at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, San Diego, CA.
6. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1).
7. Baylor, A. L. & Plant, E.A. (2005). Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of appearance on female choice. In C.K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Supporting Learning through intelligent and socially informed technology (Vol. 125, pp. 65-72). IOS Press.
8. DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing on persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 541-546.
9. Goethals, G. R., & Nelson, R. E. (1973). Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 117-122.
10. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (in press). A socialcognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research & Development.
11. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (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(2), 177-213.
12. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472-489.
13. Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research. 57, 149-174.