Avatars with sex appeal as pedagogical agents: Attractiveness, trustworthiness, expertise, and gender differences

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 403-429

  Wang, Chih Chien ^a   Yeh, Wei Jyh ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIPEI UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881418109     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: 15414140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EC.48.4.a     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Alexander, M. W., & Judd, Jr., B. B. (1978). Do nudes in ads enhance brand recall? Journal of Advertising Research, 18(1), 47-50.
2. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416-427.
3. Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 538-555.
4. ® as an educational tool. Teaching of Psychology 36(1) 59-64.
5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
7. Baylor, A. L. (2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373-382.
8. Baylor, A. L. (2001). Permutations of control: Cognitive guidelines for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 403-425.
9. Baylor, A. L. (2007). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Proceedings of Workshop on Affective Interactions: Computers in the Affective Loop. International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, San Diego, CA.
10. Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). The API (Agent Persona Instrument) for assessing pedagogical agent persona. In D. Lassner & C. McNaughat (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 448-451). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
11. Black, I. R., Organ, G. C., & Morton, P. (2010).The effect of personality on response to sexual appeals. European Journal of Marketing, 44, 1453-1477.
12. Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1992). You look "mahvelous" : The pursuit of beauty and the marketing concept. Psychology and Marketing, 9(1), 3-15.
13. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Open learning environments and the impact of a pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 211-226.
14. Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Johnson, W. L., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267-286.
15. Craig, D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428-434.
16. Davies, J., He, Z., & Brantley, B. (2007). Sex appeals that appeal: Negative sexual self-schema as a moderator of the priming effects of sexual ads on accessibility. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 29(2), 79-89.
17. Debevec, K., & Kernan, J. B. (1984). More evidence on the effects of a presenter's physical attractiveness: Some cognitive, affective and behavioral consequences. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 127-132.
18. Dholakia, R. R., & Sternthal, B. (1977). Highly credible sources: Persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities? Journal of Consumer Research, 3(4), 223-232.
19. Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. (1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(5), 63-71.
20. Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313-334.
21. Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (2006). Design of animated pedagogical agents-A look at their look. International Journal of Humane-Computer Studies, 64(4), 322-339.
22. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23. Jennings, N., & Collins, C. (2008). Virtual or virtually U: Educational institutions in second life. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 180-186.
24. Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78.
25. Jones, M. Y., Stanaland, A. J. S., & Gelb, B. D. (1998). Beefcake and cheesecake: Insights for advertisers. Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 33-51.
26. Joseph, W. B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 15-24.
27. Judd, Jr., B. B., & Alexander, M. W. (1983). On the reduced effectiveness of some sexually suggestive ads. Academy of Marketing Science, 11(1), 156-168.
28. Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 954-961.
29. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2007). Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educational Technology, 47(1), 23-28.
30. Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & PALS Group. (2006). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223-243.
31. Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Shen, E. (2007). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 220-234.
32. Kim, Y., & Wei, Q., (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education, 56(2), 505-514.
33. LaTour, M., & Henthorne, T. (1994). Ethical judgments of sexual appeals in print advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 81-90.
34. Lester, C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In CHI'97: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 359-366). New York, NY: ACM Press.
35. Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1980). Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 235-244.
36. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: On their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 405-412.
37. Mills, J., & Aronson, E. (1965). Opinion change as a function of the communicator's attractiveness and desire to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(2), 173-177.
38. Moreno, R. (2004). Animated pedagogical agents in educational technology. Educational Technology, 44(6), 23-30.
39. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-base teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 117-213.
40. Nomura, S., Hasegawa-Ohira, M., Kurosawa, Y., Hanasaka, Y., Yajima, K., & Fukumura Y. (2012). Skin temperature as a possible indicator of student involvement in e-learning sessions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 3(1), 1-20.
41. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39-52.
42. Park, D. H., & Lee, J. M. (2008). eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, 7(4), 386-398.
43. Patzer, G. L. (1980). A comparison of advertisement effects: Sexy female communicator vs. non-sexy female communicator. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 359-364.
44. Price, B., & Murray, D. (2009). Match-up revisited: The effect of staff attractiveness on purchase intentions in younger adult females: Social comparative and product relevance effects. Journal of International Business and Economics, 9(2), 55-76.
45. Putrevu, S. (2008). Consumer responses toward sexual and nonsexual appeals. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 57-69.
46. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). 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, 24, 2741-2756.
47. Sciglimpaglia, D., Belch, M., & Gain, Jr., R. (1979). Demographic and cognitive factors influencing viewers evaluations of "sexy" advertisements. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 62-65.
48. Sengupta, J., & Dahl, D. W. (2008). Gender-related reactions to gratuitous sex appeals in advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 62-78.
49. Severn, J., Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (1990). The effects of sexual and non-sexual advertising appeals and information level on cognitive processing and communication effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 14-22.
50. Shaw, E., Johnson, W. L., & Ganeshan, R. (1999). Pedagogical agents on the web. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents. New York, NY: ACM Press.
51. Simpson, P. M., Horton, S., & Brown, G. (1996). Male nudity in advertisements: A modified replication and extension of gender and product effects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(3), 257-262.
52. Solomon, M. R., Ashmore, R. D., & Longo, L. C. (1992). The beauty match-up hypothesis: Congruence between types of beauty and product images in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 23-34.
53. Steadman, M. (1969). How sexy illustrations affect rand recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 9, 5-19.
54. Veletsianos, G. (2007). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent: Considering contextual relevance and aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 373-377.
55. Veletsianos, G. (2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers & Education, 55(2), 576-585.
56. Veletsianos, G., & Miller, C. (2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 969-986.
57. Wang, C. C., & Wang, Y. T. (2010). Who is everyone's darling in cyberspace? The characteristics of popular online daters. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 3(1), 69-98.
58. Woo, H. L. (2009). Designing multimedia learning environments using an animated pedagogical agents: Factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 203-218.