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

The current work investigates the use of interface agents as anthropomorphic social models to influence young women's negative beliefs and low self-efficacy regarding engineering. Experiment 1 focused on the impact of agent model visual presence vs. voice alone for changing the women's beliefs. Based on literature on human social models we hypothesized that the visual presence of the interface agent would result in more positive attitudes toward engineering and greater self-efficacy than the presence of a human voice alone. Experiment 2 focused on the impact of model appearance-related characteristics for changing the women's beliefs. Previous work with human social models suggests that people are more persuaded by models that are similar to them. Therefore, models that were young, female, and ''cool'' were predicted to be more effective in influencing young women's attitudes. In accordance with our hypothesis, results revealed that participants who interacted with the visible agents reported significantly greater utility for engineering, greater self-efficacy, and greater interest in engineering-related fields than those who interacted with a human voice. In addition, the agent models that were similar to the young women tended to be the most effective for positively influencing the women's stereotypes and self-efficacy.

[1]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Simulating Instructional Roles through Pedagogical Agents , 2005, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[2]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computer personalities be human personalities? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness , 1951 .

[4]  Patricia D. Mautone,et al.  Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. , 2003 .

[5]  D. Schunk.  SELF-EFFICACY FOR READING AND WRITING: INFLUENCE OF MODELING, GOAL SETTING, AND SELF-EVALUATION , 2003 .

[6]  E. Byrne,et al.  Women and Science: The Snark Syndrome. , 1993 .

[7]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions: The Role of Agent Competency and Type of Interaction , 2006 .

[8]  Gordon I. McCalla,et al.  Artificial Intelligence in Education - Supporting Learning through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED 2005, July 18-22, 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands , 2005, AIED.

[9]  Amy L. Baylor,et al.  The Impact of Pedagogical Agent Image on Affective Outcomes , 2004 .

[10]  D. Schunk.  reflecting positive , 2022 .

[11]  George R. Goethals,et al.  Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. , 1973 .

[12]  C. Nass,et al.  Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[13]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychology Review.

[14]  Jacquelynne S. Eccles,et al.  Understanding Women's Educational And Occupational Choices: Applying the Eccles et al. Model of Achievement-Related Choices , 1994 .

[15]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

[16]  R. Moreno,et al.  Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[17]  Jerry Suls,et al.  Three Kinds of Opinion Comparison: The Triadic Model , 2000 .

[18]  Amy L. Baylor,et al.  Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of agent appearance on female choice , 2005, AIED.

[19]  D. Schunk,et al.  Peer-Model Attributes and Children's Achievement Behaviors , 1987 .

[20]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? , 1997 .

[21]  A. L. Baylor.  Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents , 2002 .

[22]  R. Moreno,et al.  Students' choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity , 2006 .

[23]  C. Nass,et al.  Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. , 2001 .

[24]  Lily Shashaani.  Gender Differences in Computer Attitudes and Use among College Students , 1997 .

[25]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[26]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent , 2003 .

[27]  C. Nass,et al.  Are Machines Gender Neutral? Gender‐Stereotypic Responses to Computers With Voices , 1997 .

[28]  R. Mayer,et al.  Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments , 2007 .

[29]  T. Mussweiler.  Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences. , 2003, Psychological review.

[30]  R. Atkinson.  Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. , 2002 .

[31]  Marion Hersh.  The changing position of women in engineering worldwide , 1998 .

[32]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  Kenneth G. DeBono,et al.  Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. , 1988 .

[34]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[35]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Affective interactions: the computer in the affective loop , 2005, IUI.

[36]  A. Bandura,et al.  Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. , 1981 .

[37]  S. Chaiken.  Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. , 1979 .

[38]  Gail D. Heyman,et al.  GENDER AND ACHIEVEMENT-RELATED BELIEFS AMONG ENGINEERING STUDENTS , 2002 .

[39]  Lee Sproull,et al.  When the Interface Is a Face , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[40]  R. Mayer,et al.  Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice ☆ , 2005 .

[41]  J. Eccles.  Gender Roles and Women's Achievement-Related Decisions , 1987 .

[42]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  The Role of Gender and Ethnicity in Pedagogical Agent Perception , 2003 .

[43]  Amy L. Baylor,et al.  Which Pedagogical Agent do Learners Choose? The Effects of Gender and Ethnicity , 2003 .

[44]  A. Bandura,et al.  Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[45]  James C. Lester,et al.  The Case for Social Agency in Computer-Based Teaching: Do Students Learn More Deeply When They Interact With Animated Pedagogical Agents? , 2001 .

[46]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[47]  C. G. Lord,et al.  Alleviating women’s mathematics stereotype threat through salience of group achievements , 2003 .