Prior studies have examined the effects of affective pedagogical agent (PA), revealing mixed results. One possible explanation is that learners’ emotion regulation ability may influence their perception of affective PA, which in turn affects their emotional experiences and learning outcomes. Thus, this study first examines whether learners’ emotion regulation ability serves as a key moderating variable that influences the effectiveness of affective PA. In Experiment 1, learners’ emotion regulation ability moderated the impacts of affective PA on learning. Specifically, affective PA enhanced learning for low emotion regulation ability learners but triggered more negative emotions and lower physiological arousal in high emotion regulation ability learners. Secondly, this study further investigates whether providing learners with the opportunity to make their own choices regarding the functional characteristics of affective PA will be more conducive to learning. In Experiment 2, providing students with the choice of affective PA created a more controllable learning environment for learners and satisfied the need for autonomy. Moreover, autonomous choice of affective PA also increased learners’ physiological arousal and happiness, reduced frustration, and improved germane cognitive load as well as retention performance. These findings help extend prior theories and provide reference for educators to design and develop online learning courses.
ArguedasM.DaradoumisT. (2021). Analysing the role of a pedagogical agent in psychological and cognitive preparatory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1167–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12556
2.
AsikainenH.HailikariT.MattssonM. (2017). The interplay between academic emotions, psychological flexibility and self-regulation as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(4), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2017.1281889
BehrendT. S.ThompsonL. F. (2012). Using animated agents in learner‐controlled training: The effects of design control. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(4), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2012.00413.x
5.
BlairC. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.111
6.
BlancaM. J.AlarcónR.ArnauJ.BonoR.BendayanR. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option?Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383
7.
BringulaR. P.Fosgate JrI. C. O.GarciaN. P. R.YorobeJ. L. M. (2018). Effects of pedagogical agents on students’ mathematics performance: A comparison between two versions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(5), 701–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117722
8.
CaoY.GongS. Y.WangY. Q.ZhengQ.WangZ. (2023). How to provide competitors in educational gamification: The roles of competitor level and autonomous choice. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107477
9.
ChenG. D.LeeJ. H.WangC. Y.ChaoP. Y.LiL. Y.LeeT. Y. (2012). An empathic avatar in a computer-aided learning program to encourage and persuade learners. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 62–72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.15.2.62
10.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (Eds.), (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press.
11.
DeCuir-GunbyJ. T.AllenE. M.BooneJ. K. (2020). Examining pre-service teachers’ color-blind racial ideology, emotion regulation, and inflexibility with stigmatizing thoughts about race. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101836
12.
Den UylM. J.Van KuilenburgH. (2005). The face reader: Online facial expression recognition. In L.P.J.J. Noldus, F. Grieco, L.W.S. Loijens and P.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Proceedings of Measuring Behavior 2005, 5th International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research (pp. 589-590). Wageningen, the Netherlands: Noldus Information Technology.
FieldA. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
15.
FinnB.ThomasR.RawsonK. A. (2018). Learning more from feedback: Elaborating feedback with examples enhances concept learning. Learning and Instruction, 54, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.007
16.
FrechetteC.MorenoR. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000009
17.
GrazianoP. A.ReavisR. D.KeaneS. P.CalkinsS. D. (2007). The role of emotion regulation and children’s early academic success. Journal of School Psychology, 45(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.002
GrossJ. J.JohnO. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
20.
GuoY. R.GohD. H. L. (2016). Evaluation of affective embodied agents in an information literacy game. Computers & Education, 103, 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.013
21.
GuoY. R.GohD. H. L.LuytB. (2014). Using affective embodied agents in information literacy education. In IEEE/ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 389-398). IEEE.
22.
GuoY. R.GohD. H. L.LuytB.SinS. C. J.AngR. P. (2015). The effectiveness and acceptance of an affective information literacy tutorial. Computers & Education, 87, 368–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.015
23.
HoogerheideV.RenklA.FiorellaL.PaasF.Van GogT. (2019). Enhancing example-based learning: Teaching on video increases arousal and improves problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000272
24.
HoranS. M.MartinM. M.WeberK. (2012). Understanding emotional response theory: The role of instructor power and justice messages. Communication Quarterly, 60(2), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.669323
25.
IsenA. M.ReeveJ. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4), 295–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9019-8
26.
KimY.WeiQ. (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education, 56(2), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.016
27.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed., p. 63). Methodology in the Social Sciences Series.
28.
LangY.GongS.HuX.XiaoB.WangY.JiangT. (2024). The roles of pedagogical agent’s emotional support: Dynamics between emotions and learning strategies in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(7), 1485–1516. https://doi.org/10.07356331241263598
29.
LangY.XieK.GongS.WangY.CaoY. (2022). The impact of emotional feedback and elaborated feedback of a pedagogical agent on multimedia learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 810194. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810194
30.
LeppinkJ.PaasF.Van der VleutenC. P.Van GogT.Van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058–1072. https//doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1.
31.
LiewT. W.ZinN. A. M.SahariN.TanS. M. (2016). The effects of a pedagogical agent’s smiling expression on the learner’s emotions and motivation in a virtual learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(5), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2350
32.
LiuZ.DuanH.LiuS.MuR.LiuS.YangZ. (2024). Improving knowledge gain and emotional experience in online learning with knowledge and emotional scaffolding-based conversational agent. Educational Technology & Society, 27(2), 197–219. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48766171.
33.
MayerR. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
34.
MayerR. E.DaPraC. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028616
35.
McKayB.Ste-MarieD. M. (2020). Autonomy support and reduced feedback frequency have trivial effects on learning and performance of a golf putting task. Human Movement Science, 71, 102612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2020.102612
36.
MorenoR.FlowerdayT. (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(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.002
37.
MottetT. P.FrymierA. B.BeebeS. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication. In Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives, eds T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, and J. C. McCroskey (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon), 255–282.
38.
OkerA.PecuneF.DeclercqC. (2020). Virtual tutor and pupil interaction: A study of empathic feedback as extrinsic motivation for learning. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3643–3658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10123-5
39.
OnchwariG.KeengweJ. (2011). Examining the relationship of children’s behavior to emotion regulation ability. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(4), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0466-9
40.
OzogulG.JohnsonA. M.AtkinsonR. K.ReissleinM. (2013). Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Computers & Education, 67, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.006
41.
PlassJ. L.KaplanU. (2016). Emotional design in digital media for learning. In Emotions, technology, design, and learning (pp. 131–161). Academic Press.
42.
PreeceD. A.BecerraR.RobinsonK.DandyJ.AllanA. (2018). Measuring emotion regulation ability across negative and positive emotions: The Perth Emotion Regulation Competency Inventory (PERCI). Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.025
43.
QiuL.ZhengX.WangY. F. (2008). Revision of the positive affective ang negative affective scale. Applied Psychology, 14(3), 249–254.
44.
QuZ.ChenJ.LiB.TanJ.ZhangD.ZhangY. (2020). Measurement of high-school students/trait math anxiety using neurophysiological recordings during math exam. IEEE Access, 8, 57460–57471. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2982198
45.
RawsonK. A.ThomasR. C.JacobyL. L. (2015). The power of examples: Illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9273-3
46.
SailerM.HenseJ. U.MayrS. K.MandlH. (2017). How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
47.
SchneiderS.BeegeM.NebelS.SchnaubertL.ReyG. D. (2022). The cognitive-affective-social theory of learning in digital environments (CASTLE). Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09626-5
ThompsonR. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166137
WangS.HuangS.ChenY.RenD.LiH.GaoZ.ShidujamanM. (2025). Enhancing student engagement through AI-driven embodied pedagogical agents: A comparative study informed by self-determination theory. In International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 194–213). Springer Nature Switzerland.
52.
WangY.GongS.CaoY.FanW. (2023a). The power of affective pedagogical agent and self-explanation in computer-based learning. Computers & Education, 195, 104723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104723
53.
WangY.GongS.CaoY.LangY.XuX. (2023b). The effects of affective pedagogical agent in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 38, 100506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100506
54.
WangY.GongS.CaoY.LiuY. (2025). Parallel empathy or reactive empathy? The role of emotional support provided by affective pedagogical agent in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 67, 101035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcpro.2025.101035
55.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
56.
XiongJ. M.XinL.GaoM. M.WangF. X.ZhouL.GongS. Y. (2018). Impact of visual and aural emotional design on multimedia learning. Journal of Psychological Science, 41(5), 1124–1129. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2018051
57.
ZhuY.LeongV.HouY.ZhangD.PanY.HuY. (2022). Instructor–learner neural synchronization during elaborated feedback predicts learning transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(6), 1427–1441. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000707
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
