Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-9
How an animated pedagogical agent’s emotional expression can impact trust and learning outcomes: Emotive virtual humans have the same results with a smile or scowl
The current study examines if the emotional expression of an animated pedagogical agent has an impact on the trust formed between learners and the agent or on learning outcomes. Researchers have shown that the design decisions of pedagogical agents, or virtual humans, can impact user interaction. However, the effects of the virtual human’s emotional expression have yet to be fully understood. Results from this study show that trust is not affected by the emotional expression of the agents. However, evidence suggests that emotive virtual humans reduce attrition effects compared to agents without emotional expressions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArguedasM.XhafaF.CasillasL.DaradoumisT.PeñaA.CaballéS. (2018). A model for providing emotion awareness and feedback using fuzzy logic in online learning. Soft Computing - A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies & Applications, 22(3), 963–977.
2.
BailensonJ. N.YeeN.BlascovichJ.BeallA. C.LundbladN.JinM. (2008). The use of immersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students, and social context. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 102–141.
3.
BergmannK.KoppS. (2009). Increasing the expressiveness of virtual agents: autonomous generation of speech and gesture for spatial description tasks. In Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1 (pp. 361-368). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
4.
CraigS. D.ChiouE. K.SchroederN. L. (2019). The Impact of Virtual Human Voice on Learner Trust. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 2272-2276). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
5.
CraigS. D.GholsonB.DriscollD. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428
6.
CraigS. D.SchroederN. L. (2018). Design principles for virtual humans in educational technology environments. In Deep Comprehension (pp. 128-139). Routledge.
7.
CraigS. D.SchroederN. L.RoscoeR. D.CookeN. J.PrewittD.SiyuanL.MorganL. A.ParedesY. V. M.SiegleR. F.ClarkA. (2020). Science of Learning and Readiness: Stateof-the-Art Report. Arizona State University Tempe United States.
8.
CraigS. D.TwyfordJ.IrigoyenN.ZippS. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 3–14.
9.
DavisR. O.VincentJ.ParkT. (2019). Reconsidering the Voice Principle with Non-native Language Speakers. Computers & Education, 140, 103605.
10.
DjukicM.AdamsJ.FulmerT.SzyldD.LeeS.OhS.-Y.TriolaM. (2015). E-Learning with virtual teammates: A novel approach to interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29(5), 476–482.
11.
GratchJ.MarsellaS. (2005). Lessons from Emotion Psychology for the Design of Lifelike Characters. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3/4), 215–233.
12.
HorovitzT.MayerR. E. (2021). Learning with human and virtual instructors who display happy or bored emotions in video lectures. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 106724.
13.
LawsonA. P.MayerR. E. (2022). Does the Emotional Stance of Human and Virtual Instructors in Instructional Videos Affect Learning Processes and Outcomes?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 102080.
14.
LiewT. W.TanS. M.KewS. N. (2022). Can an angry pedagogical agent enhance mental effort and learning performance in a multimedia learning environment?. Information and Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS09-2021-0079.
15.
LouwerseM. M.GraesserA. C.LuS.MitchellH. H. (2005). Social cues in animated conversational agents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 693-704.
16.
MatsumotoD. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display rule attitudes, and self-reported emotional expression in an American sample. Motivation and Emotion, 17(2), 107-123.
17.
MayerR. E.SobkoK.MautoneP. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419.
18.
MilneM. (2018). Development and Evaluation of an Autonomous, Virtual Agent Based Social Skills Tutor for Children with Autism (Doctoral dissertation, Flinders University, College of Science and Engineering.).
19.
MitchellW. J.Szerszen SrK. A.LuA. S.SchermerhornP. W.ScheutzM.MacDormanK. F. (2011). A mismatch in the human realism of face and voice produces an uncanny valley. i-Perception, 2(1), 10-12.
20.
MorenoR.MayerR. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724–733.
21.
RuhlandK.PetersC. E.AndristS.BadlerJ. B.BadlerN. I.GleicherM.... McDonnellR. (2015). A review of eye gaze in virtual agents, social robotics and HCI: Behaviour generation, user interaction and perception. Computer Graphics Forum, 34(6), 299–326.
22.
SchroederN. L.AdesopeO. O.GilbertR. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 139.
23.
SchroederN. L.ChiouE. K.CraigS. D. (2020). Trust influences perceptions of virtual humans, but not necessarily learning. Computers & Education, 160, 104039.
24.
SchroederN. L.SiegleR. F.VermaV.CraigS. D. (2022). When Refutation and Deep Reasoning Questions Lose Their Edge: The Case of Short, Narrated Videos. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 07356331211070534.
25.
SimpsonP. A.StrohL. K. (2004). Gender differences: emotional expression and feelings of personal inauthenticity. Journal of Applied psychology, 89(4), 715.
26.
SullinsJ.CraigS. D.GraesserA. C. (2009). Tough love: The influence of an agent’s negative affect on students’ learning. In DimitrovaV.MizoguchiR.du BoulayB.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education, Building Learning Systems That Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modeling (pp. 677–679). Washington, DC: IOS Press.
27.
TuZ.WengD.LiangB.LuoL. (2022). Acquiring identity and expression information from monocular face image. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 1.
28.
VinayagamoorthyV.GarauM.SteedA.SlaterM. (2004). An eye gaze model for dyadic interaction in an immersive virtual environment: Practice and experience. Computer Graphics Forum, 23(1), 1–11.
