The Effect of Visual Gender on Abuse in Conversation with ECAs
Previous studies have shown that female ECAs are more likely to be abused than male agents, which may cement gender stereotypes. In the study reported in this paper a visually androgynous ECA in the form of a teachable agent in an educational math game was compared with a female and male agent. The results confirm that female agents are more prone to be verbally abused than male agents, but also show that the visually androgynous agent was less abused than the female although more than the male agent. A surprising finding was that very few students asked the visually androgynous agent whether it was a boy or a girl. These results suggest that androgyny may be a way to keep both genders represented, which is especially important in pedagogical settings, simultaneously lowering the abusive behavior and perhaps most important, loosen the connection between gender and abuse.
KeywordsEmbodied conversational agent pedagogical agent teachable agent social conversation off-task conversation visual gender abuse
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.De Angeli, A., Brahman, S., Wallis, P.: Proceedings of Abuse: The darker side of human-computer interaction. In: Workshop at Interact (2005), http://agentabuse.org/Abuse_Workshop_WS5.pdf
- 4.De Angeli, A., Brahnam, S.: Sex Stereotypes and Conversational Agents. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Gender and Interaction – Real and Virtual Women in a Male World, 8th Int. Conf. on Advanced Visual Interfaces (2006), http://sherylbrahnam.com/papers/EN2033.pdf
- 5.De Angeli, A.: Gender Affordances of Conversational Agents. Seminar held at FBK, November 29 (2011), http://gosh.fbk.eu/en/node/98
- 6.Haake, M., Gulz, A.: Visual Stereotypes and Virtual Pedagogical Agents. Educational Technology and Society 11(4), 1–15 (2008)Google Scholar
- 8.Pareto, L., Haake, M., Lindström, P., Sjödén, B., Gulz, A.: A Teachable Agent Based Game Affording Collaboration and Competition: evaluating math comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development (2012)Google Scholar
- 9.Brophy, S., Biswas, G., Katzlberger, T., Bransford, J., Schwartz, D.: Teachable agents: Combining insights from learning theory and computer science. In: Lajoie, S.P., Vivet, M. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 21–28. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
- 10.Blair, K., Schwartz, D., Biswas, G., Leelawong, K.: Pedagogical agents for learning by teaching: Teachable agents. Educational Technology & Society, Special Issue on Pedagogical Agents (2006)Google Scholar
- 15.Wallace, R.S.: Artificial intelligence markup language (2010), http://www.alicebot.org/documentation/
- 16.Silvervarg, A., Jönsson, A.: Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Conversational Agents. In: Proc. of the 7th Workshop on Knowledge and Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems, Barcelona, Spain (2011)Google Scholar
- 17.Baylor, A., Plant, E.: Pedagogical Agents as Social Models for Engineering: The Influence of Appearance on Female Choice. In: Proc. of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2005), pp. 65–72. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar