The Effect of Visual Gender on Abuse in Conversation with ECAs

  • Annika Silvervarg
  • Kristin Raukola
  • Magnus Haake
  • Agneta Gulz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7502)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Embodied conversational agent pedagogical agent teachable agent social conversation off-task conversation visual gender abuse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoffmann, L., Krämer, N., Lam-chi, A., Kopp, S.: Media Equation Revisited: Do Users Show Polite Reactions towards an Embodied Agent? In: Ruttkay, Z., Kipp, M., Nijholt, A., Vilhjálmsson, H.H. (eds.) IVA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5773, pp. 159–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bickmore, T., Pfeifer, L., Schulman, D.: Relational Agents Improve Engagement and Learning in Science Museum Visitors. In: Vilhjálmsson, H.H., Kopp, S., Marsella, S., Thórisson, K.R. (eds.) IVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6895, pp. 55–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 5.
    De Angeli, A.: Gender Affordances of Conversational Agents. Seminar held at FBK, November 29 (2011), http://gosh.fbk.eu/en/node/98
  6. 6.
    Haake, M., Gulz, A.: Visual Stereotypes and Virtual Pedagogical Agents. Educational Technology and Society 11(4), 1–15 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., Doering, A.: When Sex, Drugs, and Violence Enter the Classroom – Conversations between Adolescents and a Female Pedagogical Agent. Interacting with Computers 20(3), 292–301 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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. 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
  11. 11.
    Roscoe, R., Chi, M.: Understanding Tutor Learning: Knowledge-Building and Knowledge-Telling in Peer Tutors’ Explanations and Questions. Review of Educational Research 77, 534–574 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chase, C., Chin, D., Oppezzo, M., Schwartz, D.: Teachable Agents and the Protégé Effect: Increasing the Effort Towards Learning. J. of Science Education and Technology 18(4), 334–352 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A.: Extending a Teachable Agent with a Social Conversation Module – Effects on Student Experiences and Learning. In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6738, pp. 106–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hackett, G., Betz, N.E.: An Exploration of the Mathematics Self-Efficacy/Mathematics Performance Correspondence. J. for Research in Mathematics Education 20(3), 261–273 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wallace, R.S.: Artificial intelligence markup language (2010), http://www.alicebot.org/documentation/
  16. 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. 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
  18. 18.
    Rosenberg-Kima, R., Baylor, A., Plant, E., Doerr, C.: 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(6), 2741–2756 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annika Silvervarg
    • 1
  • Kristin Raukola
    • 1
  • Magnus Haake
    • 2
  • Agneta Gulz
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Cognitive ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations