Advertisement

Negative Feedback In Your Face: Examining the Effects of Proxemics and Gender on Learning

  • David C. JeongEmail author
  • Dan Feng
  • Nicole C. Krämer
  • Lynn C. Miller
  • Stacy Marsella
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10498)

Abstract

While applications of virtual agents in training and pedagogy have largely concentrated on positive valenced environments and interactions, human-human interactions certainly also involve a fair share of negativity that is worth exploring in virtual environments. Further, in natural human interaction as well as in virtual spaces, physical actions arguably account for a great deal of variance in our representations of social concepts (e.g., emotions, attitudes). Proxemics, specifically, is a physical cue that can elicit varying perceptions of a social interaction. In the current paper, we explore the combined and individual effects of proxemic distance and gender in a specifically negative feedback educational context. We pursue this with a 2 (Proxemic Distance) \(\times \) 2 (Virtual Instructor Gender) between subject design, where participants actively engage in a learning task with a virtual instructor that provides harsh, negative feedback. While this study demonstrates some anticipated negative reactions to negative feedback from a close distance, such as external attribution of failure, we also observe some unexpected positive outcomes to this negative feedback. Specifically, negative feedback from a close distance has raises positive affect and effort, particularly among male participants interacting with a male virtual professor. Objective measures (head movement data) corroborate these same-gender effects as participants demonstrate more engagement when interacting with a virtual professor of their same gender. The results of the present study have broad implications for the design of intelligent virtual agents for pedagogy and mental health outcomes.

Keywords

Virtual instructor Attribution theory Proxemics Affect 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C., Loomis, J.M.: Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10(6), 583–598 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C., Loomis, J.M.: Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(7), 819–833 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bar-Tal, D.: Attributional analysis of achievement-related behavior. Review of Educational Research 48(2), 259–271 (1978)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baylor, A.L.: Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 364(1535), 3559–3565 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A.C., Swinth, K.R., Hoyt, C.L., Bailenson, J.N.: Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry 13(2), 103–124 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, P., Levinson, S.C.: Politeness: Some universals in language use (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campbell, J.D., Tesser, A.: Motivational interpretations of hindsight bias: An individual difference analysis. Journal of Personality 51(4), 605–620 (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carver, C.S.: Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. J. of Social Issues 54(2), 245–266 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dweck, C.S.: The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31(4), 674 (1975)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dweck, C.S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., Enna, B.: Sex differences in learned helplessness: Ii. the contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and iii. an experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology 14(3), 268 (1978)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edney, J.J., Walker, C.A., Jordan, N.L.: Is there reactance in personal space? The Journal of Social Psychology 100(2), 207–217 (1976)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feng, D., Jeong, D.C., Krämer, N.C., Miller, L.C., Marsella, S.: Is it just me?: Evaluating attribution of negative feedback as a function of virtual instructor’s gender and proxemics. In: AAMAS 2017, pp. 810–818. IFAAMAS (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frieze, I.H.: Women’s expectations for and causal attributions of success and failure. In: Women and achievement, pp. 158–171 (1975)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gockley, R., Forlizzi, J., Simmons, R.: Natural person-following behavior for social robots. In: HRI 2007, pp. 17–24. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall, E.T.: The hidden dimension (1966)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hattie, J., Timperley, H.: The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77(1), 81–112 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heidig, S., Clarebout, G.: Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review 6(1), 27–54 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoffmann, L., Krämer, N.C., 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 (LNAI), vol. 5773, pp. 159–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04380-2_19Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ilies, R., Judge, T.A.: Goal regulation across time: the effects of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(3), 453 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson, W.L., Lester, J.C.: Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. Int. J. of AI in Education 26(1), 25–36 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L.: Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: a review, progress, and recommendations. Int. J. of AI in Education 26(1), 160–169 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klein, O., Licata, L.: Explaining differences between social groups: The impact of group identification on attribution. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie 60(4), 244 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kluger, A.N., DeNisi, A.: The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin 119(2), 254 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kolkmeier, J., Vroon, J., Heylen, D.: Interacting with virtual agents in shared space: single and joint effects of gaze and proxemics. In: Traum, D., Swartout, W., Khooshabeh, P., Kopp, S., Scherer, S., Leuski, A. (eds.) IVA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10011, pp. 1–14. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0_1Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krämer, N.C., Bente, G.: Personalizing e-learning. the social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Review 22(1), 71–87 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krämer, N.C., Karacora, B., Lucas, G., Dehghani, M., Rüther, G., Gratch, J.: Closing the gender gap in stem with friendly male instructors? on the effects of rapport behavior and gender of a virtual agent in an instructional interaction. Computers & Education 99, 1–13 (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Llobera, J., Spanlang, B., Ruffini, G., Slater, M.: Proxemics with multiple dynamic characters in an immersive virtual environment. TAP 8(1), 3 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McMahan, I.D.: Relationships between causal attributions and expectancy of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28(1), 108 (1973)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schroeder, N.L., Adesope, O.O., Gilbert, R.B.: How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? a meta-analytic review. J. of Educational Computing Research 49(1), 1–39 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vallerand, R.J., Reid, G.: On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. J. of Sport Psychology 6(1), 94–102 (1984)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, N., Gratch, J.: Rapport and facial expression. In: ACII, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, N., Johnson, W.L., Mayer, R.E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., Collins, H.: The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66(2), 98–112 (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weiner, B., Russell, D., Lerman, D.: Affective consequences of causal ascriptions. New Directions in Attribution Research 2, 59–90 (1978)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wilcox, L.M., Allison, R.S., Elfassy, S., Grelik, C.: Personal space in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 3(4), 412–428 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Jeong
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dan Feng
    • 2
  • Nicole C. Krämer
    • 3
  • Lynn C. Miller
    • 1
  • Stacy Marsella
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.University Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations