The Effect of Gait Parameters on the Perception of Animated Agents’ Personality

  • Santi P. Badathala
  • Nicoletta AdamoEmail author
  • Nicholas J. Villani
  • Hazar N. Dib
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10850)


The esthetics and personality of animated agents play an important role in enhancing the experience of human-computer interactions. In the context of online learning and instruction, research shows that the personality of pedagogical agents can have a significant impact on students’ learning. The study reported in the paper focused on the expression of agents’ personality through non-verbal cues. In particular, it investigated whether certain gait parameters affect how the audience perceives the personality of a stylized animated pedagogical agent walking in a virtual classroom. While evidence exists that the way a character walks can affect the viewer’s perception of his/her personality, it is not clear yet which specific gait attributes contribute the most to identifying the personality of the character. In this study, six different parameters of gait were examined to see how slight changes in their values could help the audience perceive the agent as an extrovert. The study included 18 video stimuli and data was collected from 79 participants. Findings confirmed the effect gait can have on the perception of personality. They further suggest that stride length, beat of the walk (e.g. walking speed) beltline tilt, and upper body twist contribute the most towards this end.


Animated pedagogical agents Character animation Gait Personality Five-factor model 



This work is supported in part by NSF award #1217215, and by Purdue Provost Instructional Innovation Grant 2017–2018. The authors would like to thank Purdue Statistical Consulting for their help with the statistical analysis of the data.


  1. 1.
    Thomas, F., Johnston, O., Rawls, W.: Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life, vol. 4. Abbeville Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L., Shen, E.: Pedagogical agents as learning companions: the impact of agent emotion and gender. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 23, 220–234 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blisle, J.F., Bodur, H.O.: Avatars as information: perception of consumers based on their avatars in virtual worlds. Psychol. Mark. 27(8), 741–765 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., Neumann, M.M.: The influence of avatars on online consumer shopping behavior. J. Mark. 70(4), 19–36 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B.J., Reeves, B., Dryer, C.: Can computer personalities be human personalities? In: Conference companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 228–229. ACM (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lester, J., Converse, S., Kahler, S., Barlow, T., Stone, B., Bhogal, R.: The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of CHI 1997, pp. 359–366 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmes, J.: Designing agents to support learning by explaining. Comput. Educ. 48, 523–547 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moreno, R., Mayer, R.: Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19, 309–326 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lusk, M.M., Atkinson, R.K.: Animated pedagogical agents: does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 21, 747–764 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cassell, J.: Embodied Conversational Agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schroeder, N., Adesope, O.O., Barouch Gilbert, R.: How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 49(1), 1–39 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou, L., Mohammed, A.S., Zhang, D.: Mobile personal information management agent: supporting natural language interface and application integration. Inf. Process. Manag. 48(1), 23–31 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L.: Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educ. Technol. 47(01), 23–28 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guo, Y.R., Goh, D.H.L.: Affect in embodied pedagogical agents: meta-analytic review. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 53(1), 124–149 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erdle, S., Murray, H.G., Rushton, J.P.: Personality, classroom behavior, and student ratings of college teaching effectiveness: a path analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 77(4), 394 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bailenson, J.N., Yee, N., Merget, D., Schroeder, R.: The effect of behavioral realism and form realism of real-time avatar faces on verbal disclosure, nonverbal disclosure, emotion recognition, and co-presence in dyadic interaction. Presence Teleop. Virtual Environ. 15(4), 359–372 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Konstantinidis, E.I., Hitoglou-Antoniadou, M., Luneski, A., Bamidis, P.D., Nikolaidou, M.M.: Using affective avatars and rich multimedia content for education of children with autism. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments. ACM (1995). Article No. 58Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCrae, R.R., John, O.P.: An introduction to the five factor model and its applications. J. Pers. 60(2), 175–215 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung, C.G.: Memories, Dreams. Reflections. Vintage, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eysenck, H.J.: The Biological Basis of Personality. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (1967)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neff, M., Wang, Y., Abbott, R., Walker, M.: Evaluating the effect of gesture and language on personality perception in conversational agents. In: Allbeck, J., Badler, N., Bickmore, T., Pelachaud, C., Safonova, A. (eds.) IVA 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6356, pp. 222–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rushton, S., Morgan, J., Richard, M.: Teacher’s Myers-Briggs personality profiles: identifying effective teacher personality traits. Teach. Teach. Educ. 23, 432–441 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Riggio, R.E., Friedman, H.S.: Impression formation: the role of expressive behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50(2), 421 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sakaguchi, K., Hasegawa, T.: Person perception through gait information and target choice for sexual advances: comparison of likely targets in experiments and real life. J. Nonverbal Behav. 30(2), 63–85 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Satchell, L., Morris, P., Mills, C., O’Reilly, L., Marshman, P., Akehurst, L.: Evidence of big five and aggressive personalities in gait biomechanics. J. Nonverbal Behav. 41, 35–44 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams, R.: The Animator’s Survival Kit: A Manual of Methods, Principles and Formulas for Classical, Computer, Games, Stop Motion and Internet Animators, 4th edn. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu, C.J., Hamada, M.S.: Experiments: Planning, Analysis, and Optimization. Wiley, New York (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Albright, L., Kenny, D.A., Malloy, T.E.: Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55(3), 387 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Santi P. Badathala
    • 1
  • Nicoletta Adamo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicholas J. Villani
    • 1
  • Hazar N. Dib
    • 1
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations