Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2909824.3020242acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

(Ir)relevance of Gender?: On the Influence of Gender Stereotypes on Learning with a Robot

Published: 06 March 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Education research has documented a trend that reflects gender-based differences in the choice of fields of study. This, in turn, contributes to an imbalance in the representation of men and women in particular professions: In educational contexts, female teachers predominantly teach stereotypically female areas of study like social sciences and humanities, whereas male teachers are mainly represented in stereotypically male domains like mathematics. Research further provides evidence for the fact that this gender-stereotyped division of labor in education significantly impacts students' learning and motivation. Would gender-related stereotypes also bias learning processes with robots? This is plausible in light of the fact that social robots become more and more popular in learning settings. Thus, should the next generation of educational robots be 'gendered' and what impact would robot gender have on task performance, particularly in the context of a gender-stereotypical human-robot interaction (HRI) task? To investigate these issues, we examined the influence of robot gender on learning when completing either stereotypically female or stereotypically male learning tasks. 120 university students (60 females and 60 males) completed either stereotypically female or stereotypically male tasks with the support of a male vs. female instructor robot. The manipulation check indicated that participants recognized the robot's alleged gender correctly. Importantly, our results suggest that prevailing gender stereotypes associated with learning do not apply to robots that perform gender-stereotypical tasks. Interestingly, our findings indicated that a mismatch of robot gender and gender typicality of the respective task led to increased willingness to engage in prospective learning processes with the robot. We discuss these results with respect to future research on HRI and learning, and with regard to practical implications associated with the introduction of robots into higher education.

References

[1]
Brown, C. and Corcoran, M. 1997. Sex-based differences in school content and the male-female wage gap. J. Labor. Econ. 15, 3 (Jul. 1997), 431--465.
[2]
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., and Barnett, S. M. 2009. Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychol. Bull. 135, 2 (Mar. 2009), 218--26
[3]
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., and Linn, M. C. 2010. Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136, 1 (Jan. 2010), 103--127.
[4]
Kessels, U. 2005. Fitting into the stereotype: How gender-stereotyped perceptions of prototypic peers relate to liking for school subjects. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 20, 3 (Sep. 2005), 309--323.
[5]
Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., and Burg, S. 2006. Gender and motivation. J. School. Psychol. 44, 5 (Oct. 2006), 351--373.
[6]
Mendez, L., Mihalas, S., and Hardesty, R. 2006. Gender differences in academic development and performance. In Children's needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention, G. G. Bear and K. M. Minke, Eds. National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC, 553--565.
[7]
Su, R., Rounds, J., and Armstrong, P. 2009. Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychol. Bull. 135, 6 (Nov. 2009), 859--884.
[8]
Bettinger, E. P. and Long, B. T. 2005. Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. Am. Econ. Rev. 95, 2 (May 2005), 152--157.
[9]
Lockwood, P. 2006. "Someone like me can be successful": Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychol. Women Quart. 30, 1 (Mar. 2006), 36--46.
[10]
Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., and McManus, M. A. 2011. STEMing the tide: using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 2 (Feb. 2011) 255--70.
[11]
Epley, N., Waytz, A., and Cacioppo, J. T. 2007. On seeing human: A three factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114, 4 (Oct. 2007), 864--886.
[12]
Nass, C., Moon, Y., Morkes, J., Kim, E. Y., and Fogg, B. 1997. Computers are social actors: A review of current research. In Human values and the design of computer technology, B. Friedman, Ed. CSLI Press, Stanford, CA, USA, Aug. 1997, 137--162. DOI= http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=278222.
[13]
Reeves, B. and Nass, C. 1996. The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
[14]
Kuchenbrandt, D., Riether, N., and Eyssel, F. 2014. Does anthropomorphism reduce stress in HRI? In Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Bielefeld, Germany, March 03 - 06, 2014). HRI '14. ACM. New York, NY, 218--219. DOI = http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2563710.
[15]
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J. H., and Cacioppo, J. T. 2010. Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99, 3 (Sep. 2010), 410--435.
[16]
Fiske, S. T. and Neuberg, S. L. 1990. A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 23 (Apr. 1990), 1--74.
[17]
Zebrowitz, L. 1997. Reading faces. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
[18]
Echterhoff, G., Bohner, G., and Siebler, F. 2006. "Social Robotics" und Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion: Aktuelle Forschung und Relevanz für die Sozialpsychologie {Social robotics and human-machine interaction: Current research and relevance for social psychology}. Z. Sozialpsychol. 37, 4 (Dec. 2006), 219--231.
[19]
Eyssel, F. and Kuchenbrandt, D. 2012. Social categorization of social robots: Anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 4 (Dec. 2012), 724--731.
[20]
Salem, M., Eyssel, F., Rohlfing, K., Kopp, S., and Joublin, F. 2013. To err is human (-like): Effects of robot gesture on perceived anthropomorphism and likeability. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5, 3 (Aug. 2013), 313--323.
[21]
Eyssel, F. and Hegel, F. 2012. (S)he's got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 9 (Jul. 2012), 2213--2230.
[22]
Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Royer, J. M., and Tai, M. 2009. Affective gendered learning companion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (Brighton, England, July 06 - 10, 2009). AIED '09. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 41--48.
[23]
Baylor, A. M. and Kim, Y. 2004. Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. Lect. Notes Comp. Sc. 3220 (Sep. 2004), 592--603.
[24]
Karacora, B., Dehghani, M., Krämer, N., and Gratch, J. 2012. The influence of virtual agents' gender and rapport on enhancing math performance. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Sapporo, Japan, August 1 - 4, 2012). CogSci '12. Curran Associates, Red Hook, New York, NY, 563--568.
[25]
Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Atkinson, R. K., and Reisslein, M. 2013. Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Comput. Educ. 67 (Sep. 2013), 36--50.
[26]
Plant, E. A., Baylor, A. L., Doerr, C. E., and Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. 2009. Changing middle-school students' attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computerbased social models. Comput. Educ. 53, 2 (Sep. 2009), 209--215.
[27]
Kuchenbrandt, D., Häring, M., Eichberg, J., Eyssel, F., and André, E. 2014. Keep an eye on the task! How gender typicality of Tasks Influence human-robot interactions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 3 (Aug. 2014), 417--427.
[28]
Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., and Powers, A. 2003. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Millbrae, CA, USA, October 31 - November 02, 2003). RO-MAN '03. IEEE, New York, NY, 55--50.
[29]
Nass, C., Moon, Y., and Green, N. 1997. Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 10 (May 1997), 864--876.
[30]
Powers, A., Kramer, A. D. I., Lim, S., Kuo, J., Lee, S. L., and Kiesler, S. 2005. Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Nashville, TN, USA, August 13 - 15, 2005). RO-MAN '05. IEEE, New York, NY, 158--163.
[31]
Kelley, J. F. 1984. An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural-language office information applications. ACM T. Inform. Syst. 2, 1 (Jan. 1984), 26--41. DOI= http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=357420.
[32]
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., and Bjork, R. 2008. Learning styles. Concepts and evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public. Interest. 9, 3 (Dec. 2009), 105--119.
[33]
Krämer, N., Simons, N., and Kopp, S. 2007. The effects of an embodied conversational agent's nonverbal behavior on user's evaluation and behavioral mimicry. Lect. Notes Comput. Sc. 4722 (Sep. 2007), 238--251.
[34]
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. 2003. Intrinsic motivation inventory. Retrieved June 6, 2015 from http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/questionnaires/10-questionnaires/50.
[35]
Brooke, J. 1996. SUS: A "quick and dirty" usability scale. In Usability Evaluation in Industry, P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, and I. L. McClelland, Eds., Taylor & Francis, London, Sept. 1996, 189--194.
[36]
Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS. Quart. 13, 3 (Sept. 1989), 319--340.
[37]
Kamide, H., Eyssel, F., and Arai, T. 2013. Psychological anthropomorphism of robots measuring mind perception and humanity in Japanese context. Lect. Notes Comp. Sc. 8239 (Oct. 2013) 199--207.
[38]
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., and Wegner, D. M. 2007. Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315, 5812 (Feb. 2007), 619.
[39]
Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Bobinger, S., de Ruiter, L. and Hegel, F. 2012. 'If you sound like me, you must be more human': On the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Boston, MA, USA, March 05 - 08, 2012). HRI '12. ACM. New York, NY, 125--126. DOI = http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2157717.
[40]
Eyssel, F. and Reich, N. 2013. Loneliness makes the heart grow fonder (of robots). On the effects of loneliness on psychological anthropomorphism. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM/ IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Tokyo, Japan, March 03 - 06, 2012). HRI '13. ACM. New York, NY, 121--122. DOI = http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2447597.
[41]
Eyssel, F. and Pfundmair, M. 2015. Predictors of psychological anthropomorphization, mind perception, and the fulfillment of social needs: A case study with a zoomorphic robot. In Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Kobe, Japan, August 31 - September 04, 2015). RO-MAN '15. IEEE, New York, NY, 827--832.
[42]
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick. P., and Xu, J. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 6 (Jun. 2002), 878--902.
[43]
Reich, N. and Eyssel, F. 2013. Attitudes towards service robots in domestic environments: The role of personality characteristics, individual interests, and demographic variables. J. Behav. Robot. 4, 2 (Dec. 2013), 123--130.
[44]
Reich-Stiebert, N. and Eyssel, F. 2015. Learning with educational companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for education robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7, 5 (Nov. 2015), 875--888.
[45]
Neyer, F. J., Felber, J., and Gebhardt, C. 2012. Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft (Technology Commitment) {Development and validation of a short technology commitment scale}. Diagnostica 58, 2 (Mar. 2012), 87--99.
[46]
Han, J., Jo, M., Jones, V., and Jo, J. H. 2008. Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children. J. Inform. Process. Syst. 4, 4 (Dec. 2008), 159--168.
[47]
Riether, N., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., and Horstmann, G. 2012. Social facilitation with social robots? In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Boston, MA, USA, March 05 - 08, 2012). HRI '12. ACM. New York, NY, 41--48. DOI= http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2157697.
[48]
Saerbeck, M., Schut, T., Bartneck, C., and Janse, M. D. 2010. Expressive robots in education. Varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, GA, USA, April 10 - 15, 2010). CHI '10. ACM, New York, NY, 1613--1622. DOI= http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1753326.1753567.
[49]
Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. 2010. Reducing the Gender Achievement Gap in College Science: A Classroom Study of Values Affirmation. Science, 330, 6008 (Nov. 2010) 1234--1237.
[50]
Steele, C. M. 1988. The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In Advances in experimental social psychology, L. Berkowitz, Ed. Academic Press, New York, 261--302.
[51]
Garnham, A., Gabriel, U., Sarrasin, O., Gygax, P., and Oakhill, J. 2012. Gender representation in different languages and grammatical marking on pronouns: When beauticians, musicians, and mechanics remain men. Discourse Process. 49, 6 (May 2012), 481--500.
[52]
Steele, C. M. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychol. 52, 6 (Jun. 1997), 613--629.
[53]
Leyens, J. P., Desert, M., Croizet, J. C., and Darcis, C. 2000. Stereotype threat: Are lower status and history of stigmatization preconditions of stereotype threat? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 26, 10 (Nov. 2000), 1189--1199.
[54]
O'Brien, L. T. and Crandall, C. S. 2003. Stereotype threat and arousal: Effects on women's math performance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 6 (Jun. 2003), 782--789.
[55]
Nguyen, H. H. D. and Ryan, A. M. 2008. Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. J. Appl. Psychol., 93, 6 (Nov. 2008), 1314--1334.
[56]
Reich-Stiebert, N. and Eyssel, F. (2016). Robots in the classroom: What teachers think about teaching and learning with education robots. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciene, 9979 (Oct. 2016), 671--680.
[57]
Serholt, S. and Barendregt, W. 2014. Students' attitudes towards ethical dilemmas in the possible future of social robots in education. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Edinburgh, Scotland, August 25 - 29, 2014). RO-MAN '14. IEEE. New York, NY, 955--960.
[58]
Fridin, M. and Belokopytov, M. 2014. Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 33 (Apr. 2014), 23--31. DOI= http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2608967.
[59]
Aldebaran Soft Bank Group. NAO. Solutions for Education and Research. Retrieved September 13, 2016 from https://www.aldebaran.com/en/solutions/education-research.
[60]
Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., & Norton, M. I. 2009. Persuasive Robotics: The Influence of Robot Gender on Human Bahavior. In Proceedings oft he IEEE/ RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (St. Louis, USA, October 11--15, 2009). IROS '09. IEEE, New York, NY, 2563--2568.
[61]
Hegel, F. 2010. Gestalterisch-konstruktiver Entwurf eines sozialen Roboters {Design and conception of a social robot}. Der Andere Verlag, Tönning, Germany.
[62]
Marchetti-Bowick, M. 2009. Is your roomba male or female? The role of gender stereotypes and cultural norms in robot design. Intersect 2, 1 (Sep. 2009), 90--103.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Why robot embodiment matters: questions of disability, race and intersectionality in the design of social robotsMedical Humanities10.1136/medhum-2024-013028(medhum-2024-013028)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Torn Between Love and Hate: Mouse Tracking Ambivalent Attitudes Towards RobotsInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-024-01112-616:4(725-741)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Will You Work with Us to Design a Robot? Boys’ and Girls’ Choices of Anthropomorphic Robots According to Their GenderDesign, User Experience, and Usability10.1007/978-3-031-61353-1_8(114-126)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
HRI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
March 2017
510 pages
ISBN:9781450343367
DOI:10.1145/2909824
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 March 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. educational robots
  2. gender stereotypes
  3. human-robot interaction
  4. learning
  5. robot evaluation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • European CODEFROR project
  • DFG

Conference

HRI '17
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

HRI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 51 of 211 submissions, 24%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)121
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13
Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Why robot embodiment matters: questions of disability, race and intersectionality in the design of social robotsMedical Humanities10.1136/medhum-2024-013028(medhum-2024-013028)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Torn Between Love and Hate: Mouse Tracking Ambivalent Attitudes Towards RobotsInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-024-01112-616:4(725-741)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Will You Work with Us to Design a Robot? Boys’ and Girls’ Choices of Anthropomorphic Robots According to Their GenderDesign, User Experience, and Usability10.1007/978-3-031-61353-1_8(114-126)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2024
  • (2023)A Systematic Literature Review on the Applications of Robots and Natural Language Processing in EducationElectronics10.3390/electronics1213286412:13(2864)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2023
  • (2023)Enactive artificial intelligence: subverting gender norms in human-robot interactionFrontiers in Neurorobotics10.3389/fnbot.2023.114930317Online publication date: 8-Jun-2023
  • (2023)Is Gender-Neutral AI the Correct Solution to Gender Bias? Using Speech-Based Conversational AgentsArchives of Design Research10.15187/adr.2023.05.36.2.6336:2(63-91)Online publication date: 31-May-2023
  • (2023)The Effect of Appearance Design on the Acceptance of Social RobotsArtificial Intelligence and Robotics Research10.12677/AIRR.2023.12403412:04(311-318)Online publication date: 2023
  • (2023)Robot’s Gendering Trouble: A Scoping Review of Gendering Humanoid Robots and Its Effects on HRIInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-023-01061-615:11(1725-1753)Online publication date: 22-Nov-2023
  • (2023)The Power of Personal Ontologies: Individual Traits Prevail Over Robot Traits in Shaping Robot Humanization PerceptionsInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-023-01045-615:9-10(1665-1682)Online publication date: 18-Sep-2023
  • (2023)(Hu)man-Like Robots: The Impact of Anthropomorphism and Language on Perceived Robot GenderInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-023-00975-515:11(1829-1840)Online publication date: 21-Mar-2023
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media