The conclusion first
Simply adding a character does not necessarily make an explanation clearer. Give it a job: guiding where to look, showing a sequence or putting questions into words.
- What is known
- Studies of on-screen educational characters, anthropomorphic materials, meaningful pointing and specific questions have reported small to moderate positive differences in learning outcomes.
- Conditions
- Assign one job on each screen
- What remains unknown
- The direct effect of a character in corporate sales materials on understanding remains unclear.
What research tells us relatively clearly
Studies of on-screen educational characters, anthropomorphic materials, meaningful pointing and specific questions have reported small to moderate positive differences in learning outcomes.
Which conditions seem important?
- Assign one job on each screen
- Place important information where the character points
- Reduce the information shown at once and divide explanations into steps
- After an analogy, show how it corresponds to the actual mechanism
Representative studies
What was compared, and what changed? Read the findings together with the participants and conditions. YataLogic’s practical interpretations are distinguished from the study results.
Learning guides show potential
A review of research on educational guides reported small positive differences across multiple analyses of learning outcomes. However, the optimal design conditions remain unsettled.
- What did the study compare?
- A review of research in which educational characters and similar agents guide learning
- What was measured?
- Learning outcomes, motivation and related measures
- Participants or setting
- 17 reviews, including 7 meta-analyses
What this does not establishThese are educational settings. They do not directly demonstrate the effect of placing a character in corporate sales materials.
YataLogic’s interpretation: Define the explanatory task and test whether it supports understanding of your own content.
Read the study details（Learning guides show potential）
- Study design
- Umbrella review
- Comparison and conditions
- Synthesis of reviews on pedagogical agents
- Measures
- Learning outcomes, motivation and related measures
- Main findings
- Among 17 reviews, all 7 meta-analyses addressing learning outcomes reported significant positive effects. Design conditions remain unsettled.
- Key figures (scales differ between studies)
- 17 reviews; 7 meta-analyses
- What can be said
- Pedagogical agents appear to have a small positive average effect on learning.
- Important limitations
- This is not a direct effect of characters in corporate sales materials.
Go to notes on statistics and research methods ↓Give the subject of the explanation a face or role
Research that gives the subject of learning materials human-like features, such as a face, reported positive average differences in comprehension, retention and application to other problems.
- What did the study compare?
- Materials personifying the subject with a face versus materials without that presentation
- What was measured?
- Comprehension, retention and application to other problems
- Participants or setting
- 13 articles; 33 experiments
What this does not establishThese studies did not simply place a mascot beside a company logo. The statistics are not improvement percentages.
YataLogic’s interpretation: Consider this approach when explaining what each component does within a system.
Read the study details（Give the subject of the explanation a face or role）
- Study design
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Comparison and conditions
- Facial anthropomorphic materials versus non-anthropomorphic materials
- Measures
- Comprehension, retention and transfer
- Main findings
- Positive pooled effects on comprehension, retention and transfer.
- Key figures (scales differ between studies)
- Transfer SMD=.28; retention=.31; comprehension=.46
- What can be said
- Personifying the subject being explained may support understanding in some situations.
- Important limitations
- SMD=.46 does not mean a 46% improvement. These are not studies of a mascot beside a company logo.
Go to notes on statistics and research methods ↓Point to where people should look
Research on on-screen instructors’ movements reported small positive differences in retention and transfer from meaningful pointing and similar gestures. The task of indicating relevant information is a useful reference.
- What did the study compare?
- Research on lessons where on-screen instructors use meaningful pointing and similar gestures
- What was measured?
- Retention, transfer to other problems and visual attention
- Participants or setting
- 83 articles; 662 effect sizes
What this does not establishThese studies concern on-screen instructors, not a direct test of static corporate characters.
YataLogic’s interpretation: Consider placing the most important information where the character points.
Read the study details（Point to where people should look）
- Study design
- Three-level meta-analysis
- Comparison and conditions
- On-screen instructors using meaningful deictic gestures
- Measures
- Retention, transfer and fixation
- Main findings
- Deictic gestures had small positive effects on retention and transfer.
- Key figures (scales differ between studies)
- Retention g=.28; transfer g=.31
- What can be said
- Pointing and gaze may signal which information to attend to.
- Important limitations
- This is not a direct test of static corporate characters.
Go to notes on statistics and research methods ↓Additional studies considered
Specific questions establish what to check
Research in computer-based learning found that specific prompts to examine one’s learning approach and understanding supported learning processes and outcomes.
- What did the study compare?
- Learning studies using prompts to check one’s learning approach and understanding
- What was measured?
- Self-directed learning and learning outcomes
- Participants or setting
- Experimental research on computer-based learning
What this does not establishThese studies examine prompts themselves. It is unclear whether having a character ask the questions adds an effect.
YataLogic’s interpretation: Consider having a character briefly ask questions that readers are likely to have.
Read the study details（Specific questions establish what to check）
- Study design
- Meta-analysis
- Comparison and conditions
- Metacognitive prompts
- Measures
- Self-regulated learning and learning outcomes
- Main findings
- Specific prompts showed positive effects.
- Key figures (scales differ between studies)
- Self-regulation g=.50; learning outcomes g=.40
- What can be said
- Questions clarify which issues readers should check.
- Important limitations
- This is an effect of questions, not an additional effect specific to characters.
Go to notes on statistics and research methods ↓Studies without positive results and other cautions
Some analyses found almost no difference in cognitive load during learning, and some experiments found no difference in comprehension when animation was added.
Adding a guide may not reduce mental effort
An analysis of pedagogical agents found a very small average difference in perceived cognitive load during learning. Many comparisons showed no clear difference.
- What did the study compare?
- Conditions with versus without a pedagogical agent and related comparisons
- What was measured?
- Perceived cognitive load while learning
- Participants or setting
- 24 articles; 37 comparisons
What this does not establishAdding an agent alone cannot be assumed to reduce cognitive load. Some numerical inconsistencies in the original paper require caution with the details.
YataLogic’s interpretation: When adding a character, avoid excessive repetition of the same information across text, audio and movement.
Read the study details（Adding a guide may not reduce mental effort）
- Study design
- Meta-analysis
- Comparison and conditions
- Comparisons including pedagogical agents present versus absent
- Measures
- Cognitive load
- Main findings
- The overall effect was small and nearly negligible; 23 of 37 comparisons showed no significant difference.
- Key figures (scales differ between studies)
- g=-.053; 24 articles; 37 comparisons
- What can be said
- Simply adding a character does not reduce cognitive load.
- Important limitations
- Some inconsistencies in the original paper’s confidence intervals, p-values and other numbers require cautious interpretation of the details.
Go to notes on statistics and research methods ↓Adding animation may not change understanding
An experiment comparing pharmaceutical television advertisements found no clear differences in comprehension and related outcomes across formats such as live action and animation. The animated condition also received less favorable evaluations than live action.
- What did the study compare?
- Pharmaceutical television advertisements using live action, animation or rotoscoping
- What was measured?
- Comprehension, perceived risks and benefits, and behavioral intentions
- Participants or setting
- n=504 / n=490
What this does not establishThese findings concern the particular advertising conditions studied. They do not mean that characters or animation in general are ineffective.
YataLogic’s interpretation: Before adding motion, clarify what the numbers mean, whom the information applies to and under what conditions.
Read the study details（Adding animation may not change understanding）
- Study design
- Randomized comparative experiment
- Comparison and conditions
- Live-action versus animated versus rotoscoped pharmaceutical TV advertisements
- Measures
- Comprehension, risk/benefit perceptions and behavioral intentions
- Main findings
- No significant differences across presentation formats. The animated condition was liked less than live action.
- Key figures (scales differ between studies)
- n=504 / n=490
- What can be said
- Movement itself does not necessarily add to understanding.
- Important limitations
- This study does not establish that characters in general are ineffective.
Go to notes on statistics and research methods ↓O’Donoghue, A. C., Betts, K. R., Parvanta, S., Johnson, M., Kelly, B., & Mack, N.（2021）
Effects of Animation and Rotoscoping in Direct-to-Consumer Rx TV Advertising: How Animation vs. Rotoscoping vs. Live Action Drive Perceptions and Attitudes toward Drugs
Journal of Advertising Research
View the original paper or source↗ (external site; opens in a new tab)Not finding a difference does not mean there is no effect in every situation. Adverse effects should also be read within the conditions studied.
How YataLogic interprets this
These are design ideas drawn from several studies for practical use. They do not guarantee the same results for your business.
What the study foundA review of research on educational guides reported small positive differences across multiple analyses of learning outcomes. However, the optimal design conditions remain unsettled.
YataLogic’s practical applicationDefine the explanatory task and test whether it supports understanding of your own content.
Check the original study and conditions ↑ What the study foundResearch that gives the subject of learning materials human-like features, such as a face, reported positive average differences in comprehension, retention and application to other problems.
YataLogic’s practical applicationConsider this approach when explaining what each component does within a system.
Check the original study and conditions ↑ What should you look at in practice?
Assess the following responses separately, according to the job assigned.
- Did users feel the explanation was clear?
- Can they answer questions correctly?
- Can they explain the key points in their own words?
- Can they apply the information to a different problem?
- Were misunderstandings reduced?
Research notes
The main text can be understood without reading the statistics. Use these notes to check what the figures mean.
Understand the statistics and research methods
Figures supplement the findings by showing measured differences and uncertainty. Different measures cannot be converted into one common improvement percentage.
- Hedges' g / SMD / Cohen's d
- A standardized effect size expressing mean differences from different scales in standard-deviation units. 0.39 does not mean a 39% improvement. Describe g=.39 as a standardized difference; do not convert it into a percentage.
- RCT
- A comparative trial that randomly assigns participants to groups. Generally strong for causal inference, but the effect concerns the whole intervention. When other functions are added alongside a character, do not call it an isolated character effect.
- Meta-analysis
- A method for statistically combining results from multiple studies. When studies differ substantially, the average alone is insufficient. Also check I² and differences in populations and interventions.
- NS / no significant difference
- A statistically clear difference was not found. This does not necessarily prove that the effect is zero. State that no significant difference was found under these conditions.
This synthesis is YataLogic’s practical reading of multiple studies. It is not a scientifically established proprietary model.
References
This page covers 6 findings from 6 papers or sources. Different findings from the same paper are presented separately.
Finding discussed: Learning guides show potential
Finding discussed: Give the subject of the explanation a face or role
Finding discussed: Point to where people should look
Finding discussed: Specific questions establish what to check
Finding discussed: Adding a guide may not reduce mental effort
O’Donoghue, A. C., Betts, K. R., Parvanta, S., Johnson, M., Kelly, B., & Mack, N.（2021）
Effects of Animation and Rotoscoping in Direct-to-Consumer Rx TV Advertising: How Animation vs. Rotoscoping vs. Live Action Drive Perceptions and Attitudes toward Drugs
Journal of Advertising Research
View the original paper or source↗ (external site; opens in a new tab)Finding discussed: Adding animation may not change understanding
What about your business?
Apply these ideas to your business
Together, we consider the role based on your business and customer touchpoints.
Talk to YataLogic →English summaries and any translated source titles are provided by YataLogic. Linked papers and source documents have not been translated and may be in Japanese or another language.
