ArticleScientific reports2026
Chatting with an LLM-based AI elicits affective and cognitive processes in education for sustainable development.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Personalized interactions have been discussed as beneficial for learning for decades. Now, with the rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), personalized artificial human-like conversations may impact the quality of learning. Manipulating system prompts to design personalities has the potential to enhance the quality of conversation with Large Language Model (LLM)-based AI. However, it is still uncertain exactly to what extent the emotional tone of a generative AI chatbot is relevant for learning. Hence, the current study evaluates the impact of a chat-based conversation with an LLM-based AI on relevant affective (empathy, compassion, distress) and cognitive (perspective-taking, reflection, knowledge) processes in education for sustainable development. Here, the focus is on both the general impact and the particular impact of two different system prompts that assign the AI’s specific personality traits (empathic vs. compassionate). Comparing these two groups and one control group reading a text (N = 122) indicates that chatting with an empathic AI can elicit stronger emotions (e.g., empathy, compassion, distress) compared to chatting with a compassionate AI, and compared to the control. Although all groups gained knowledge, we found no group differences. Further research is necessary to ensure reliable and contextually appropriate conversations in the context of education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.