Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41847080›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

Synthetic relationships with Social Pedagogical Agents in education: a scoping literature review.

Sebas Nouwen, Janienke Sturm, Uwe Matzat, Wijnand IJsselsteijn

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sebas NouwenDepartment of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences (IEIS), Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Janienke SturmHuman Technology Interaction (HTI) Research Group, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Uwe MatzatDepartment of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences (IEIS), Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Wijnand IJsselsteijnDepartment of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences (IEIS), Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: As AI in education increasingly takes the form of Social Pedagogical Agents (SPAs), learners begin to relate to these systems in human-like ways. Concepts such as social presence, affective support, trust, and rapport are widely studied but scattered across domains, labels, and measures. This scoping review maps how "synthetic relationships" between students and SPAs are described in empirical educational research and how SPA design and interaction features relate to students' learning experiences and, when reported, outcomes. Method: Following PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, database searches (Scopus, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, ERIC, PsycINFO) were conducted in August 2025 for peer-reviewed English-language studies (2010-2025) in educational settings involving SPAs with social or relational capabilities and indicators of relationship quality. We excluded studies on physical robots, noneducational contexts, purely functional outcomes, or nonempirical/grey literature. After screening 216 unique records, 29 studies were retained and thematically analyzed to identify recurring design levers, relational constructs, and links to learning. Results: Studies showed substantial terminological and methodological diversity, with short, single-session experiments predominating. Eight recurring design levers shaping relationship quality emerged: (1) voice and appearance, (2) congruence and alignment, (3) empathy expression, (4) social safety and disclosure, (5) transparent personalization, (6) refutational explanations, (7) memory and consistency, and (8) interaction duration. Across studies, SPAs enhanced four key aspects of relationship quality: (a) social presence, (b) affective support, (c) trust, and (d) rapport. Learning gains were strongest when these indicators aligned with sound pedagogy. Discussion: Synthetic relationships with SPAs function as enabling conditions that enhance the learning climate-motivation, effort, and honesty-rather than directly improving test scores. We group the eight design levers into four categories: expressive (how the agent signals), relational (how it connects), transparency (what it communicates and why), and structural (how interaction unfolds). These, paired with the four relational indicators, form a practical framework for optimizing student-SPA relationships. Future work should prioritize multi-session and longitudinal designs, standardize relational measures, and address ethical concerns around purpose, transparency, influence limits, and shared oversight. When coupled with sound pedagogy, SPAs show strong potential to augment teaching and enrich learning.

Indexed as

conversational agentseducationPedagogical Agentsrelationshipsocial AIstudentssynthetic relationshipvirtual agents

Identifiers

PMID41847080
PMCPMC12989599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.