Book contents
- Empathy and Artificial Intelligence
- Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction
- Empathy and Artificial Intelligence
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- AI and Empathy at a Crossroads
- Part IUnderstanding Empathy
- Part IIPerceiving AI Empathy
- Chapter 7Get Real
- Chapter 8Humans and AIs May Fulfill Different Empathic Needs
- Chapter 9Empathic AI Will Undermine Human Kindness
- Chapter 10What LLMpathy Can Tell Us about Received Empathy
- Chapter 11Machines That Care
- Chapter 12What’s So Special about Human Empathy?
- Part IIIBeyond Text: Embodiment and Robots
- Part IVMoral Implications
- Index
- Studies In Emotion and Social Interaction
- References
Chapter 8 - Humans and AIs May Fulfill Different Empathic Needs
from Part II - Perceiving AI Empathy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2026
Book contents
- Empathy and Artificial Intelligence
- Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction
- Empathy and Artificial Intelligence
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- AI and Empathy at a Crossroads
- Part IUnderstanding Empathy
- Part IIPerceiving AI Empathy
- Chapter 7Get Real
- Chapter 8Humans and AIs May Fulfill Different Empathic Needs
- Chapter 9Empathic AI Will Undermine Human Kindness
- Chapter 10What LLMpathy Can Tell Us about Received Empathy
- Chapter 11Machines That Care
- Chapter 12What’s So Special about Human Empathy?
- Part IIIBeyond Text: Embodiment and Robots
- Part IVMoral Implications
- Index
- Studies In Emotion and Social Interaction
- References
Summary
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled artificial systems to generate responses widely perceived as empathic, raising fundamental questions about the nature and value of empathy. This chapter examines why, despite evidence that AI can equal or even surpass humans in tasks of cognitive empathy, human empathy remains uniquely valued by recipients. We review empirical findings comparing human and AI empathic responses, highlighting the critical role of perceived source, effort, motivation, and trust in shaping recipients’ experiences. We argue that the value of empathy depends on the type of empathy sought – cognitive, affective, or motivational – and that AI may be well suited for some empathic functions but not others. Finally, we consider the broader societal implications of artificial empathy, including cultural variation, trust, skill erosion, and the future of human relationships, outlining key open questions for research on empathy in an AI-mediated world.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Empathy and Artificial IntelligenceChallenges, Advances and Ethical Considerations, pp. 86 - 93Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
Adams, R. E., Boscarino, J. A., & Figley, C. R. (2006). Compassion fatigue and psychological distress among social workers: A validation study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(1), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, C., & Keltner, D. (2002). The role of empathy in the formation and maintenance of social bonds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 21–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02230010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, J. W., Poliak, A., Dredze, M., Leas, E. C., Zhu, Z., Kelley, J. B., Faix, D. J., Goodman, A. M., Longhurst, C. A., Hogarth, M., & Smith, D. M. (2023). Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum. JAMA Internal Medicine, 183, 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.413CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Ami Bartal, I., Decety, J., & Mason, P. (2011). Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science, 334(6061), 1427–1430. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210789CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brinkmann, L., Baumann, F., Bonnefon, J.-F., Derex, M., Müller, T. F., Nussberger, A.-M., Czaplicka, A., Acerbi, A., Griffiths, T. L., Henrich, J., Leibo, J. Z., McElreath, R., Oudeyer, P.-Y., Stray, J., & Rahwan, I. (2023). Machine culture. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11), 1855–1868. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01742-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of “perspective-giving” in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, C. D., Hutcherson, C. A., Ferguson, A. M., Scheffer, J. A., Hadjiandreou, E., & Inzlicht, M. (2019). Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(6), 962–976. https://doi.org/10.1037/XGE0000595CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choshen-Hillel, S., Sadras, I., Gordon-Hecker, T., Genzer, S., Rekhtman, D., Caruso, E. M., Clements, K. L., Ohler, A., Gozal, D., Israel, S., Perry, A., & Gileles-Hillel, A. (2022). Physicians prescribe fewer analgesics during night shifts than day shifts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(27), e2200047119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleckley, H. M. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality. The CV Mosby CompanyGoogle Scholar
De Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyal, T., Steffel, M., & Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (2021). Social behavior as a transdiagnostic marker of resilience. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-102046CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleason, K. A., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Ickes, W. (2009). The role of empathic accuracy in adolescents’ peer relations and adjustment. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 997–1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209336605CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guadagni, V., Burles, F., Ferrara, M., & Iaria, G. (2014). The effects of sleep deprivation on emotional empathy. Journal of Sleep Research, 23(6), 657–663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, X., Kaas, M., & Wang, C. D. (2025). A cross-cultural examination of fairness beliefs in human-AI interaction. In Ethics of Institutional Beliefs: From Theoretical to Empirical. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Helin, K., & Lindström, U. Å. (2003). Sacrifice: An ethical dimension of caring that makes suffering meaningful. Nursing Ethics, 10(4), 414–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, C. B. & Blok, A. (2013). Techno-animism in Japan: Shinto cosmograms, actor–network theory, and the enabling powers of non-human agencies. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(2), 84–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keysers, C., Knapska, E., Moita, M. A., & Gazzola, V. (2022). Emotional contagion and prosocial behavior in rodents. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(8), 688–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson, E. B., & Yao, X. (2005). Clinical empathy as emotional labor in the patient–physician relationship. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(9), 1100–1106. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.9.1100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, E. E., Barasch, A., Rand, D., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. (2018). Signaling emotion and reason in cooperation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(5), 702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, S. (2023, February 22). Vanderbilt apologizes for using ChatGPT in email on Michigan shooting. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/22/vanderbilt-chatgpt-ai-michigan-shooting-emailGoogle Scholar
Morelli, S. A., Torre, J. B., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2014). The neural bases of feeling understood and not understood. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(12), 1890–1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, R. (2023, January 6). We provided mental health support to about 4,000 people: Using GPT-3. Here’s what happened [Online post]. X (formerly Twitter). https://twitter.com/RobertRMorris/status/1611450197707464706Google Scholar
Oded, N., Rubin, M., Genzer, S., & Perry, A. (2026). Reading between the lines: LLMs match or exceed human empathic accuracy using text alone. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 100994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olawade, D. B., Wada, O. Z., Odetayo, A., David-Olawade, A. C., Asaolu, F., & Eberhardt, J. (2024). Enhancing mental health with Artificial Intelligence: Current trends and future prospects. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 3, 100099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, D., Goldenberg, A., Inzlicht, M., & Perry, A. (2025). AI-generated empathy: Opportunities, limits, and future directions. Preprint: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8n5jw_v1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovsyannikova, D., de Mello, V. O., & Inzlicht, M. (2025). Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans. Communications Psychology, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00182-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafaeli, E., Gadassi, R., Howland, M., Boussi, A., & Lazarus, G. (2017). Seeing bad does good: Relational benefits of accuracy regarding partners’ negative moods. Motivation and Emotion, 41(3), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9614-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakel, D. P., Hoeft, T. J., Barrett, B. P., Chewning, B. A., Craig, B. M., & Niu, M. (2009). Practitioner empathy and the duration of the common cold. Family Medicine, 41(7), 494–501.Google ScholarPubMed
Rubin, M., Arnon, H., Huppert, J. D., & Perry, A. (2024). Considering the role of human empathy in AI-driven therapy. JMIR Mental Health, 11(1), e56529. https://doi.org/10.2196/56529CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, M., Li, J., Zimmerman, F., Ong, D., Goldenberg, A., & Perry, A. (2025). Comparing perceived human versus AI-generated empathy. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sened, H., Lavidor, M., Lazarus, G., Bar-Kalifa, E., Rafaeli, E., & Ickes, W. (2017). Empathic accuracy and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(6), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/FAM0000320CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, S. S. (2024, May 12). Can mental-health chatbots help with anxiety and depression? WSJ. www.wsj.com/health/wellness/ai-chatbots-mental-health-5184eca2Google Scholar
Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F., & Gino, F. (2020). Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Y., Jia, N., & Wakslak, C. J. (2024). AI can help people feel heard, but an AI label diminishes this impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 121(14), e2319112121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319112121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3085CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.