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 I Understanding Empathy
- Chapter 1 A Very Human History of Artificial Empathy
- Chapter 2 Try to See Things from My Point of View
- Chapter 3 Does It Take Two to Empathize?
- Chapter 4 Models Match or Surpass Objective Human Performance on Various Tasks
- Chapter 5 Synthetic Support
- Chapter 6 Is Empathic AI Possible?
- Part II Perceiving AI Empathy
- Part III Beyond Text: Embodiment and Robots
- Part IV Moral Implications
- Index
- Studies In Emotion and Social Interaction
- References
Chapter 6 - Is Empathic AI Possible?
from Part I - Understanding 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 I Understanding Empathy
- Chapter 1 A Very Human History of Artificial Empathy
- Chapter 2 Try to See Things from My Point of View
- Chapter 3 Does It Take Two to Empathize?
- Chapter 4 Models Match or Surpass Objective Human Performance on Various Tasks
- Chapter 5 Synthetic Support
- Chapter 6 Is Empathic AI Possible?
- Part II Perceiving AI Empathy
- Part III Beyond Text: Embodiment and Robots
- Part IV Moral Implications
- Index
- Studies In Emotion and Social Interaction
- References
Summary
Efforts to develop “empathic AI” often assume a universal definition for empathy – a singular, objective understanding of “human” experiences. This framing treats achieving empathic AI as an optimization challenge, where researchers should find the “correct” way to align AI with human empathy. In this chapter, we challenge this assumption by emphasizing the empathy’s multifaceted nature and examining how variation across its forms and the social groups we are embedded within complicates efforts to design a universally applicable empathic AI. We argue that codifying empathy into artificial systems is difficult, given that empathy is an inherently context-dependent phenomenon. Drawing on recent evidence of cultural biases in large language models, we highlight broader ethical, epistemic, and potentially existential concerns in designing machines that “understand” or “feel” others. We conclude by advocating for a more contextualized and culture-aware approach to empathic AI, moving beyond the reductionist notion of “humans” as a monolith.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Empathy and Artificial IntelligenceChallenges, Advances and Ethical Considerations, pp. 65 - 76Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
Abdurahman, S., Atari, M., Karimi-Malekabadi, F., Xue, M. J., Trager, J., Park, P. S., Golazizian, P., Omrani, A., & Dehghani, M. (2024). Perils and opportunities in using large language models in psychological research. PNAS Nexus, 3(7), 245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atari, M., Haidt, J., Graham, J., Koleva, S., Stevens, S. T., & Dehghani, M. (2023a). Morality beyond the WEIRD: How the nomological network of morality varies across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(5), 1157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atari, M., & Henrich, J. (2023). Historical psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(2), 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atari, M., Kroupin, I., Morhayim, L., Blasi, D. E., Schulz, J., & Henrich, J. (2025). WEIRD questions: Diversifying conceptual sampling. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/vxcrj_v1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atari, M., Mostafazadeh Davani, A., & Dehghani, M. (2020). Body maps of moral concerns. Psychological Science, 31(2), 160–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atari, M., Xue, M. J., Park, P. S., Blasi, D. E., & Henrich, J. (2023b). Which humans? https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5b26tCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atari, M., & Zewail, A. (2025). Morality across time and space. European Review of Social Psychology, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awad, E. (2025). Digital pathways beyond Western-centric participants. Behavior Research Methods, 57(8), 229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballesteros, J. A., Ramírez, V. G. M., Moreira, F., Solano, A., & Pelaez, C. A. (2024). Facial emotion recognition through artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Computer Science, 6, 1359471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, L. F. (2021). AI weighs in on debate about universal facial expressions. Nature, 589(7841), 202–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binz, M., Akata, E., Bethge, M., Brändle, F., Callaway, F., Coda-Forno, J., Dayan, P., Demircan, C., Eckstein, M. K., Éltető, N., Griffiths, T. L., Haridi, S., Jagadish, A. K., Ji-An, L., Kipnis, A., Kumar, S., Ludwig, T., Mathony, M., Mattar, M., … Schulz, E. (2025). A foundation model to predict and capture human cognition. Nature, 644(8078), 1002–1009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Binz, M., & Schulz, E. (2023). Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6), e2218523120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom, P. (2017). Empathy and its discontents. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(1), 24–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 962–975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoglu, D., Akgun, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Bonnefon, J. F., Brañas-Garza, P., Butera, L., Douglas, K. M., Everett, J. A. C., Gigerenzer, G., Greenhow, C., Hashimoto, D. A., Holt-Lunstad, J., Jetten, J., Johnson, S., Kunz, W. H., Longoni, C., … Viale, R. (2024). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. PNAS Nexus, 3(6), 191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassels, T. G., Chan, S., & Chung, W. (2010). The role of culture in affective empathy: Cultural and bicultural differences. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(3–4), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiao, J. Y. (2017). Cultural neuroscience of compassion and empathy. In Seppälä, E. M., Simon-Thomas, E., Brown, S. L., Worline, M. C., Cameron, C. D., & Doty, J. R. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compassion science (pp. 147–158). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chopik, W. J., O’Brien, E., & Konrath, S. H. (2017). Differences in empathic concern and perspective taking across 63 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crimston, C. R., Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., & Bastian, B. (2016). Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 636–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, A. M., Cameron, C. D., & Inzlicht, M. (2020). Motivational costs of empathy: Beyond the affective state. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 104010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., Aycan, Z., Boehnke, K., Boski, P., Cabecinhas, R., Chan, D., Chhokar, J., D’Amato, A., Subirats Ferrer, M., Fischlmayr, I. C., …, Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Devine, P. & Plant, A. (eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Waytz, A., Meindl, P., Iyer, R., & Young, L. (2017). Centripetal and centrifugal forces in the moral circle: Competing constraints on moral learning. Cognition, 167, 58–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossmann, I., Feinberg, M., Parker, D. C., Christakis, N. A., Tetlock, P. E., & Cunningham, W. A. (2023). AI and the transformation of social science research. Science, 380(6650), 1108–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinke, M. S., & Louis, W. R. (2009). Cultural background and individualistic–collectivistic values in relation to similarity, perspective taking, and empathy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(11), 2570–2590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: How the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Blasi, D. E., Curtin, C. M., Davis, H. E., Hong, Z., Kelly, D., & Kroupin, I. (2023). A cultural species and its cognitive phenotypes: Implications for philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14(2), 349–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inzlicht, M., Cameron, C. D., D’Cruz, J., & Bloom, P. (2024). In praise of empathic AI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(2), 89–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jack, R. E., Garrod, O. G., Yu, H., Caldara, R., & Schyns, P. G. (2012). Facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7241–7244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jospe, K., Genzer, S., Klein Selle, N., Ong, D., Zaki, J., & Perry, A. (2020). The contribution of linguistic and visual cues to physiological synchrony and empathic accuracy. Cortex, 132, 296–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkland, K., Crimston, C. R., Jetten, J., Rudnev, M., Acevedo-Triana, C., Amiot, C. E., Ausmees, L., Baguma, P., Barry, O., Becker, M., Bilewicz, M., Boonyasiriwat, W., Castelain, T., Costantini, G., Dimdins, G., Espinosa, A., Finchilescu, G., Fischer, R., Friese, M., … Bastian, B. (2023). Moral expansiveness around the world: The role of societal factors across 36 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(3), 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konrath, S., Martingano, A. J., Davis, M., & Breithaupt, F. (2025). Empathy trends in American youth between 1979 and 2018: An update. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(3), 252–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krems, J. A., Hahnel-Peeters, R. K., Merrie, L. A., Williams, K. E., & Sznycer, D. (2023). Sometimes we want vicious friends: People have nuanced preferences for how they want their friends to behave toward them versus others. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44(2), 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y. T., Yeh, S. L., & Huang, T. R. (2023). The cross-race effect in automatic facial expression recognition violates measurement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1201145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Man, K., & Damasio, A. (2019). Homeostasis and soft robotics in the design of feeling machines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(10), 446–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messeri, L., & Crockett, M. J. (2024). Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature, 627(8002), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montemayor, C., Halpern, J., & Fairweather, A. (2022). In principle obstacles for empathic AI: Why we can’t replace human empathy in healthcare. AI & Society, 37(4), 1353–1359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oyserman, D. (2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 435–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, A. (2023). AI will never convey the essence of human empathy. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11), 1808–1809.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shteynberg, G., Halpern, J., Sadovnik, A., Garthoff, J., Perry, A., Hay, J., Montemayor, C., Olson, M. A., Hulsey, T. L., & Fairweather, A. (2024). Does it matter if empathic AI has no empathy? Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(5), 496–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P. (2011). The expanding circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, Y., Viberg, O., Baker, R. S., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2024). Cultural bias and cultural alignment of large language models. PNAS Nexus, 3(9), 346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varnum, M. E., Baumard, N., Atari, M., & Gray, K. (2024). Large language models based on historical text could offer informative tools for behavioral science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(42), e2407639121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yaghoubi Jami, P., Mansouri, B., Thoma, S. J., & Han, H. (2019). An investigation of the divergences and convergences of trait empathy across two cultures. Journal of Moral Education, 48(2), 214–229.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, 121(14), e2319112121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaki, J. (2018). Empathy is a moral force. In Gray, K. & Graham, J. (eds.), The atlas of moral psychology (pp. 49–58). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. (2016). Empathy. In Barrett, L. F., Lewis, M., & Haviland-Jones, J. (eds.), Handbook of emotions (4th ed., pp. 871–884). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zewail, A., Figueroa, A., Graham, J., & Atari, M. (2026). Moral stereotyping in large language models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 123(10), e2519941123, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2519941123CrossRefGoogle 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.