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 12 - What’s So Special about Human Empathy?
Examining AI Empathy and Its Trade-offs
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
The notion of “AI empathy” has been criticized on the grounds that AI lacks the capacity to authentically share in the experience of the empathy recipient, or to be selective in its choice to empathize. In this chapter, we challenge the argument that human empathy is inherently or universally superior to AI empathy and suggest that a more fruitful way to frame this debate is in terms of the possible trade-offs between what human and AI sources of empathy can offer in particular situations. Emphasizing the empathy recipient’s perspective, we explore possible dimensions in which each empathizer source may excel, shaping the recipient’s possible preference for one source over the other. Drawing upon different ethical frameworks, we then discuss the possible normative consequences of whether one ought to accept or avoid AI empathy, given these trade-offs.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Empathy and Artificial IntelligenceChallenges, Advances and Ethical Considerations, pp. 121 - 128Publisher: 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(6), 589. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batson, C. D., Klein, T. R., Highberger, L., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Immorality from empathy-induced altruism: When compassion and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (2024, November 25). Get real: A reply to critics. Small Potatoes. https://smallpotatoes.paulbloom.net/p/get-realGoogle Scholar
Cameron, C. D., Scheffer, J. A., Hadjiandreou, E., & Anderson, S. (2022). Motivated empathic choices. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 191–279.Google Scholar
Cameron, C. D., Scheffer, J. A., Hadjiandreou, E., Hutcherson, C. A., Ferguson, A. M., & 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
Cameron, C. D., Wagner, A. R., Orlandi, M., Hadjiandreou, E., Oates, I., & Anderson, S. (2025). Empathy for and from embodied robots: An interdisciplinary review. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214251392861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. V., Wang, Y., & Inzlicht, M. (2025). Experimental evidence that exerting effort increases meaning. Cognition, 257, 106065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106065CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cikara, M., Bruneau, E., Van Bavel, J. J., & Saxe, R. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Depow, G. J., Francis, Z., & Inzlicht, M. (2021). The experience of empathy in everyday life. Psychological Science, 32(8), 1198–1213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeYoung, C. G., & Tiberius, V. (2023). Value fulfillment from a cybernetic perspective: A new psychological theory of well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dzieza, J. (2024, December 3). Friend or faux? The Verge. www.theverge.com/c/24300623/ai-companions-replika-openai-chatgpt-assistant-romanceGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G. (2016). The philosophy of well-being: An introduction. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, E., Bunning, B., Khoong, E. C., Gallo, R. J., Milstein, A., Centola, D., & Chen, J. H. (2025). Physician clinical decision modification and bias assessment in a randomized controlled trial of AI assistance. Communications Medicine, 5(1), 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, M. V., Mackin, D. M., Trudeau, B. M., Bhattacharya, S., Wang, Y., Banta, H. A., Jewett, A. D., Salzhauer, A. J., Griffin, T. Z., & Jacobson, N. C. (2025). Randomized trial of a generative AI chatbot for mental health treatment. NEJM AI, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1056/AIoa2400802Google Scholar
Inzlicht, M., & Cameron, C. D. (2024, July 8). Do we need AI to feel and to have real experiences for its empathy to matter? Small Potatoes.Google Scholar
Inzlicht, M., & Cameron, C. D. (2025, March 19). AI alarmism trades on fear, not facts. Speak Now Regret Later.Google Scholar
Inzlicht, M., Cameron, C. D., D’Cruz, J., & Bloom, P. (2024). In praise of empathic AI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(2), 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.12.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klee, M. (2025, May 4). People are losing loved ones to AI-fueled spiritual fantasies. Rolling Stone. www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-spiritual-delusions-destroying-human-relationships-1235330175/Google Scholar
Office of the Surgeon General. (2023). Our epidemic of loneliness and isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on the healing effects of social connection and community. US Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
OpenAI. (2025, May 2). Expanding on what we missed. https://openai.com/index/expanding-on-sycophancy/Google 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), 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00182-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, A. (2023). AI will never convey the essence of human empathy. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11), 1808–1809. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01675-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, M., Li, J. Z., Zimmerman, F., Ong, D. C., Goldenberg, A., & Perry, A. (2025). Comparing the value of perceived human versus AI-generated empathy. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(11), 2345–2359. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02247-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaich Borg, J., & Read, H. (2024, October). What is required for empathic AI? It depends, and why that matters for AI developers and users. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (Vol. 7, pp. 1306–1318).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00841-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, M. A. (2025). Reframing the performance and ethics of “empathic” AI: Wisdom of the crowd and placebos. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zf9w5_v2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiberius, V. (2026). Artificially yours: Real friendship in a world of chatbots. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weisz, E., & Cikara, M. (2021). Strategic regulation of empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 213–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenger, J. D., Cameron, C. D., & Inzlicht, M. (2026). People choose to receive human empathy despite rating AI empathy higher. Communications Psychology, 4(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00387-3.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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319112121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (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.