ArticlePsychology in Russia : state of the art2024
The Emotional Intelligence of the GPT-4 Large Language Model.
Article in Psychology in Russia : state of the art, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Conversational Agent for Providing Personalized Preexposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Support: Protocol for Chatbot Implementation and Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Performance of GPT-4o and Claude in Medical Ethics Scenarios: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Comparing human and AI emotional evaluations of images: GPT-4o performance across standard, persona, and language-specific prompting strategies.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in obstetrics and gynecology: Evaluating ChatGPT and Google Gemini in answering patient questions.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Embracing the Future of Medical Education With Large Language Model-Based Virtual Patients: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Quantum-inspired modeling of social impact in complex networks with artificial intelligent agents.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Information Quality in Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology: Clinicians, Residents, and Large Language Models.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Performance of Plug-In Augmented ChatGPT and Its Ability to Quantify Uncertainty: Simulation Study on the German Medical Board Examination.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Depression and the use of conversational AI for companionship among college students: the mediating role of loneliness and the moderating effects of gender and mind perception.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- A comparison of the persuasiveness of human and ChatGPT generated pro-vaccine messages for HPV.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
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
Background: Advanced AI models such as the large language model GPT-4 demonstrate sophisticated intellectual capabilities, sometimes exceeding human intellectual performance. However, the emotional competency of these models, along with their underlying mechanisms, has not been sufficiently evaluated. Objective: Our research aimed to explore different emotional intelligence domains in GPT-4 according to the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso model. We also tried to find out whether GPT-4's answer accuracy is consistent with its explanation of the answer. Design: The Russian version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) sections was used in this research, with questions asked as text prompts in separate, independent ChatGPT chats three times each. Results: High scores were achieved by the GPT-4 Large Language Model on the Understanding Emotions scale (with scores of 117, 124, and 128 across the three runs) and the Strategic Emotional Intelligence scale (with scores of 118, 121, and 122). Average scores were obtained on the Managing Emotions scale (103, 108, and 110 points). However, the Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought scale yielded low and less reliable scores (85, 86, and 88 points). Four types of explanations for the answer choices were identified: Meaningless sentences; Relation declaration; Implicit logic; and Explicit logic. Correct answers were accompanied by all types of explanations, whereas incorrect answers were only followed by Meaningless sentences or Explicit logic. This distribution aligns with observed patterns in children when they explore and elucidate mental states. Conclusion: GPT-4 is capable of emotion identification and managing emotions, but it lacks deep reflexive analysis of emotional experience and the motivational aspect of emotions.
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.