ArticleNature human behaviour2025
Comparing the value of perceived human versus AI-generated empathy.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived humanness and empathy are dissociated in relationship advice generated by a large language model.Nature communications · 2026Article
- How GAI Shapes Travelers' Booking Decisions: The Influence of Source Disclosure and Valence of Creative Reviews.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence-based chatbots and expert periodontists in responding to patient questions: a multi-dimensional analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Cultural Relevance and Acceptability of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Techniques Adapted by AI or a Human Psychologist: Experimental Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Can artificial intelligence help with the development of generic clinical skills when breaking bad news? A quantitative evaluation.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- [Digital transformation in endocrinology/diabetology, pneumology, and hematology/oncology : Where do we stand today-and what lies ahead?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of Hybrid AI and Human Suicide Detection Within Digital Peer Support.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- People choose to receive human empathy despite rating AI empathy higher.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- AI outperforms humans in establishing interpersonal closeness in emotionally engaging interactions, but only when labelled as human.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Reconfiguring home language practices in AI-mediated environments: a layered communication perspective on language transmission, affect, and multilingual communication.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cognitive reshaping and resurgence of humanness: restructuring the medical education continuum in the era of generative AI.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Cultivating adaptive expertise in critical care: reimagining intensive care unit education in the era of Artificial Intelligence.Critical care science · 2026Article
- Visually grounded emotion regulation via diffusion models and user-driven reappraisal.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- A Framework for Automation in Psychotherapy.Current directions in psychological science · 2025Article
- Anti-AI Bias Toward Couple Images and Couple Counseling: Findings from Two Experiments.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- Emotionally adaptive support: a narrative review of affective computing for mental health.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and specifically large language models demonstrate remarkable social-emotional abilities, which may improve human-AI interactions and AI's emotional support capabilities. However, it remains unclear whether empathy, encompassing understanding, 'feeling with' and caring, is perceived differently when attributed to AI versus humans. We conducted nine studies (n = 6,282) where AI-generated empathic responses to participants' emotional situations were labelled as provided by either humans or AI. Human-attributed responses were rated as more empathic and supportive, and elicited more positive and fewer negative emotions, than AI-attributed ones. Moreover, participants' own uninstructed belief that AI had aided the human-attributed responses reduced perceived empathy and support. These effects were replicated across varying response lengths, delays, iterations and large language models and were primarily driven by responses emphasizing emotional sharing and care. Additionally, people consistently chose human interaction over AI when seeking emotional engagement. These findings advance our general understanding of empathy, and specifically human-AI empathic interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40588597What 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.