Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans

Empathy connects us but strains under demanding settings. This study explored how third parties evaluated AI-generated empathetic responses versus human responses in terms of compassion, responsiveness, and overall preference across four preregistered experiments. Participants (N = 556) read empathy prompts describing valenced personal experiences and compared the AI responses to select non-expert or expert humans. Results revealed that AI responses were preferred and rated as more compassionate compared to select human responders (Study 1). This pattern of results remained when author identity was made transparent (Study 2), when AI was compared to expert crisis responders (Study 3), and when author identity was disclosed to all participants (Study 4). Third parties perceived AI as being more responsive-conveying understanding, validation, and care-which partially explained AI's higher compassion ratings in Study 4. These findings suggest that AI has robust utility in contexts requiring empathetic interaction, with the potential to address the increasing need for empathy in supportive communication contexts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Communications Psychology
Published
2025-01-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00182-6
Citations
62
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
88.73
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans

Michael Inzlicht, Victoria Oldemburgo de Mello, Dariya Ovsyannikova
62 citations
Communications Psychology
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
88.73
article

Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans

Michael Inzlicht, Victoria Oldemburgo de Mello, Dariya Ovsyannikova
article en
62 citations

Abstract

Empathy connects us but strains under demanding settings. This study explored how third parties evaluated AI-generated empathetic responses versus human responses in terms of compassion, responsiveness, and overall preference across four preregistered experiments. Participants (N = 556) read empathy prompts describing valenced personal experiences and compared the AI responses to select non-expert or expert humans. Results revealed that AI responses were preferred and rated as more compassionate compared to select human responders (Study 1). This pattern of results remained when author identity was made transparent (Study 2), when AI was compared to expert crisis responders (Study 3), and when author identity was disclosed to all participants (Study 4). Third parties perceived AI as being more responsive-conveying understanding, validation, and care-which partially explained AI's higher compassion ratings in Study 4. These findings suggest that AI has robust utility in contexts requiring empathetic interaction, with the potential to address the increasing need for empathy in supportive communication contexts.

Communications PsychologyVol. 3(1)
St. Michael's Hospital (CA), University of Toronto (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
88.73
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.