Reading between the lines: LLMs match or exceed human empathic accuracy using text alone

Empathy plays a central role in human emotional relationships. Empathic accuracy, the ability to accurately appraise another person’s emotional state, varies by informational modality and, in humans, is often intertwined with emotional and motivational processes. This study examines whether state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs)—GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini—demonstrate accuracy in emotional- appraisal, and how their accuracy compares to that of humans when presented with only the semantic content (transcripts of recorded videos) detailing ecological, complex autobiographical emotional narratives. We compared the emotional-appraisal of LLMs to the empathic accuracy of human participants (N = 127, randomly sampled students, both in-lab and online) who either read the same transcripts or watched the original videos, which enabled them to use facial and bodily expressions, as well as paralinguistic cues, in addition to semantics. LLMs were able to infer emotional states from semantic content alone with a precision that is equal to or surpasses human performance. This was true both generally and when analyzing positive and negative emotions separately. Theoretically, these findings suggest that semantic information alone can support accuracy in emotional appraisal, though humans may not fully leverage this potential. Practical implications are discussed regarding the use of LLMs in introspective and emotional contexts, while raising critical concerns about privacy, ethical risks, and the potential reshaping of emotional understanding, intimacy, and human connection in an increasingly AI-mediated world.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
Published
2026-03-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2026.100994
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reading between the lines: LLMs match or exceed human empathic accuracy using text alone

Computers in Human Behavior Reports
Topic Modeling
article

Reading between the lines: LLMs match or exceed human empathic accuracy using text alone

article en

Abstract

Empathy plays a central role in human emotional relationships. Empathic accuracy, the ability to accurately appraise another person’s emotional state, varies by informational modality and, in humans, is often intertwined with emotional and motivational processes. This study examines whether state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs)—GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini—demonstrate accuracy in emotional- appraisal, and how their accuracy compares to that of humans when presented with only the semantic content (transcripts of recorded videos) detailing ecological, complex autobiographical emotional narratives. We compared the emotional-appraisal of LLMs to the empathic accuracy of human participants (N = 127, randomly sampled students, both in-lab and online) who either read the same transcripts or watched the original videos, which enabled them to use facial and bodily expressions, as well as paralinguistic cues, in addition to semantics. LLMs were able to infer emotional states from semantic content alone with a precision that is equal to or surpasses human performance. This was true both generally and when analyzing positive and negative emotions separately. Theoretically, these findings suggest that semantic information alone can support accuracy in emotional appraisal, though humans may not fully leverage this potential. Practical implications are discussed regarding the use of LLMs in introspective and emotional contexts, while raising critical concerns about privacy, ethical risks, and the potential reshaping of emotional understanding, intimacy, and human connection in an increasingly AI-mediated world.

Computers in Human Behavior ReportsVol. 22
Tel Aviv University (IL), Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 35%
Topic Modeling
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.

Reading between the lines: LLMs match or exceed human empathic accuracy using text alone · Computers in Human Behavior Reports (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS