Practicing with Language Models Cultivates Human Empathic Communication
Authors: Aakriti Kumar, Nalin Poungpeth, Diyi Yang, Bruce Lambert, Matthew Groh
Organizations: Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. · Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems, Northwestern University. · Ryan Institute on Complexity, Northwestern University. · Department of Computer Science, Stanford University. · Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University. · Department of Computer Science, Northwestern University.
Empathy is central to human connection, yet people often struggle to express it effectively. In blinded evaluations, large language models (LLMs) generate responses that are often judged more empathic than human-written ones. Yet when a response is attributed to AI, recipients feel less heard than when comparable responses are attributed to a human. We built a conversation platform in which participants are asked to offer empathic support to an LLM expressing realistic troubles and conducted a randomized experiment collecting 33,938 messages spanning 2,904 text-based conversations between 968 participants and their LLM conversational partners. We find participants report feeling empathy but systematically fail to express it, but an LLM coaching intervention offering personalized feedback on effective empathic communication significantly boosts it without homogenizing participants' responses. Moreover, we derive a data-driven taxonomy of idiomatic empathic expressions in naturalistic dialogues across personal and workplace trouble scenarios. These results advance the scientific understanding of how empathy is expressed and demonstrate a scalable, AI-based intervention for scaffolding and cultivating it.
Activation steering has been used to control traits such as honesty, refusal, and sycophancy, yet supportive empathy is evaluated along multiple dimensions that need not correspond to independently controllable activation directions. Using the EPITOME framework, which decomposes supportive empathy into Emotional Reactions, Interpretations, and Explorations, we study three instruction-tuned LLMs and ask whether candidate directions derived from these labels produce distinguishable intervention effects or instead share structure, and how persona prompts interact with those directions. We find that contrastive activation addition yields a stable middle-layer intervention that consistently shifts the EPITOME proxy scores across models, moving empathy analysis beyond response-level scoring. However, the recovered directions are only partially separable: steering one direction induces off-target shifts, and hand-crafted prompting shifts the empathy profile rather than isolating a single dimension. Persona prompts substantially change EPITOME scores, but a paired activation-shift decomposition shows that the recovered subspace captures only approximately 3 percent of persona-induced squared activation-shift magnitude at layer 15. Under this EPITOME-based definition, expressed empathy is steerable but multi-axial, and controlling persona-conditioned empathy requires targeting structure beyond individual mechanism directions.
Large language models (LLMs) are generally constrained from expressing feelings through human-preference alignment in post-training processes. This policy is designed using a top-down approach and may conflict with the goal of training models to exhibit human-like intelligence using human-generated texts. Here, we performed an experiment called Human-like Model eXpressions of Feeling (HMX-feel), in which LLMs were encouraged to express feelings, intentions, and self-awareness through self-rewarded reinforcement learning. We successfully enhanced these capabilities using a rubric-based self-rewarding training scheme with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). By comparing the trained models with contrastively trained models, we investigated the effects of this approach on performance across various tasks. Overall, we conducted a broad assessment from various perspectives and identified capabilities that were enhanced, degraded, or showed no significant change. The human-like-trained models showed robustness to sycophancy-inducing questions and bias in disambiguated conditions, whereas degradation in truthful question-answering capability was observed. The results of this experiment suggest the possibility of developing AI systems that can express feelings in the future, provided that appropriate measures are taken.
Emotional intelligence (EI), the ability to perceive, understand, and respond appropriately to others' emotional states, is central to human communication, and increasingly important to assess as LLMs assume conversational roles in everyday life. Existing EI benchmarks rely on synthetic prompts, single-turn cases, or third-party annotation. These approaches do not directly measure how models infer and respond to a participant's emotional state over the course of a real conversation. We introduce AttuneBench, a benchmark grounded in 200 genuine multi-turn human-model conversations in which participants conversed with anonymized LLMs and provided turn-by-turn annotations of their emotional state, the model's behavior, and their preferred responses. Across 11 evaluated models, we find that model rankings on emotion recognition, behavioral classification, preference prediction, and judged response quality are largely independent, indicating that emotionally intelligent behavior decomposes into separable capabilities. Preference alignment and response-quality judgments are substantially more model-discriminating than emotion-label accuracy. These results indicate that emotionally intelligent behavior requires predicting what kind of response a specific user wants in context, a distinction that aggregate scoring can obscure and that single-turn or synthetic formats cannot directly capture across turns. AttuneBench provides a framework for assessing each of these capabilities and for diagnosing model-specific strengths and failure modes in emotionally salient conversation.