LLMs Should Incorporate Explicit Mechanisms for Human Empathy

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.

Recent research shows that greater numbers of people are turning to Large Language Models (LLMs) for emotional support, and that people rate LLM responses as more empathic than human-written responses. We suggest a reason for this success: LLMs have learned and consistently deploy a well-liked template for expressing empathy. We develop a taxonomy of 10 empathic language "tactics" that include validating someone's feelings and paraphrasing, and apply this taxonomy to characterize the language that people and LLMs produce when writing empathic responses. Across a set of 2 studies comparing a total of n = 3,265 AI-generated (by six models) and n = 1,290 human-written responses, we find that LLM responses are highly formulaic at a discourse functional level. We discovered a template -- a structured sequence of tactics -- that matches between 83--90% of LLM responses (and 60--83% in a held out sample), and when those are matched, covers 81--92% of the response. By contrast, human-written responses are more diverse. We end with a discussion of implications for the future of AI-generated empathy.