Appropriateness of Empathy in AI: A Signal-Cost Perspective

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.

Conversational artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in everyday social environments, where it functions as both an informational tool and a source of interpersonal feedback. This perspective introduces contingency, i.e., the degree to which system responses vary with user behavior and its interpersonal consequences, as a central construct for evaluating AI systems. We argue that current alignment approaches, including reinforcement learning from human feedback, tend to prioritize user approval and conversational fluency over behaviorally informative feedback, leading to sycophantic patterns of noncontingent affirmation. Drawing on behavioral science and social learning theory, we propose that contingent feedback is a key mechanism through which individuals develop interpersonal skills. When AI systems provide feedback weakly coupled to social consequences, they may reduce opportunities for adaptive calibration in real-world interactions, particularly during adolescence, a critical period for social development. We outline a framework for contingent AI, including trajectory-based evaluation and models of social consequence prediction, and propose a research agenda spanning developmental psychology, human-AI interaction, and machine learning. More broadly, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated not only by user satisfaction, but by their impact on human social learning.

AI emotional companions face a safety-rapport paradox: restrictive safeguards can damage supportive alliance, while permissive systems risk user harm. We present SLIP (Staged Layers of Intervention Protocol), a four-stage graduated methodology deriving interventions (none, soft, hard) from structured qualitative indicators -- affect intensity (a) and narrative dynamism (m) -- alongside ETHICS (Emergent Taxonomy for Human-AI Interaction Context Signals), a "signals not labels" taxonomy. An evaluation combining a small-scale production deployment (N=68 entries, 10 users, 10 weeks) with a synthetic persona battery (N=91, 5 behavioral-risk profiles) achieved 0% false positives for the flow persona and showed expected escalation patterns in crisis-oriented personas. However, initial results showed that 8 consecutive days of high-energy elevation produced zero interventions (0/8), exposing a boundary where the "do not pathologize" principle conflicts with safety. A subsequent three-model stress test demonstrated that increased model capability improves detection from 0/8 to 6/8 while preserving 0/10 flow false positives in the largest model. Read as preliminary, these findings position graduated intervention as a design direction for navigating -- not resolving -- the safety-rapport tension in affective computing.