These results challenge assumptions about more immersive, human-like modes of engagement. This has real implications for how AI companions, mental health chatbots, and customer service tools are designed. More immersive ≠ more effective.
We found an "empathic voice penalty": empathy delivered via voice is rated as less empathetic and makes people feel less heard than the same message delivered as text. This held for BOTH human and AI empathizers, but was especially strong for AI.
A likely mechanism, at least for AI: spoken empathy triggers greater feelings of uncanniness—which, in turn, undermines perceived empathic quality.
A few other findings:
→ AI empathy is still rated higher quality than human empathy, even for spoken empathy
→ We find the "AI label" penalty (knowing a response is AI-generated makes it feel less empathetic), but this appears smaller than the voice penalty
🚨 New preprint with @dcameron.bsky.social and @minzlicht.bsky.social!
The empathic voice penalty: Vocal delivery reduces perceived empathy in humans and AI osf.io/preprints/ps...
We know AI often outperforms humans at text-based empathy—but what happens when emotional support is expressed vocally?
Josh Wenger
When given the choice, participants sought human empathy, despite rating AI responses as more empathetic and making them feel more heard.
@jdweng.bsky.social
@dcameron.bsky.social
@minzlicht.bsky.social
www.nature.com/articles/s44...
The Empathy & Moral Psychology Lab will be at APS in Barcelona! Unfortunately, I can't be there in person. Check out @amormino.bsky.social's symposium & talk, @jokretz.bsky.social's first talk, two talks by @jdweng.bsky.social (including one on my behalf), @farvk.bsky.social's poster. A great team!
