Practicing with Language Models Cultivates Human Empathic Communication

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 and validated than when comparable responses are attributed to a human. To probe and address this gap in empathic communication skill, we built Lend an Ear, an experimental conversation platform in which participants are asked to offer empathic support to an LLM role-playing personal and workplace troubles. From 33,938 messages spanning 2,904 text-based conversations between 968 participants and their LLM conversational partners, we derive a data-driven taxonomy of idiomatic empathic expressions in naturalistic dialogue. Based on a pre-registered randomized experiment, we present evidence that a brief LLM coaching intervention offering personalized feedback on how to effectively communicate empathy significantly boosts alignment of participants' communication patterns with normative empathic communication patterns relative to both a control group and a group that received video-based but non-personalized feedback. Moreover, we find evidence for a silent empathy effect that people feel empathy but systematically fail to express it. Nonetheless, participants reliably identify responses aligned with normative empathic communication criteria as more expressive of empathy. Together, these results advance the scientific understanding of how empathy is expressed and valued and demonstrate a scalable, AI-based intervention for scaffolding and cultivating it.

When Large Language Models are Reliable for Judging Empathic Communication

Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating empathic responses in text-based conversations. But, how reliably do they judge the nuances of empathic communication? We investigate this question by comparing how experts, crowdworkers, and LLMs annotate empathic communication across four evaluative frameworks drawn from psychology, natural language processing, and communications applied to 200 real-world conversations where one speaker shares a personal problem and the other offers support. Drawing on 3,150 expert annotations, 2,844 crowd annotations, and 3,150 LLM annotations, we assess inter-rater reliability between these three annotator groups. We find that expert agreement is high but varies across the frameworks' sub-components depending on their clarity, complexity, and subjectivity. We show that expert agreement offers a more informative benchmark for contextualizing LLM performance than standard classification metrics. Across all four frameworks, LLMs consistently approach this expert level benchmark and exceed the reliability of crowdworkers. These results demonstrate how LLMs, when validated on specific tasks with appropriate benchmarks, can support transparency and oversight in emotionally sensitive applications including their use as conversational companions.