Cited by 5Ethics and Social Impacts of AILiterary and Philosophical StudiesDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Emulated Empathy: Can Risks Be Countered by a Soft-Law Standard?

McStay, Andrew·2025·IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society

Abstract

As artificial intelligence systems increasingly emulate empathy – recognizing, interpreting, responding to human emotional states and psychological contexts, and potentially appearing to genuinely care about a person – questions emerge about the personal and societal implications of these developments. Emulated empathy may enhance usability, engagement, and accessibility, but it also raises concerns about manipulation, commodification of interior life, and detachment from reality. Such issues regarding emulated empathy have been raised in relation to AI companions. While AI systems may arguably possess functional aspects of empathy, mimicry of human empathy also reveals fundamental differences between human and computational forms. Drawing on insights from neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and AI ethics, the paper discusses whether such systems pose a threat to human connection or could instead augment it. Special attention is given to the IEEE P7014.1standard, which outlines ethical considerations and recommended practices for human-AI partnerships involving emulated empathy. In additional to advancing conceptual understanding of emulated empathy, the paper argues for a proactive governance approach that combines soft law with regulatory safeguards to mitigate harm, uphold trust, and guide responsible design in this emerging domain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tts.2025.3573875

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Manipulation by LLM-CBs may occur based on users' vulnerabilities and negative thought patterns that users shared beforehand.

    “Manipulation may occur based on users’ vulnerabilities and negative thought patterns that users shared beforehand39,49.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots

    Diel, A., Torous, J., Cuijpers, P., Kleesiek, J., Nensa, F., Weber, N., Faust, F., Lalgi, T. J., Mellis, F. S., Teufel, M., et al. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-03054-x · Cited by 4 · see citing works

    “Syco-phantic responses may validate or reinforce delusional thoughts, harmful behavior, or maladaptive thinking 37,42,43,49 by creating the impression that expressed beliefs are externally socially validated when they are actually mirrored by the LLM-CB 57 .”

Authors
McStay, A.
Affiliations
Bangor University (GB)
Corresponding author
McStay, Andrew
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society
Published
2025-09
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
250-256
ISSN
2637-6415 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411171647
Cited by
5
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
5.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/Y009800/1)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/T00696X/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
artificial empathy, AI companions, soft law, human-AI collaboration, AI ethics, manipulation, human connection, AI governance, responsible AI design, philosophy of mind

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review