The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
ChatGPT outperforms humans in emotional awareness evaluations
Open accessAbstract
The artificial intelligence chatbot, ChatGPT, has gained widespread attention for its ability to perform natural language processing tasks and has the fastest-growing user base in history. Although ChatGPT has successfully generated theoretical information in multiple fields, its ability to identify and describe emotions is still unknown. Emotional awareness (EA), the ability to conceptualize one’s own and others’ emotions, is considered a transdiagnostic mechanism for psychopathology. This study utilized the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS) as an objective, performance-based test to analyze ChatGPT’s responses to twenty scenarios and compared its EA performance with that of the general population norms, as reported by a previous study. A second examination was performed one month later to measure EA improvement over time. Finally, two independent licensed psychologists evaluated the fit-to-context of ChatGPT’s EA responses. In the first examination, ChatGPT demonstrated significantly higher performance than the general population on all the LEAS scales (Z score = 2.84). In the second examination, ChatGPT’s performance significantly improved, almost reaching the maximum possible LEAS score (Z score = 4.26). Its accuracy levels were also extremely high (9.7/10). The study demonstrated that ChatGPT can generate appropriate EA responses, and that its performance may improve significantly over time. The study has theoretical and clinical implications, as ChatGPT can be used as part of cognitive training for clinical populations with EA impairments. In addition, ChatGPT’s EA-like abilities may facilitate psychiatric diagnosis and assessment and be used to enhance emotional language. Further research is warranted to better understand the potential benefits and risks of ChatGPT and refine it to promote mental health.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, ChatGPT demonstrates strong capabilities in emotional understanding, including generating appropriate affective responses and scoring highly on measures of emotional awareness [18, 69].”
From Emotional Coregulation in Close Relationships with AI Agents: A Survey of ChatGPT and Replika Users (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 · Cited by 9,349 · cited 2×
“ICC was calculated, and good consistency (ICC = 0.720) and absolute agreement (ICC = 0.659) was found between the psychologists’ ratings (Cicchetti, 1994).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3999(94)90005-1 · Cited by 5,293
Baron‐Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00715 · Cited by 4,555 · cited 1×
“While mental state recognition (emotion and/or thoughts) tests, such as false belief tasks (Birch and Bloom, 2007), the reading the mind in the eyes task (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001), or the strange stories test (Happé, 1994), and self-reported assessments like the Toronto alexithymia scale (Bagby et al.”
BackgroundBaron‐Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S. J., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 4,313
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115
Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/mental.7785 · Cited by 2,730 · cited 1×
“Woebot employs learned skills such as identifying and challenging cognitive distortions to monitor symptoms and episodes of these mental health conditions (Fitzpatrick et al., 2017).”
BackgroundHappé, F. G. E. (1994) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/bf02172093 · Cited by 2,352
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · cited 3×
“org It is a large language model trained on abundant text data, which makes it capable of generating human-like responses to text-based inputs (Rudolph et al., 2023).”
BackgroundEmotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory.
Bar‐On, R. (2000) · Cited by 1,018
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Corp, 2021, IBM SPSS statistics for windows (version 28.0) [computer software]
- Hu, 2023, ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base—analyst note
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey
Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.07864 · Cited by 972
The rise and potential of large language model based agents: a survey
Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. (2025) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4222-0 · Cited by 970
Tam, T. Y. C., Sivarajkumar, S., Kapoor, S., Stolyar, A. V., Polanska, K., McCarthy, K. R., Osterhoudt, H., Wu, X., Visweswaran, S., Fu, S., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01258-7 · Cited by 424
Large language models empowered agent-based modeling and simulation: a survey and perspectives
Gao, C., Lan, X., Li, N., Yuan, Y., Ding, J., Zhou, Z., Xu, F., & Li, Y. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03611-3 · Cited by 294
Large Language Models and Empathy: Systematic Review
Sorin, V., Brin, D., Barash, Y., Konen, E., Charney, A., Nadkarni, G., & Klang, E. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/52597 · Cited by 240
Metadata
- Authors
- Elyoseph, Z., Hadar-Shoval, D., Asraf, K., & Lvovsky, M.
- Affiliations
- The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Elyoseph, Zohar
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2023-05-26
- Volume
- 14
- Pages
- 1199058-1199058
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10254409
- OpenAlex
- W4378470708
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 122 · 2024: 117 · 2023: 22
- FWCI
- 83.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, emotional awareness, Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale, large language models, emotion recognition, AI chatbots, transdiagnostic mechanisms, psychopathology, cognitive training, psychiatric diagnosis, emotional expression, human-AI comparison
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
