Are LLMs Empathetic to All? Investigating the Influence of Multi-Demographic Personas on a Model's Empathy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10328v2
• Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 14:25:32 GMT
• Title: Are LLMs Empathetic to All? Investigating the Influence of Multi-Demographic Personas on a Model's Empathy
• Authors: Ananya Malik, Nazanin Sabri, Melissa Karnaze, Mai Elsherief,
• Abstract summary: We investigate how Large Language Models' cognitive and affective empathy vary across user personas defined by intersecting demographic attributes.<n>Our study introduces a novel intersectional analysis spanning 315 unique personas, constructed from combinations of age, culture, and gender.<n>We show that they broadly reflect real-world empathetic trends, with notable misalignments for certain groups, such as those from Confucian culture.
• Score: 1.6489674562395387
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models' (LLMs) ability to converse naturally is empowered by their ability to empathetically understand and respond to their users. However, emotional experiences are shaped by demographic and cultural contexts. This raises an important question: Can LLMs demonstrate equitable empathy across diverse user groups? We propose a framework to investigate how LLMs' cognitive and affective empathy vary across user personas defined by intersecting demographic attributes. Our study introduces a novel intersectional analysis spanning 315 unique personas, constructed from combinations of age, culture, and gender, across four LLMs. Results show that attributes profoundly shape a model's empathetic responses. Interestingly, we see that adding multiple attributes at once can attenuate and reverse expected empathy patterns. We show that they broadly reflect real-world empathetic trends, with notable misalignments for certain groups, such as those from Confucian culture. We complement our quantitative findings with qualitative insights to uncover model behaviour patterns across different demographic groups. Our findings highlight the importance of designing empathy-aware LLMs that account for demographic diversity to promote more inclusive and equitable model behaviour.

Related papers

• The Personality Trap: How LLMs Embed Bias When Generating Human-Like Personas [1.2641141743223376]
  We first assess the representativeness and potential biases in the sociodemographic attributes of the generated personas.<n>All models exhibit pronounced WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) biases, favoring young, educated, white, heterosexual, Western individuals with centrist or progressive political views and secular or Christian beliefs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T10:00:18Z)
• Us-vs-Them bias in Large Language Models [0.569978892646475]
  We find consistent ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative associations across foundational large language models.<n>For personas examined, conservative personas exhibit greater outgroup hostility, whereas liberal personas display stronger ingroup solidarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T07:11:22Z)
• The Prompt Makes the Person(a): A Systematic Evaluation of Sociodemographic Persona Prompting for Large Language Models [7.819021910077221]
  We examine how different persona prompt strategies influence large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that the choice of demographic priming and role adoption strategy significantly impacts their portrayal.<n>Specifically, we find that prompting in an interview-style format and name-based priming can help reduce stereotyping.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T21:23:29Z)
• Deep Binding of Language Model Virtual Personas: a Study on Approximating Political Partisan Misperceptions [13.929713456538932]
  We propose a novel methodology for constructing virtual personas with synthetic user "backstories" generated as extended, multi-turn interview transcripts.<n>We show that virtual personas conditioned on our backstories closely replicate human response distributions and produce effect sizes that closely match those observed in the original studies of in-group/out-group biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T00:10:34Z)
• How Deep is Love in LLMs' Hearts? Exploring Semantic Size in Human-like Cognition [75.11808682808065]
  This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar tendencies in understanding semantic size.<n>Our findings reveal that multi-modal training is crucial for LLMs to achieve more human-like understanding.<n> Lastly, we examine whether LLMs are influenced by attention-grabbing headlines with larger semantic sizes in a real-world web shopping scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T03:35:56Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models with Psychometrics [59.821829073478376]
  This paper offers a comprehensive benchmark for quantifying psychological constructs of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our work identifies five key psychological constructs -- personality, values, emotional intelligence, theory of mind, and self-efficacy -- assessed through a suite of 13 datasets.<n>We uncover significant discrepancies between LLMs' self-reported traits and their response patterns in real-world scenarios, revealing complexities in their behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:09:08Z)
• GIEBench: Towards Holistic Evaluation of Group Identity-based Empathy for Large Language Models [18.92131015111012]
  We introduce GIEBench, a benchmark for empathy evaluation of large language models (LLMs) GIEBench includes 11 identity dimensions, covering 97 group identities with a total of 999 single-choice questions related to specific group identities. Our evaluation of 23 LLMs revealed that while these LLMs understand different identity standpoints, they fail to consistently exhibit equal empathy across these identities without explicit instructions to adopt those perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T06:50:42Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.