Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Evaluating Empathy in Artificial Agents

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that empathy in artificial agents should be evaluated at two levels—system-level perceived empathy and feature-level components—with human questionnaires adapted into perceived-empathy surveys.

desk verdict A useful synthesis of empathy evaluation methods that proposes a sensible two-level framework but rests its system-level metric on an unvalidated adaptation of human self-report scales. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05341 v1 pith:6IJJ3AGT submitted 2019-08-14 cs.AI cs.HC

Özge Nilay Yalç{i}n This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.HC
keywords empathyartificialagentsaffectivecomputinghuman-computerinteractionsystem-levelevaluationfeature-levelperceivedmethodology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Computational empathy lacks agreed evaluation metrics, and this paper's aim is to start building them. It proposes that every artificial agent be evaluated twice: as a whole, through questionnaires that ask users or observers how empathic the agent seemed, and at the level of individual features—emotion recognition and expression, emotion regulation, and cognitive processes such as appraisal and perspective-taking. For the system-level questionnaires, it recommends rewording established human self-report empathy scales—the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, the Empathy Quotient, and the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire—from first-person statements into second- or third-person perceived-empathy items. It also catalogs user-related, context-related, and system-related factors such as mood, role expectations, aesthetics, and response fluency that should be measured as controls. The paper acknowledges that the reworded scales have not been validated, and positions the checklist as the starting point for a collective effort rather than a finished metric.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-tier evaluation scheme. At the system level, adapted perceived-empathy questionnaires derived from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, the Empathy Quotient, and the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire measure the agent's overall empathic impression, while standard HCI metrics control for anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety. At the feature level, the Russian Doll Model—a layered account in which basic emotion-sharing mechanisms support higher cognitive empathy—supplies the categories emotional communication, emotion regulation, and cognitive processes that define what to test in isolation. The split between levels is what converts an abstract construct into a testable checklist.

What would settle it

A validation study where participants interact with two agents that differ only in objective empathic functionality—one correctly recognizes and responds to emotional cues, one responds at random—would settle the central claim: if the adapted perceived-empathy questionnaires fail to discriminate the two, or if scores are driven by agent appearance or response speed, the portability assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the translation of empathy evaluation from humans to artificial agents is tractable if evaluation is split into two tiers. System-level evaluation treats the agent as a whole and measures global perceived empathy, using human empathy questionnaires reworded into perceived-empathy items and HCI control metrics for factors like anthropomorphism and likeability. Feature-level evaluation inspects the components that the Russian Doll Model of Empathy places beneath empathic behavior: emotional communication via recognition and expression, emotion regulation, and cognitive processes such as appraisal, re-appraisal, and perspective-taking. The paper argues these components must be tested separately because errors propagate—an agent with a weak emotion recognizer cannot appraise or respond appropriately—and no single global score can localize the failure. It does not claim there is one universal metric; it claims a systematic checklist of levels, features, and context factors from which application-specific evaluations can be constructed.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that a human empathy questionnaire still measures empathy after being reworded from 'I feel...' to 'The agent seemed...' and answered about an artificial agent—an assumption the paper concedes is not yet validated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Different agents—chatbots, social robots, and virtual assistants—could be compared on a common two-level template instead of ad hoc empathy labels.
  • Feature-level testing will expose where an agent's empathic chain breaks, such as recognizing an emotion but failing to express an appropriate response.
  • User, context, and system variables would be reported as standard covariates, making empathy scores interpretable across studies.
  • The human scales would need validation studies in agent contexts before their system-level scores can be trusted.
  • Application-specific empathy evaluations can be assembled from the checklist rather than forcing all agents into one metric.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct testable consequence is that system-level and feature-level scores can diverge, and the gap itself would be a diagnostic signal—a likable but functionally shallow agent could score high on perceived empathy while failing component tests.
  • The checklist could evolve into a shared benchmark if researchers agree on a fixed battery: one perceived-empathy questionnaire plus tests of emotion recognition, expression, regulation, and perspective-taking, with context factors as metadata.
  • An extension the paper leaves implicit is that regressing perceived-empathy scores on the listed user, context, and system factors would turn the checklist into an empirical model of which variables actually drive perceived empathy.
  • A natural next experiment would manipulate one system factor such as response fluency while holding empathic functionality fixed, to measure how much of the perceived-empathy score is attributable to aesthetics rather than empathy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a position/review article that argues for a systematic approach to evaluating empathy in artificial agents. It surveys human empathy measures, organizing them by granularity (global vs. component) and by method (self-report, perceived, behavioral), and then maps these onto a two-level framework for artificial agents: system-level evaluation, based on perceived-empathy questionnaires adapted from human self-report scales (IRI, EQ, TEQ) along with user-, context-, and system-related factors, and feature-level evaluation, based on emotional communication, emotion regulation, and cognitive processes. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the proposed instruments are not validated and calls for collective effort to standardize evaluation in computational empathy.

Significance. If the proposed framework were operationalized and validated, it would address a real gap in an emerging field: computational empathy research currently lacks agreed-upon metrics, and this paper provides a useful synthesis of relevant psychology and HCI measures organized into a coherent taxonomy. The paper's strengths are its broad and mostly accurate literature review, its clear separation of system-level and feature-level concerns, and its honest acknowledgment of open problems. Its main significance, however, is as a roadmap rather than a validated method; the central recommendation depends on the untested assumption that first-person self-report empathy scales remain valid when reworded as perceived-empathy questionnaires about an artificial agent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-A] The system-level evaluation rests on adapting self-report empathy scales (IRI, TEQ, EQ) into perceived-empathy questionnaires, but the paper states on the same page that 'these methods provide an evaluation that is aligned with the related research on empathy, they were not validated.' This is load-bearing: if the reworded scales do not measure perceived empathy but instead capture likability, anthropomorphism, or social desirability, the framework's core metric is invalid. The authors should either provide preliminary psychometric evidence (e.g., internal consistency, convergent/discriminant validity from a pilot study) or explicitly reframe the proposal as a set of hypotheses to be tested rather than a ready-to-use evaluation method.
  2. [Section III-B2 and III-B3] The feature-level evaluation is incomplete for two of its three proposed components: for emotion regulation the paper notes that existing metrics 'have not been used by the empathic computing research and may require adjustments,' and for cognitive processes it states 'there are no standardized method to evaluate these capabilities in artificial agents.' These admissions mean that the paper does not actually provide feature-level metrics for a majority of its own framework; it offers only a categorical placeholder. The authors should either supply concrete candidate instruments for these components or clearly mark them as open research problems requiring further development.
  3. [Section I, final paragraph] The introduction promises that 'By providing a checklist of these factors' the paper will initiate a common ground, and Section III repeats that the authors will 'systematically list the factors that contribute to the evaluation of empathy.' However, the paper does not present an actual checklist: it provides taxonomy categories (user/context/system factors; emotional communication, emotion regulation, cognitive processes) and some examples, but no enumerable checklist with operational definitions, scoring, or administration guidance. If the checklist is part of the contribution, it should be included; otherwise the promised deliverable should be revised.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II, paragraph 1] There is an unresolved citation placeholder '[ ?]' in the sentence listing capabilities such as mimicry, affective matching, sympathy, and perspective taking.
  2. [Section III-A, paragraph 3] There is an unresolved citation placeholder '[ ?]' in the reference to the EMOTE project's use of the IRI questionnaire.
  3. [Section II-A, QCAE description] The word 'sumulation' appears and should be 'simulation'.
  4. [Section II, paragraph 3] The phrase 'Contrary this dual view' is missing 'to' and should read 'Contrary to this dual view'.
  5. [Section II, final paragraph of intro] The sentence 'it is useful to focus on a broader view of empathy for to arrive at a comprehensive framework' contains a redundant 'for' and should be revised.
  6. [References [43] and [49]] References [43] and [49] are the author's own prior work; this is acceptable, but the manuscript should clarify that [43] is an application example and not a validation of the perceived-empathy approach.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a position/review essay whose recommendations are assembled from external evaluation literature; the author's own prior work appears only as illustrative examples.

full rationale

This manuscript is not a derivation or prediction paper; it offers a roadmap for evaluating empathy in artificial agents by adapting established human-empathy measures to system-level and feature-level assessment. The load-bearing recommendations are grounded in external literature: the Russian Doll Model [17] and de Waal and Preston [12] for the feature categorization, Davis's IRI [9] and the TEQ [22] for questionnaire-based system-level evaluation, and Ruttkay et al. [38] for the system-level/feature-level distinction. The two self-citations, [43] and [49], are used as examples of prior application and as a compatible component model; neither supplies the justification for the framework. The paper also honestly concedes that the adapted questionnaires 'were not validated' and that emotion-regulation metrics 'have not been used by the empathic computing research and may require adjustments,' which is an acknowledged assumption rather than a circular reduction of the proposal to its inputs. No equations, fitted parameters, or uniqueness theorems are involved, so no claimed result is equivalent by construction to its input. The appropriate finding is therefore no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper proposes a framework built from existing psychological scales and HCI evaluation conventions; it introduces no new free parameters or entities. The central recommendation rests on assumptions about porting human empathy measures to machines and about the validity of the component taxonomy, neither of which is empirically tested here.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Empathy in artificial agents can be meaningfully evaluated by adapting human self-report empathy questionnaires into perceived-empathy surveys (IRI, TEQ) even though the adaptations are not validated.
    Section III-A notes that adapted questionnaires 'were not validated' but still recommends them as system-level evaluation tools.
  • domain assumption Empathic capacity in agents can be divided into the hierarchical components of emotional communication, emotion regulation, and cognitive processes as in the Russian Doll Model.
    Section III-B adopts this categorization from de Waal and Preston [12], [17] as the basis for feature-level evaluation.
  • domain assumption System-level and feature-level evaluation is an appropriate decomposition for assessing interactive agents.
    Section III borrows this distinction from HCI literature [37], [38] and asserts its applicability to empathy evaluation without demonstrating it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating Empathy in Artificial Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6IJJ3AGT

@misc{pith2026190805341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating Empathy in Artificial Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6IJJ3AGT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05341}
}
read the original abstract

The novel research area of computational empathy is in its infancy and moving towards developing methods and standards. One major problem is the lack of agreement on the evaluation of empathy in artificial interactive systems. Even though the existence of well-established methods from psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience, the translation between these methods and computational empathy is not straightforward. It requires a collective effort to develop metrics that are more suitable for interactive artificial agents. This paper is aimed as an attempt to initiate the dialogue on this important problem. We examine the evaluation methods for empathy in humans and provide suggestions for the development of better metrics to evaluate empathy in artificial agents. We acknowledge the difficulty of arriving at a single solution in a vast variety of interactive systems and propose a set of systematic approaches that can be used with a variety of applications and systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases,

    S. D. Preston and F. B. De Waal, “Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases,” Behavioral and brain sciences , vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Coplan and P

    A. Coplan and P . Goldie, Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives. Oxford University Press, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Understanding empathy: Its features and eff ects

    A. Coplan, “Understanding empathy: Its features and eff ects.” in Em- pathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives , A. Coplan and P . Goldie, Eds. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 3–18

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Computers that car e: investi- gating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent,

    S. Brave, C. Nass, and K. Hutchinson, “Computers that car e: investi- gating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent,” International journal of human-computer studies , vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 161–178, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Em- pathic robots for long-term interaction,

    I. Leite, G. Castellano, A. Pereira, C. Martinho, and A. P aiva, “Em- pathic robots for long-term interaction,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 329–341, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Establishing and mainta ining long- term human-computer relationships,

    T. W. Bickmore and R. W. Picard, “Establishing and mainta ining long- term human-computer relationships,” ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI) , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 293–327, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Using human phy siology to evaluate subtle expressivity of a virtual quizmaster in a ma thematical game,

    H. Prendinger, J. Mori, and M. Ishizuka, “Using human phy siology to evaluate subtle expressivity of a virtual quizmaster in a ma thematical game,” International journal of human-computer studies , vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 231–245, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Empa thy in virtual agents and robots: a survey,

    A. Paiva, I. Leite, H. Boukricha, and I. Wachsmuth, “Empa thy in virtual agents and robots: a survey,” ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), vol. 7, no. 3, p. 11, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Measuring individual differences in empat hy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach

    M. H. Davis, “Measuring individual differences in empat hy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.” Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 113, 1983

    1983

  2. [10]

    The empathy quotie nt: an investi- gation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences,

    S. Baron-Cohen and S. Wheelwright, “The empathy quotie nt: an investi- gation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences,” Journal of autism and developmental disorders , vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 163–175, 2004

    2004

  3. [11]

    Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the empath y quotient,

    E. J. Lawrence, P . Shaw, D. Baker, S. Baron-Cohen, and A. S. David, “Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the empath y quotient,” Psychological medicine, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 911–920, 2004

    2004

  4. [12]

    Mammalian empathy: beha vioural manifestations and neural basis,

    F. B. de Waal and S. D. Preston, “Mammalian empathy: beha vioural manifestations and neural basis,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 18, no. 8, p. 498, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    B. L. Omdahl, Cognitive appraisal, emotion, and empathy . Psychology Press, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Eisenberg and J

    N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer, Empathy and its development , ser. Cam- bridge studies in social and emotional development, 1987

    1987

  7. [15]

    A multidimensional approach to individual differ- ences in empathy,

    M. H. Davis et al. , “A multidimensional approach to individual differ- ences in empathy,” 1980

    1980

  8. [16]

    M. L. Hoffman, Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice . Cambridge University Press, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    The russian dollmodel of empathy and imit ation,

    F. B. De Waal, “The russian dollmodel of empathy and imit ation,” On being moved: From mirror neurons to empathy , pp. 35–48, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    The empathic brain: how, when and why?

    F. De Vignemont and T. Singer, “The empathic brain: how, when and why?” Trends in cognitive sciences , vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 435–441, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Measures of empathy: Self-report, behavioral, and n euroscientific approaches,

    D. L. Neumann, R. C. Chan, G. J. Boyle, Y . Wang, and H. Rae W est- bury, “Measures of empathy: Self-report, behavioral, and n euroscientific approaches,” in Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Con- structs, 2015, pp. 257–289

    2015

  12. [20]

    Development of an empathy scale

    R. Hogan, “Development of an empathy scale.” Journal of consulting and clinical psychology , vol. 33, no. 3, p. 307, 1969

    1969

  13. [21]

    Rethinking the use of th e hogan empathy scale: A critical psychometric analysis,

    R. D. Froman and S. M. Peloquin, “Rethinking the use of th e hogan empathy scale: A critical psychometric analysis,” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy , vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 566–572, 2001

    2001

  14. [22]

    The toronto empathy questionnaire: Scale development and init ial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures ,

    R. N. Spreng*, M. C. McKinnon*, R. A. Mar, and B. Levine, “ The toronto empathy questionnaire: Scale development and init ial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures ,” Journal of personality assessment , vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 62–71, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    The development of a scale to measure empathy in 8-and 9-year old children

    A. F. Garton and E. Gringart, “The development of a scale to measure empathy in 8-and 9-year old children.” Australian Journal of Educa- tional & Developmental Psychology , vol. 5, pp. 17–25, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    Empathy in medical education and patient care,

    M. Hojat, S. Mangione, J. S. Gonnella, T. Nasca, J. J. V el oski, and G. Kane, “Empathy in medical education and patient care,” Academic Medicine, vol. 76, no. 7, p. 669, 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    W. J. Reynolds, The measurement and development of empathy in nursing. Routledge, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    The structure of empathy in japanese adolescents: Construction and examination of an empathy sc ale,

    H. Hashimoto and K. Shiomi, “The structure of empathy in japanese adolescents: Construction and examination of an empathy sc ale,” Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 593–601, 2002

    2002

  19. [27]

    The qcae: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empat hy,

    R. L. Reniers, R. Corcoran, R. Drake, N. M. Shryane, and B . A. V¨ ollm, “The qcae: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empat hy,” Journal of personality assessment , vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 84–95, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Impulsiveness and vent uresomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality descr iption,

    S. B. Eysenck and H. J. Eysenck, “Impulsiveness and vent uresomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality descr iption,” Psychological reports, vol. 43, no. 3 suppl, pp. 1247–1255, 1978

    1978

  21. [29]

    The con sultation and relational empathy (care) measure: development and pre liminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultati on process measure,

    S. W. Mercer, M. Maxwell, D. Heaney, and G. Watt, “The con sultation and relational empathy (care) measure: development and pre liminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultati on process measure,” Family practice, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 699–705, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    Another advanced test of theory of mind: Evidence from very high func tioning adults with autism or asperger syndrome,

    S. Baron-Cohen, T. Jolliffe, C. Mortimore, and M. Rober tson, “Another advanced test of theory of mind: Evidence from very high func tioning adults with autism or asperger syndrome,” Journal of Child psychology and Psychiatry , vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 813–822, 1997

    1997

  23. [31]

    The reading the mind in the eyes test revised version: a study wit h normal adults, and adults with asperger syndrome or high-function ing autism,

    S. Baron-Cohen, S. Wheelwright, J. Hill, Y . Raste, and I . Plumb, “The reading the mind in the eyes test revised version: a study wit h normal adults, and adults with asperger syndrome or high-function ing autism,” The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Di ...

    2001

  24. [32]

    The reading the mind in the voicetest-revised: a study of complex emotio n recogni- tion in adults with and without autism spectrum conditions,

    O. Golan, S. Baron-Cohen, J. J. Hill, and M. Rutherford, “The reading the mind in the voicetest-revised: a study of complex emotio n recogni- tion in adults with and without autism spectrum conditions, ” Journal of autism and developmental disorders , vol. 37, pp. 1096–1106, 2007

    2007

  25. [33]

    The r eading the mind in films task: complex emotion recognition in adults wit h and without autism spectrum conditions,

    O. Golan, S. Baron-Cohen, J. J. Hill, and Y . Golan, “The r eading the mind in films task: complex emotion recognition in adults wit h and without autism spectrum conditions,” Social Neuroscience,, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 111–123, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Mechanical , behavioural and intentional understanding of picture stories in autist ic children,

    S. Baron-Cohen, A. M. Leslie, and U. Frith, “Mechanical , behavioural and intentional understanding of picture stories in autist ic children,” British Journal of developmental psychology , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 113– 125, 1986

    1986

  27. [35]

    Empath ising and systemising in adults with and without asperger syndrome,

    J. Lawson, S. Baron-Cohen, and S. Wheelwright, “Empath ising and systemising in adults with and without asperger syndrome,” Journal of autism and developmental disorders , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 301–310, 2004

    2004

  28. [36]

    Are intuitive physics and intuitive psychology independ ent? a test with children with asperger syndrome,

    S. Baron-Cohen, S. Wheelwright, A. Spong, V . Scahill, J . Lawson et al. , “Are intuitive physics and intuitive psychology independ ent? a test with children with asperger syndrome,” Journal of Developmental and Learning Disorders , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 47–78, 2001

    2001

  29. [37]

    Evaluation a nd usability of multimodal spoken language dialogue systems,

    L. Dybkjaer, N. O. Bernsen, and W. Minker, “Evaluation a nd usability of multimodal spoken language dialogue systems,” Speech Communication, vol. 43, no. 1-2, pp. 33–54, 2004

    2004

  30. [38]

    Evaluating ecas-w hat, how and why?

    Z. Ruttkay, C. Dormann, and H. Noot, “Evaluating ecas-w hat, how and why?” in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings . Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz- Zentrum f¨ ur Informatik, 2006

    2006

  31. [39]

    A process model of empathy for virtual agents,

    S. H. Rodrigues, S. Mascarenhas, J. Dias, and A. Paiva, “ A process model of empathy for virtual agents,” Interacting with Computers , vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 371–391, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    A computational model of empathy: Empirical evaluation,

    H. Boukricha, I. Wachsmuth, M. N. Carminati, and P . Knoe ferle, “A computational model of empathy: Empirical evaluation,” in 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–6

    2013

  33. [41]

    Modeling parallel and reactive empathy in virtual agents: An inducti ve approach,

    S. W. McQuiggan, J. L. Robison, R. Phillips, and J. C. Les ter, “Modeling parallel and reactive empathy in virtual agents: An inducti ve approach,” in Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Au tonomous agents and multiagent systems-V olume 1 . International F...

    2008

  34. [42]

    A formal model of em otions for an empathic rational dialog agent,

    M. Ochs, D. Sadek, and C. Pelachaud, “A formal model of em otions for an empathic rational dialog agent,” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 410–440, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Evaluating levels of emotiona l contagion with an embodied conversational agent,

    ¨O. N. Y alc ¸in and S. DiPaola, “Evaluating levels of emotiona l contagion with an embodied conversational agent,” in Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Reeves and C

    B. Reeves and C. I. Nass, The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and pl aces. Cambridge university press, 1996

    1996

  37. [45]

    Empathy is a beautiful thing: Empathy predicts imitation only for attractive others,

    B. C. M¨ uller, M. L. V an Leeuwen, R. B. V an Baaren, H. Bekk ering, and A. Dijksterhuis, “Empathy is a beautiful thing: Empathy predicts imitation only for attractive others,” Scandinavian journal of psychology, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 401–406, 2013

    2013

  38. [46]

    Empathy with inanimate objects and the uncanny valley,

    C. Misselhorn, “Empathy with inanimate objects and the uncanny valley,” Minds and Machines , vol. 19, no. 3, p. 345, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    Believable agents: Building interactiv e personalities

    A. B. Loyall, “Believable agents: Building interactiv e personalities.” Carnegie-Mellon Uni Pittsburg PA, Tech. Rep., 1997

    1997

  40. [48]

    Measur ement in- struments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability , perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots,

    C. Bartneck, D. Kuli´ c, E. Croft, and S. Zoghbi, “Measur ement in- struments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability , perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots,” International journal of social robotics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 71–81, 2009

    2009

  41. [49]

    A computational model of empat hy for interactive agents,

    ¨O. N. Y alc ¸in and S. DiPaola, “A computational model of empat hy for interactive agents,” Biologically inspired cognitive architectures, vol. 26, pp. 20–25, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Componential emotion theory can inform models of emotional competence

    K. R. Scherer, “Componential emotion theory can inform models of emotional competence.” in The Science of emotional intelligence : knowns and unknowns / edited by Gerald Matthews, Moshe Zeidn er , and Richard D. Roberts. , ser. Series in affective science. Oxford University Pr...

    2007

  43. [51]

    K. R. Scherer, T. B¨ anziger, and E. Roesch, A Blueprint for Affective Computing: A sourcebook and manual . Oxford University Press, 2010

    2010

  44. [52]

    A survey of personali ty computing,

    A. Vinciarelli and G. Mohammadi, “A survey of personali ty computing,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 273–291, 2014

    2014

  45. [53]

    The emotion regulation questi onnaire for children and adolescents: A psychometric evaluation

    E. Gullone and J. Taffe, “The emotion regulation questi onnaire for children and adolescents: A psychometric evaluation.” Psychological assessment, vol. 24, no. 2, p. 409, 2012

    2012

  46. [54]

    Mea- suring emotion regulation ability across negative and posi tive emotions: The perth emotion regulation competency inventory,

    D. A. Preece, R. Becerra, K. Robinson, J. Dandy, and A. Al lan, “Mea- suring emotion regulation ability across negative and posi tive emotions: The perth emotion regulation competency inventory,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 135, pp. 229–241, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.