Empathy gap

Last updated

An empathy gap, sometimes referred to as an empathy bias, is a breakdown or reduction in empathy (the ability to recognize, understand, and share another's thoughts and feelings) where it might otherwise be expected to occur. Empathy gaps may occur due to a failure in the process of empathizing [1] or as a consequence of stable personality characteristics, [2] [3] [4] and may reflect either a lack of ability or motivation to empathize.

Contents

Empathy gaps can be interpersonal (toward others) or intrapersonal (toward the self, e.g. when predicting one's own future preferences). A great deal of social psychological research has focused on intergroup empathy gaps, their underlying psychological and neural mechanisms, and their implications for downstream behavior (e.g. prejudice toward outgroup members).

Classification

Cognitive empathy gaps

Failures in cognitive empathy (also referred to as perspective-taking) may sometimes result from a lack of ability. For example, young children often engage in failures of perspective-taking (e.g., on false belief tasks) due to underdeveloped social cognitive abilities. [5] Neurodivergent individuals often face difficulties inferring others' emotional and cognitive states, though the double empathy problem proposes that the problem is mutual, occurring as well in non-neurodivergent individuals' struggle to understand and relate to neurodivergent people. [6] Failures in cognitive empathy may also result from cognitive biases that impair one's ability to understand another's perspective (for example, see the related concept of naive realism.) [7]

One's ability to perspective-take may be limited by one's current emotional state. For example, behavioral economics research has described a number of failures in empathy that occur due to emotional influences on perspective-taking when people make social predictions. People may either fail to accurately predict one's own preferences and decisions (intrapersonal empathy gaps), or to consider how others' preferences might differ from one's own (interpersonal empathy gaps). [8] For example, people not owning a certain good underestimate their attachment to that good were they to own it. [9]

In other circumstances, failures in cognitive empathy may occur due to a lack of motivation. [10] For example, people are less likely to take the perspective of outgroup members with whom they disagree.

Affective empathy gaps

Affective (i.e. emotional) empathy gaps may describe instances in which an observer and target do not experience similar emotions, [11] or when an observer does not experience anticipated emotional responses toward a target, such as sympathy and compassion. [12]

Certain affective empathy gaps may be driven by a limited ability to share another's emotions. For example, psychopathy is characterized by impairments in emotional empathy. [13]

Individuals may be motivated to avoid empathizing with others' emotions due to the emotional costs of doing so. For example, according to C. D. Batson's model of empathy, empathizing with others may either result in empathic concern (i.e. feelings of warmth and concern for another) or personal distress (i.e. when another's distress causes distress for the self). [14] A trait-level tendency to experience personal distress (vs. empathic concern) may motivate individuals to avoid situations which would require them to empathize with others, and indeed predicts reduced helping behavior.

Notable examples

Intergroup empathy gaps

Humans are less likely to help outgroup members in need, as compared to ingroup members. [15] People are also less likely to value outgroup members' lives as highly as those of ingroup members. [16] These effects are indicative of an ingroup empathy bias, in which people empathize more with ingroup (vs. outgroup) members.

Intergroup empathy gaps are often affective or cognitive in nature, but also extend to other domains such as pain. For example, a great deal of research has demonstrated that people show reduced responses (e.g. neural activity) when observing outgroup (vs. ingroup) members in pain. [17] [18] [19] [20] These effects may occur for real-world social groups such as members of different races. In one study utilizing a minimal groups paradigm (in which groups are randomly assigned, ostensibly based on an arbitrary distinction), individuals also judged the perceived pain of ingroup members to be more painful than that of outgroup members. [21]

Intergroup schadenfreude

Perhaps the most well-known "counter-empathic" emotion—i.e., an emotion that reflects an empathy gap for the target—is schadenfreude, or the experience of pleasure when observing or learning about another's suffering or misfortune. [22] Schadenfreude frequently occurs in intergroup contexts. [23] [24] In fact, the two factors that most strongly predict schadenfreude are identification with one's group and the presence of competition between groups in conflict. [25] [26] Competition may be explicit; for example, one study found that soccer fans were less likely to help an injured stranger wearing a rival team shirt than someone wearing an ingroup team shirt. [27] However, schadenfreude may also be directed toward members of groups associated with high-status, competitive stereotypes. [28] These findings correspond with the stereotype content model, which proposes that such groups elicit envy, thereby precipitating schadenfreude.

Occupational burnout

Stress related to the experience of empathy may cause empathic distress fatigue and occupational burnout, [29] particularly among those in the medical profession. Expressing empathy is an important component of patient-centered care, and can be expressed through behaviors such as concern, attentiveness, sharing emotions, vulnerability, understanding, dialogue, reflection, and authenticity. [30] However, expressing empathy can be cognitively and emotionally demanding for providers. [31] Physicians who lack proper support may experience depression and burnout, particularly in the face of the extended or frequent experiences of personal distress.

Forecasting failures

Within the domain of social psychology, "empathy gaps" typically describe breakdowns in empathy toward others (interpersonal empathy gaps). However, research in behavioral economics has also identified a number of intrapersonal empathy gaps (i.e. toward one's self). For example, "hot-cold empathy gaps" describe a breakdown in empathy for one's future self—specifically, a failure to anticipate how one's future affective states will affect one's preferences. [32] Such failures can negatively impact decision-making, particularly in regards to health outcomes. Hot-cold empathy gaps are related to the psychological concepts of affective forecasting and temporal discounting.

Psychological factors

Mentalizing processes

Both affective and cognitive empathy gaps can occur due to a breakdown in the process of mentalizing others' states. For example, breakdowns in mentalizing may include but are not limited to:

Neural evidence also supports the key role of mentalizing in supporting empathic responses, particularly in an intergroup context. For example, a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of intergroup social cognition found that thinking about ingroup members (in comparison to outgroup members) was more frequently related to brain regions known to underlie mentalizing. [35]

Gender norms

Gender differences in the experience of empathy have been a subject of debate. In particular, scientists have sought to determine whether observed gender differences in empathy are due to variance in ability, motivation, or both between men and women. Research to date raises the possibility that gender norms regarding the experience and expression of empathy may decrease men's willingness to empathize with others, and therefore their tendency to engage in empathy.

A number of studies, primarily utilizing self-report, have found gender differences in men's and women's empathy. A 1977 review of nine studies found women to be more empathic than men on average. [36] A 1983 review found a similar result, although differences in scores were stronger for self-report, as compared to observational, measures. [37] In recent decades, a number of studies utilizing self-reported empathy have shown gender differences in empathy. [38] [39] [40] According to the results of a nationally representative survey, men reported less willingness to give money or volunteer time to a poverty relief organization as compared to women, a finding mediated by men's lower self-reported feelings of empathic concern toward others. [41]

However, more recent work has found little evidence that gender differences in self-reported empathy are related to neurophysiological measures (hemodynamic responses and pupil dilation). [42] This finding raises the possibility that self-reported empathy may not be driven by biological differences in responses, but rather gender differences in willingness to report empathy. Specifically, women may be more likely to report experiencing empathy because it is more gender-normative for women than men. [43] In support of this idea, a study found that manipulating the perceived gender normativity of empathy eliminated gender differences in men and women's self-reported empathy. Specifically, assigning male and female participants to read a narrative describing fictitious neurological research evidence which claimed that males score higher on measures of empathy eliminated the gender gap in self-reported empathy. [44]

Trait differences

Psychological research has identified a number of trait differences associated with reduced empathic responses, including but not limited to:

Neural mechanisms

Neural simulation

According to the perception–action-model of empathy, [51] perception–action-coupling (i.e., the vicarious activation of the neural system for action during the perception of action) allows humans to understand others' actions, intentions, and emotions. According to this theory, when a "subject" individual observes an "object" individual, the object's physical movements and facial expressions activate corresponding neural mechanisms in the subject. [52] That is, by neurally simulating the object's observed states, the subject also experiences these states, the basis of empathy.

The mirror neuron system [53] has been proposed as a neural mechanism supporting perception-action coupling and empathy, although such claims remain a subject of scientific debate. Although the exact (if any) role of mirror neurons in supporting empathy is unclear, evidence suggests that neural simulation (i.e., recreating neural states associated with a process observed in another) may generally support a variety of psychological processes in humans, including disgust, [54] pain, [55] touch, [56] and facial expressions. [57]

Reduced neural simulation of responses to suffering may account in part for observed empathy gaps, particularly in an intergroup context. This possibility is supported by research demonstrating that people show reduced neural activity when they witness ethnic outgroup (vs. ingroup) members in physical or emotional pain. [17] [18] In one study, Chinese and Causian participants viewed videos of Chinese and Causasian targets, who displayed neutral facial expressions as they received either painful or non-painful stimulation to their cheeks. [17] Witnessing racial ingroup faces receive painful stimulation increased activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula (two regions which generally activate during the experience of pain.) However, these responses were diminished toward outgroup members in pain. These results replicated among White-Italian and Black-African participants. [19] Additionally, EEG work has shown reduced neural simulation of movement (in primary motor cortex) for outgroup members, compared to in-group members. [20] This effect was magnified by prejudice and toward disliked groups (i.e. South-Asians, Blacks, and East Asians).

Oxytocin

A great deal of social neuroscience research has been conducted to investigate the social functions of the hormone oxytocin, [58] including its role in empathy. Generally speaking, oxytocin is associated with cooperation between individuals (in both humans and non-human animals). However, these effects interact with group membership in intergroup settings: oxytocin is associated with increased bonding with ingroup, but not outgroup, members, and may thereby contribute to ingroup favoritism and intergroup empathy bias. [59] However, in one study of Israelis and Palestinians, intranasal oxytocin administration improved opposing partisans' empathy for outgroup members by increasing the salience of their pain. [60]

In addition to temporary changes in oxytocin levels, the influence of oxytocin on empathic responses may also be influenced by an oxytocin receptor gene polymorphism, [61] such that certain individuals may differ in the extent to which oxytocin promotes ingroup favoritism.

Specific neural correlates

A number of studies have been conducted to identify the neural regions implicated in intergroup empathy biases. [62] [33] [63] This work has highlighted candidate regions supporting psychological processes such as mentalizing for ingroup members, deindividuation of outgroup members, and the pleasure associated with the experience of schadenfreude.

Role of dmPFC

A meta-analysis of 50 fMRI studies of intergroup social cognition found more consistent activation in dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) during ingroup (vs. outgroup) social cognition. [35] dmPFC has previously been linked to the ability to infer others' mental states, [64] [65] [66] which suggests that individuals may be more likely to engage in mentalizing for ingroup (as compared to outgroup) members. dmPFC activity has also been linked to prosocial behavior; [67] [68] thus, dmPFC's association with cognition about ingroup members suggests a potential neurocognitive mechanism underlying ingroup favoritism.

Role of anterior insula

Activation patterns in the anterior insula (AI) have been observed when thinking about both ingroup and outgroup members. For example, greater activity in the anterior insula has been observed when participants view ingroup members on a sports team receiving pain, compared to outgroup members receiving pain. [69] [70] In contrast, the meta-analysis referenced previously [35] found that anterior insula activation was more reliably related to social cognition about outgroup members.

These seemingly divergent results may be due in part to functional differences between anatomic subregions of the anterior insula. Meta-analyses have identified two distinct subregions of the anterior insula: ventral AI, which is linked to emotional and visceral experiences (e.g. subjective arousal); and dorsal AI, which has been associated with exogenous attention processes such as attention orientation, salience detection, and task performance monitoring. [71] [72] [73] Therefore, anterior insula activation may occur more often when thinking about outgroup members because doing is more attentionally demanding than thinking about ingroup members. [35]

Lateralization of function within the anterior insula may also help account for divergent results, due to differences in connectivity between left and right AI. The right anterior insula has greater connectivity with regions supporting attentional orientation and arousal (e.g. postcentral gyrus and supramarginal gyrus), compared to the left anterior insula, which has greater connectivity with regions involved in perspective-taking and cognitive motor control (e.g. dmPFC and superior frontal gyrus). [74] The previously referenced meta-analysis found right lateralization of anterior insula for outgroup compared to ingroup processing. [35] These findings raise the possibility that when thinking about outgroup members, individuals may use their attention to focus on targets' salient outgroup status, as opposed to thinking about the outgroup member as an individual. In contrast, the meta-analysis found left lateralization of anterior insula activity for thinking about ingroup compared to outgroup members. This finding suggests that left anterior insula may help support perspective-taking and mentalizing about ingroup members, and thinking about them in an individuated way. However, these possibilities are speculative and lateralization may vary due to characteristics such as age, gender, and other individual differences, which should be accounted for in future research. [75] [74]

Role of ventral striatum

A number of fMRI studies have attempted to identify the neural activation patterns underlying the experience of intergroup schadenfreude, particularly toward outgroup members in pain. These studies have found increased activation in the ventral striatum, a region related to reward processing and pleasure. [76]

Consequences

Helping behavior

Breakdowns in empathy may reduce helping behavior, [77] [78] a phenomenon illustrated by the identifiable victim effect. Specifically, humans are less likely to assist others who are not identifiable on an individual level. [79] A related concept is psychological distance—that is, we are less likely to help those who feel more psychologically distant from us. [80]

Reduced empathy for outgroup members is associated with a reduction in willingness to entertain another's points of view, the likelihood of ignoring a customer's complaints, the likelihood of helping others during a natural disaster, and the chance that one opposes social programs designed to benefit disadvantaged individuals. [81] [71]

Prejudice

Empathy gaps may contribute to prejudicial attitudes and behavior. However, training people in perspective-taking, for example by providing instructions about how to take an outgroup member's perspective, has been shown to increase intergroup helping and the recognition of group disparities. [82] Perspective-taking interventions are more likely to be effective when a multicultural approach is used (i.e., an approach that appreciates intergroup differences), as opposed to a "colorblind" approach (e.g. an approach that attempts to emphasize a shared group identity). [82] [83] [84]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prejudice</span> Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Schadenfreude</span> Pleasure from the misfortunes of others

Schadenfreude is the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, pain, suffering, or humiliation of another. It is a borrowed word from German; the English word for it is epicaricacy, which originated in the 18th century. Schadenfreude has been detected in children as young as 24 months and may be an important social emotion establishing "inequity aversion".

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

In psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Following WWII and the desegregation of the military and other public institutions, policymakers and social scientists had turned an eye towards the policy implications of interracial contact. Of them, social psychologist Gordon Allport united early research in this vein under intergroup contact theory.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ultimate attribution error</span>

The ultimate attribution error is a type of attribution error which describes how attributions of outgroup behavior are more negative than ingroup behavior. As a cognitive bias, the error results in negative outgroup behavior being more likely to be attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality, and the attribution of negative ingroup behavior to external factors such as luck or circumstance. The bias reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the outgroup and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes. The theory also extends to the bias that positive acts performed by ingroup members are more likely a result of their personality. The Ultimate attribution error is an example of a cognitive bias that shows cross cultural differences, showing up more strongly for individuals in Western cultures than Eastern Cultures.

In social psychology, collective narcissism is the tendency to exaggerate the positive image and importance of a group to which one belongs. The group may be defined by ideology, race, political beliefs/stance, religion, sexual orientation, social class, language, nationality, employment status, education level, cultural values, or any other ingroup. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism extends this concept to similar excessively high opinions of a person's social group, and suggests that a group can function as a narcissistic entity.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

Pain empathy is a specific variety of empathy that involves recognizing and understanding another person's pain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Male warrior hypothesis</span> Hypothesis in evolutionary psychology

The male warrior hypothesis (MWH) is an evolutionary psychology hypothesis by Professor Mark van Vugt which argues that human psychology has been shaped by between-group competition and conflict. Specifically, the evolutionary history of coalitional aggression between groups of men may have resulted in sex-specific differences in the way outgroups are perceived, creating ingroup vs. outgroup tendencies that are still observable today.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

References

  1. ↑ Epley, N.; Keysar, B.; Van Boven, L.; Gilovich, T. (2004). "Perspective Taking as Egocentric Anchoring and Adjustment". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 87 (3): 327–339. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   15382983. S2CID   18087684.
  2. ↑ Hogan, R. (1969). "Development of an empathy scale". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology . 33 (3): 307–316. doi:10.1037/h0027580. PMID   4389335.
  3. ↑ Mehrabian, A.; Epstein, N. (December 1972). "A measure of emotional empathy". Journal of Personality . 40 (4): 525–543. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x. PMID   4642390.
  4. ↑ Davis, M. H. (January 1980). "A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 10 (85) – via ResearchGate.
  5. ↑ McDonald, N. M.; Messinger, D. S. (2011). "The Development of Empathy: How, When, and Why". In Juan José Sanguineti; Ariberto Acerbi; José Angel Lombo (eds.). Moral Behavior and Free Will: A Neurobiological and Philosophical Approach. STOQ Project research series. Vol. 13. If Press. pp. 333–359. ISBN   978-88-95565-64-4.
  6. ↑ Milton, D.; Gurbuz, E.; López, B. (November 2022). "The 'double empathy problem': Ten years on" . Autism . 26 (8): 1901–1903. doi:10.1177/13623613221129123. ISSN   1362-3613. PMID   36263746.
  7. ↑ Ross, L.; Ward, A. (1996). "Naive Realism in Everyday Life: Implications for Social Conflict and Misunderstanding". Values and Knowledge. Psychology Press. pp. 103, 135.
  8. ↑ Van Boven, L.; Loewenstein, G. (2005). "Empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking". Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 284–297.
  9. ↑ Van Boven, L.; Dunning, D.; Loewenstein, G. (2000). "Egocentric Empathy Gaps between Owners and Buyers: Misperceptions of the Endowment Effect" . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 79 (1): 66–76. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.66. PMID   10909878 – via Social Science Research Network.
  10. ↑ Zaki, J. (2014). "Empathy: A motivated account". Psychological Bulletin . 140 (6): 1608–1647. doi:10.1037/a0037679. ISSN   0033-2909. PMID   25347133. S2CID   16136602.
  11. ↑ Eisenberg, N.; Strayer, J. (1987). "Critical issues in the study of empathy". In Eisenberg, N.; Strayer, J. (eds.). Empathy and its development. Cambridge University Press.
  12. ↑ Batson, C. Daniel; Shaw, Laura L. (April 1991). "Evidence for Altruism: Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Motives" . Psychological Inquiry . 2 (2): 107–122. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1. ISSN   1047-840X.
  13. ↑ Blair, R. J. R.; Meffert, H.; Hwang, S.; White, S. F. (2018). "Psychopathy and brain function: Insights from neuroimaging research". In Patrick, C. J. (ed.). Handbook of psychopathy. The Guilford Press. pp. 401–421.
  14. ↑ Batson, C. D. (2009-03-20). "These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena". In Decety, J.; Ickes, William (eds.). The Social Neuroscience of Empathy. The MIT Press. pp. 3–16. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0002. ISBN   978-0-262-01297-3 . Retrieved 2024-08-25.
  15. ↑ Gaertner, S. L.; Dovidio, J. F.; Anastasio, P. A.; Bachman, B. A.; Rust, M. C. (January 1993). "The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias" . European Review of Social Psychology . 4 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1080/14792779343000004. ISSN   1046-3283.
  16. ↑ Pratto, F.; Glasford, D. E. (2008). "Ethnocentrism and the value of a human life" . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 95 (6): 1411–1428. doi:10.1037/a0012636. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   19025292.
  17. 1 2 3 Xu, X.; Zuo, X.; Wang, X.; Han, S. (2009-07-01). "Do You Feel My Pain? Racial Group Membership Modulates Empathic Neural Responses". Journal of Neuroscience . 29 (26): 8525–8529. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2418-09.2009. ISSN   0270-6474. PMC   6665679 . PMID   19571143.
  18. 1 2 Mathur, V. A.; Harada, T.; Chiao, J. Y. (August 2012). "Racial identification modulates default network activity for same and other races". Human Brain Mapping . 33 (8): 1883–1893. doi:10.1002/hbm.21330. ISSN   1065-9471. PMC   6870292 . PMID   21618667.
  19. 1 2 Azevedo, R. T.; Macaluso, E.; Avenanti, A.; Santangelo, V.; Cazzato, V.; Aglioti, S. M. (2013). "Their pain is not our pain: brain and autonomic correlates of empathic resonance with the pain of same and different race individuals". Human Brain Mapping . 34 (12): 3168–3181. doi:10.1002/hbm.22133. PMC   6870096 . PMID   22807311.
  20. 1 2 Gutsell, J. N.; Inzlicht, M. (2010). "Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology . 46 (5): 841–845. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.011.
  21. ↑ Montalan, B.; Lelard, T.; Godefroy, O.; Mouras, H. (2012). "Behavioral Investigation of the Influence of Social Categorization on Empathy for Pain: A Minimal Group Paradigm Study". Frontiers in Psychology . 3: 389. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00389 . ISSN   1664-1078. PMC   3474397 . PMID   23087657.
  22. ↑ Smith, R. H.; Powell, C. A. J.; Combs, D. J. Y.; Schurtz, D. R. (July 2009). "Exploring the When and Why of Schadenfreude" . Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 3 (4): 530–546. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00181.x. ISSN   1751-9004.
  23. ↑ Takahashi, H.; Kato, M.; Matsuura, M.; Mobbs, D.; Suhara, T.; Okubo, Y. (2009-02-13). "When Your Gain Is My Pain and Your Pain Is My Gain: Neural Correlates of Envy and Schadenfreude" . Science . 323 (5916): 937–939. Bibcode:2009Sci...323..937T. doi:10.1126/science.1165604. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   19213918.
  24. ↑ Leach, C. W.; Spears, R.; Branscombe, N. R.; Doosje, B. (2003). "Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 84 (5): 932–943. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.932. hdl: 1808/248 . ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   12757139.
  25. ↑ Cikara, M.; Botvinick, M. M.; Fiske, S. T. (March 2011). "Us Versus Them: Social Identity Shapes Neural Responses to Intergroup Competition and Harm". Psychological Science . 22 (3): 306–313. doi:10.1177/0956797610397667. ISSN   0956-7976. PMC   3833634 . PMID   21270447.
  26. 1 2 Cikara, M.; Bruneau, E.; Van Bavel, J. J.; Saxe, R. (November 2014). "Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology . 55: 110–125. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.007. PMC   4112600 . PMID   25082998.
  27. ↑ Levine, M.; Prosser, A.; Evans, D.; Reicher, S. (April 2005). "Identity and Emergency Intervention: How Social Group Membership and Inclusiveness of Group Boundaries Shape Helping Behavior" . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 31 (4): 443–453. doi:10.1177/0146167204271651. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   15743980.
  28. ↑ Cikara, M.; Fiske, S. T. (January 2012). "Stereotypes and Schadenfreude: Affective and Physiological Markers of Pleasure at Outgroup Misfortunes". Social Psychological and Personality Science . 3 (1): 63–71. doi:10.1177/1948550611409245. ISSN   1948-5506. PMC   3887033 . PMID   24416471.
  29. ↑ Thomas, J. (May 2013). "Association of Personal Distress With Burnout, Compassion Fatigue, and Compassion Satisfaction Among Clinical Social Workers" . Journal of Social Service Research. 39 (3): 365–379. doi:10.1080/01488376.2013.771596. ISSN   0148-8376.
  30. ↑ Jeffrey, D. I. (2020). "Experiencing Empathy in the Patient-Doctor Relationship". Empathy-Based Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 43–61. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64804-6_5. ISBN   978-3-030-64803-9.
  31. ↑ Kerasidou, A.; Horn, R. (December 2016). "Making space for empathy: supporting doctors in the emotional labour of clinical care". BMC Medical Ethics . 17 (1): 8. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0091-7 . ISSN   1472-6939. PMC   4728886 . PMID   26818248.
  32. ↑ Loewenstein, G. (2005). "Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making" . Health Psychology . 24 (4, Suppl): S49–S56. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S49. ISSN   1930-7810. PMID   16045419.
  33. 1 2 Cikara, M.; Van Bavel, J. J. (May 2014). "The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative review" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science . 9 (3): 245–274. doi:10.1177/1745691614527464. PMID   26173262.
  34. ↑ Vollberg, M. C.; Gaesser, B.; Cikara, M. (April 2021). "Activating episodic simulation increases affective empathy". Cognition . 209: 104558. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104558. PMID   33385949.
  35. 1 2 3 4 5 Merritt, C. C.; MacCormack, J. K.; Stein, A. G.; Lindquist, K. A.; Muscatell, K. A. (October 2021). "The neural underpinnings of intergroup social cognition: an fMRI meta-analysis". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience . 16 (9): 903–914. doi:10.1093/scan/nsab034. ISSN   1749-5016. PMC   8421705 . PMID   33760100.
  36. ↑ Hoffman, M. L. (1977). "Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors" . Psychological Bulletin . 84 (4): 712–722. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.4.712. ISSN   0033-2909. PMID   897032.
  37. ↑ Eisenberg, N.; Lennon, R. (1983). "Sex differences in empathy and related capacities" . Psychological Bulletin . 94 (1): 100. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.100. ISSN   0033-2909.
  38. ↑ Baron-Cohen, S.; Wheelwright, S. (April 2004). "The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences" . Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders . 34 (2): 163–175. doi:10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00. ISSN   0162-3257. PMID   15162935.
  39. ↑ Lawrence, E. J.; Shaw, P.; Baker, D.; Baron-Cohen, S.; David, A. S. (July 2004). "Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient" . Psychological Medicine . 34 (5): 911–920. doi:10.1017/S0033291703001624. ISSN   0033-2917. PMID   15500311.
  40. ↑ Schieman, S.; Van Gundy, K. (June 2000). "The Personal and Social Links between Age and Self-Reported Empathy" . Social Psychology Quarterly . 63 (2): 152–174. doi:10.2307/2695889. JSTOR   2695889.
  41. ↑ Willer, R.; Wimer, C.; Owens, L. A. (July 2015). "What drives the gender gap in charitable giving? Lower empathy leads men to give less to poverty relief" . Social Science Research . 52: 83–98. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.014. PMID   26004450.
  42. ↑ Michalska, K. J.; Kinzler, K. D.; Decety, J. (January 2013). "Age-related sex differences in explicit measures of empathy do not predict brain responses across childhood and adolescence". Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience . 3: 22–32. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2012.08.001. PMC   6987715 . PMID   23245217.
  43. ↑ Karniol, R.; Gabay, R.; Ochion, Y.; Harari, Y. (July 1998). "Is gender or gender-role orientation a better predictor of empathy in adolescence?". Sex Roles . 39 (1): 45–59. doi:10.1023/A:1018825732154. ISSN   0360-0025.
  44. ↑ Clarke, M. J.; Marks, A. D.G.; Lykins, A. D. (2016-09-02). "Bridging the gap: the effect of gender normativity on differences in empathy and emotional intelligence" . Journal of Gender Studies . 25 (5): 522–539. doi:10.1080/09589236.2015.1049246. ISSN   0958-9236.
  45. ↑ Sidanius, J.; Kteily, N.; Sheehy-Skeffington, J.; Ho, A. K.; Sibley, C.; Duriez, B. (June 2013). "You're Inferior and Not Worth Our Concern: The Interface Between Empathy and Social Dominance Orientation" . Journal of Personality . 81 (3): 313–323. doi:10.1111/jopy.12008. ISSN   0022-3506. PMID   23072294.
  46. ↑ Hudson, S. T. J.; Cikara, M.; Sidanius, J. (November 2019). "Preference for hierarchy is associated with reduced empathy and increased counter-empathy towards others, especially out-group targets". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology . 85: 103871. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103871.
  47. 1 2 Versey, H. S.; Kakar, S. A.; John-Vanderpool, S. D.; Sanni, M. O.; Willems, P. S. (2020). "Correlates of affective empathy, perspective taking, and generativity among a sample of adults" . Journal of Community Psychology. 48 (8): 2474–2490. doi:10.1002/jcop.22433. ISSN   0090-4392. PMID   32906202.
  48. ↑ Schieman, S.; Bierman, A.; Upenieks, L. (June 2019). "Beyond 'Heartless Conservative' and 'Bleeding Heart Liberal' Caricatures: How Religiosity Shapes the Relationship Between Political Orientation and Empathy" . Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion . 58 (2): 360–377. doi:10.1111/jssr.12595. ISSN   0021-8294.
  49. ↑ Piff, P. K.; Moskowitz, J. P. (2017-10-05). "The Class–Compassion Gap: How Socioeconomic Factors Influence Compassion". In Seppälä, E. M.; Simon-Thomas, E.; Brown, S. L.; Worline, M. C.; Cameron, C. D.; Doty, J. R. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190464684.013.24.
  50. ↑ Collias, K. (2015-04-18). "The Empathy Gap". Knowledge Without Borders. Retrieved 2024-03-07.
  51. ↑ Preston, S. D.; de Waal, F. B. M. (February 2002). "Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases". Behavioral and Brain Sciences . 25 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018. ISSN   0140-525X. PMID   12625087.
  52. ↑ Dimberg, U.; Thunberg, M.; Elmehed, K. (January 2000). "Unconscious Facial Reactions to Emotional Facial Expressions". Psychological Science . 11 (1): 86–89. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00221. ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   11228851.
  53. ↑ Rizzolatti, G.; Craighero, L. (2004-07-21). "The mirror-neuron system" . Annual Review of Neuroscience . 27 (1): 169–192. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230. ISSN   0147-006X. PMID   15217330.
  54. ↑ Wicker, B.; Keysers, C.; Plailly, J.; Royet, J. P.; Gallese, V.; Rizzolatti, G. (October 2003). "Both of Us Disgusted in My Insula". Neuron . 40 (3): 655–664. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00679-2. PMID   14642287.
  55. ↑ Singer, T.; Seymour, B.; O'Doherty, J.; Kaube, H.; Dolan, R. J.; Frith, C. D. (2004-02-20). "Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain". Science . 303 (5661): 1157–1162. Bibcode:2004Sci...303.1157S. doi:10.1126/science.1093535. hdl: 21.11116/0000-0001-A020-5 . ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   14976305.
  56. ↑ Keysers, Christian; Wicker, Bruno; Gazzola, Valeria; Anton, Jean-Luc; Fogassi, Leonardo; Gallese, Vittorio (April 2004). "A Touching Sight". Neuron. 42 (2): 335–346. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00156-4 . PMID   15091347.
  57. ↑ Carr, L.; Iacoboni, M.; Dubeau, M. C.; Mazziotta, J. C.; Lenzi, G. L. (2003-04-29). "Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: A relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . 100 (9): 5497–5502. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.5497C. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0935845100 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   154373 . PMID   12682281.
  58. ↑ De Dreu, C. K. W.; Kret, M. E. (February 2016). "Oxytocin Conditions Intergroup Relations Through Upregulated In-Group Empathy, Cooperation, Conformity, and Defense" . Biological Psychiatry . 79 (3): 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.03.020. PMID   25908497.
  59. ↑ De Dreu, C. K. W.; Shalvi, S.; Greer, L. L.; Van Kleef, G. A.; Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2012-11-07). Denson, T. (ed.). "Oxytocin Motivates Non-Cooperation in Intergroup Conflict to Protect Vulnerable In-Group Members". PLoS ONE . 7 (11): e46751. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...746751D. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046751 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   3492361 . PMID   23144787.
  60. ↑ Shamay-Tsoory, S. G.; Abu-Akel, A.; Palgi, S.; Sulieman, R.; Fischer-Shofty, M.; Levkovitz, Y.; Decety, J. (December 2013). "Giving peace a chance: Oxytocin increases empathy to pain in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" . Psychoneuroendocrinology . 38 (12): 3139–3144. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.09.015. PMID   24099859.
  61. ↑ Luo, S.; Li, B.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, W.; Rao, Y.; Han, S. (April 2015). "Oxytocin receptor gene and racial ingroup bias in empathy-related brain activity" . NeuroImage . 110: 22–31. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.042. PMID   25637390.
  62. ↑ Bernhardt, B. C.; Singer, T. (2012-07-21). "The Neural Basis of Empathy" . Annual Review of Neuroscience . 35 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150536. ISSN   0147-006X. PMID   22715878.
  63. ↑ Amodio, D. M.; Cikara, M. (2021-01-04). "The Social Neuroscience of Prejudice". Annual Review of Psychology . 72 (1): 439–469. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050928. ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   32946320.
  64. ↑ Amodio, D. M.; Frith, C. D. (April 2006). "Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition" . Nature Reviews Neuroscience . 7 (4): 268–277. doi:10.1038/nrn1884. ISSN   1471-003X. PMID   16552413.
  65. ↑ Saxe, R. (April 2006). "Uniquely human social cognition" . Current Opinion in Neurobiology . 16 (2): 235–239. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.001. PMID   16546372.
  66. ↑ Frith, C. D.; Frith, U. (May 2006). "The Neural Basis of Mentalizing". Neuron . 50 (4): 531–534. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.001. PMID   16701204.
  67. ↑ Telzer, E. H.; Masten, C. L.; Berkman, E. T.; Lieberman, M. D.; Fuligni, A. J. (September 2011). "Neural regions associated with self control and mentalizing are recruited during prosocial behaviors towards the family". NeuroImage . 58 (1): 242–249. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.013. PMC   3276247 . PMID   21703352.
  68. ↑ Waytz, A.; Zaki, J.; Mitchell, J. P. (2012-05-30). "Response of Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex Predicts Altruistic Behavior". The Journal of Neuroscience . 32 (22): 7646–7650. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6193-11.2012 . ISSN   0270-6474. PMC   3387686 . PMID   22649243.
  69. ↑ Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D., & Singer, T. (2010). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members' suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68(1), 149-160.
  70. ↑ Hein, G.; Silani, G.; Preuschoff, K.; Batson, C. D.; Singer, T. (October 2010). "Neural Responses to Ingroup and Outgroup Members' Suffering Predict Individual Differences in Costly Helping" (PDF). Neuron . 68 (1): 149–160. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.003 . PMID   20920798.
  71. 1 2 Vanman, E. J. (2016). "The role of empathy in intergroup relations". Current Opinion in Psychology . 11: 59–63. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.007. ISSN   2352-250X.
  72. ↑ Menon, V.; Uddin, L. Q. (June 2010). "Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function". Brain Structure and Function . 214 (5–6): 655–667. doi:10.1007/s00429-010-0262-0. ISSN   1863-2653. PMC   2899886 . PMID   20512370.
  73. ↑ Touroutoglou, A.; Hollenbeck, M.; Dickerson, B. C.; Feldman Barrett, L. (May 2012). "Dissociable large-scale networks anchored in the right anterior insula subserve affective experience and attention". NeuroImage . 60 (4): 1947–1958. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.012. PMC   3345941 . PMID   22361166.
  74. 1 2 Kann, S.; Zhang, S.; Manza, P.; Leung, H. C.; Li, C. S. R. (2016-11-01). "Hemispheric Lateralization of Resting-State Functional Connectivity of the Anterior Insula: Association with Age, Gender, and a Novelty-Seeking Trait". Brain Connectivity. 6 (9): 724–734. doi: 10.1089/brain.2016.0443 . PMC   5105339 . PMID   27604154.
  75. ↑ Duerden, E. G.; Arsalidou, M.; Lee, M.; Taylor, M. J. (September 2013). "Lateralization of affective processing in the insula" . NeuroImage . 78: 159–175. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.014. PMID   23587690.
  76. ↑ Cikara, M. (June 2015). "Intergroup Schadenfreude: motivating participation in collective violence" . Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences . 3: 12–17. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.12.007.
  77. ↑ Batson, C. D.; Ahmad, N.; Lishner, D. A.; Tsang, J.; Snyder, C. R.; Lopez, S. J. (2002). "Empathy and altruism". The Oxford Handbook of Hypo-egoic Phenomena. pp. 161–174.
  78. ↑ Stürmer, S.; Snyder, M.; Kropp, A.; Siem, B. (July 2006). "Empathy-Motivated Helping: The Moderating Role of Group Membership" . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 32 (7): 943–956. doi:10.1177/0146167206287363. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   16738027.
  79. ↑ Lee, S.; Feeley, T. H. (2016-07-02). "The identifiable victim effect: a meta-analytic review" . Social Influence . 11 (3): 199–215. doi:10.1080/15534510.2016.1216891. ISSN   1553-4510.
  80. ↑ Liberman, N.; Trope, Y.; Stephan, E. (2007). "Psychological distance". Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. Vol. 2. pp. 353–383.
  81. ↑ Cuddy, A. J. C.; Rock, M. S.; Norton, M. I. (January 2007). "Aid in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: Inferences of Secondary Emotions and Intergroup Helping" (PDF). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations . 10 (1): 107–118. doi:10.1177/1368430207071344. ISSN   1368-4302.
  82. 1 2 Todd, A. R.; Galinsky, A. D. (2014-07-02). "Perspective-taking as a strategy for improving intergroup relations: Evidence, mechanisms, and qualifications". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 8 (7): 374–387. doi:10.1111/spc3.12116.
  83. ↑ Vorauer, J. D.; Sasaki, S. J. (2009). "Helpful only in the abstract? Ironic effects of empathy in intergroup interaction". Psychological Science . 20 (2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02265 (inactive 2024-08-26).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2024 (link)
  84. ↑ Leeuwen, E. V.; Mashuri, A. (2012). "When common identities reduce between-group helping" (PDF). Social Psychological and Personality Science . 3 (3): 259–265. doi:10.1177/1948550611417315.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.