Task 7

Question 1

• socio-affective route –> AFFECTIVE EMPTATHY

Answer 1

o empathy = process of sharing feelings with someone else –> isomorphic representation of someone else’s affective state
–> shared network hypothesis: activation in similar regions than those observed when the same emotion is experienced first-hand
–> anterior insula (AI) & anterior middle cingulate cortex (aMCC)
o empathy has two possible outcomes
o compassion = feeling of warmth and concern for others  positive affect toward’s others’ distress & motivation to help
 activations in reward and affiliation-related networks
 ventral striatum, nucleus accumbens, VTA, medial orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC)
o empathic distress = detrimental to the experiencer (emotion contagion or shared pain) and to the suffering other (via antisocial or aggressive behavior)

Question 2

• socio-cognitive route –> COGNITIVE EMPATHY

Answer 2

o theory of mind (ToM) = taking another person’s perspective to gain a cognitive understanding of someone else’s thoughts or intentions  abstract, propositional knowledge about the other’s mental state
 ventral temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), superior temporal sulcus (STS), temporal poles (TP), medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate

Question 3

INTERACTIONS OF SOCIAL AFFECT AND SOCIAL COGNITION

Answer 3

• socio-affective and socio-cognitive processes activate separate brain networks
• on a behavioral level, they are also independent functions
  o empathy and ToM are unrelated: high empathy does not necessarily mean high ToM
  o psychopathy: high ToM but reduced affective empathy
  o autism: ToM is deficient, but affective empathy is intact
• however, socio-affective and socio-cognitive processes are jointly required in many complex social situations
  o study: empathy paradigms varied depending on the information provided to participants (picture-based vs. cue-based which gives additional hints)
  o some core regions of the ToM network are co-activated when additional inferring from a cue is required to understand the other’s state  cue-based condition
  o thus, cognitive empathy is not necessary for, but may contribute to affective empathy
• when activated together in complex social situation, the two networks may directly influence each other
  o inhibitory mechanism: when confronted with others’ distress, the anterior insula (negative affect sharing) inhibits activity in the TPJ (mentalizing)  reduced activity in TPJ is related to impaired ToM
  o adaptive value: prepare for immediate action in highly emotional situations

Question 4

SELF-OTHER DISTINCTION

Answer 4

• self-other distinction is critical for both, empathy and ToM
• it enables the differentiation between one’s own emotional or mental state and the states shared with others
• tempo-parietal regions seem to contribute to the self-other distinction
• failure of this distinction may result in:
  o egocentricity bias = tendency to project one’s own emotional or mental state on someone else  influences reasoning about what other might think
   tempo-parietal regions are important in overcoming emotional egocentricity
  o altercentric bias = the influence of others’ states on judgements about oneself

Question 5

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Answer 5

• affective and cognitive empathy provide us with an understanding of our interaction partners’ emotional and cognitive states  basis for flexible interactive behavior and social decision making
• both processes play an important role in predicting prosocial behavior
  o AI activity predicted generous donations when subjects reported empathic feelings for the charity’s goal
  o TPJ activity predicted donations when subjects took the perspective of the organization’s cause
• empathic distress may lead to antisocial or aggressive behavior
• compassion vs. reappraisal as emotion regulation strategy
  o compassion: up-regulation of positive affect to buffer negative affect
   activations in reward and positive emotion related networks
  o reappraisal: down-regulation of negative affect
   activations in fronto-parietal networks associated with cognitive control and attention regulation

Question 6

PSYCHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES OF EMPATHY

Answer 6

• Individual differences in empathy can have negative and positive psychological outcomes
• research long focused on beneficial consequences of empathy  it can lead to compassion and motivate prosocial behavior
  o “empathy-altruism” hypothesis = empathic concern for others produces the altruistic motivation that underlies prosocial behavior
• however, there is also a “dark side” of having high empathic capacity  it can lead to empathic distress which is associated with a number of affective disorders
• inconsistencies in findings for this associations might be due to the fact that the relationship is not linear  suggests that there might be a third variable in the relationship, for instance how people regulate empathy-induced emotion
  This paper suggests that individual differences in emotion regulation may moderate, by enhancing or offsetting, the observed effects of empathy on symptoms of affective disorders

Question 7

EMOTION REGULATION AND AFFECTIVE DISTRESS

Answer 7

• empathy generates emotional experience  how to respond to empathy-induced emotion?
• emotion regulation is likely to play a crucial role in determining whether empathy-induced emotions has subsequent negative or positive outcomes
  o cognitive reappraisal = reinterpreting things in a way that alters their affective impact
   linked to positive psychological outcomes
  o suppression = actively inhibiting emotional expression
   linked to negative psychological outcomes
• if emotion regulation is important to psychological adjustment & empathy generates emotion, it follows that individual differences in regulatory approaches should act as an important moderator between empathic responses and affective distress

Question 8

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN EMOTION REGULATION MODERATE THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN EMPATHY AND AFFECTIVE DISTRESS (POWELL) - STUDY

Answer 8

This study explores whether individual differences in emotion regulation strategies moderate the effect of empathy on affective distress.
- sample: volunteers (18-66 years)
- surveys to measure:
o empathy: questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy QCAE
o emotion regulation strategies: ERQ
o affective distress (symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress): DASS-21
- Data analysis:
o First, main effects of empathy and emotion regulation on distress were tested.
o then, moderating effects of emotion regulation via interaction with empathy

Question 9

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN EMOTION REGULATION MODERATE THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN EMPATHY AND AFFECTIVE DISTRESS (POWELL) - Result –> Main Effects

Answer 9

MAIN EFFECTS
(1) cognitive empathy had a negative linear association with measures of affective distress
(more cognitive empathy  less distress)

(2) affective empathy had a positive linear association with measures of affective distress
(more affective empathy  more distress)
o empathic distress, from empathically experiencing negative emotions of others, is linked to reduced psychological well-being

 cognitive and affective empathy have opposing effects on affective distress

(3) study failed to find a quadratic association between empathy and measures of affective distress
o quadratic relationship = optimal level of empathy, which is neither too low nor too high, which predicts lower levels of distress
o exception: quadratic effect of cognitive empathy on stress was observed

(4) reappraisal had a negative association with affective distress
o protective effect of reappraisal was highest for depression > stress > anxiety

(5) suppression had a positive association with affective distress

Question 10

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN EMOTION REGULATION MODERATE THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN EMPATHY AND AFFECTIVE DISTRESS (POWELL) - Result –> Moderating Effects

Answer 10

(6) reappraisal positively moderates the effects of empathy on affective distress  how?
o reappraisal reduced detrimental effect of high affective empathy on depression and anxiety
o not by enhancing positive effects of cognitive empathy

(7) suppression negatively moderates the effects of empathy on affective distress  how?
o suppression reduced positive effect of cognitive empathy
o not by potentiating effects of affective empathy on anxiety and stress

(8) unexpectantly, high suppression had a beneficial effect on levels of depression and stress in those with higher affective empathy
o makes sense: with high affective empathy, emotion contagion is highest  here, suppression can be helpful

 individual differences in emotion regulation influence whether empathic behavior increases the risk for affective distress

Question 11

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN EMOTION REGULATION MODERATE THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN EMPATHY AND AFFECTIVE DISTRESS (POWELL) - Figures

Answer 11

…

Question 12

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN EMOTION REGULATION MODERATE THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN EMPATHY AND AFFECTIVE DISTRESS (POWELL) - Disscussion

Answer 12

Evidence: individual differences in emotion regulation techniques of reappraisal and suppression moderate some of the associations between empathy and distress
- affective empathy predicted greater affective distress
o this detrimental effect absent when persons were effective at reappraising their emotions
o moreover, this effect was reduced in people who typically used suppression
- cognitive empathy predicted lower distress
o this beneficial effect was absent when persons typically suppressed their emotions

Question 13

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN EMOTION REGULATION MODERATE THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN EMPATHY AND AFFECTIVE DISTRESS (POWELL) - Implications

Answer 13

• individual differences in emotion regulation are an important moderator between empathy and psychological health, and thus a useful target for intervention
• for people high in affective empathy: reappraisal is always a good strategy to avoid distressing outcomes & suppression may also be helpful
• for people high in cognitive empathy: suppression is always bad and should be discouraged in order to maximize well-being

Question 14

• empathy –> various distinct concepts

Answer 14

o cognitive empathy = understanding the thoughts and feelings of others (without necessarily feeling it)
 ToM, perspective taking, mentalizing
o emotional contagion = experiencing the feelings of others in your immediate vicinity
 example: standing next to nervous person makes you nervous
o affective empathy = experiencing the inferred feelings of others (person does not need to be present or even exist, eg. fictional character)
 example: thinking about a person who is sad makes you sad as well
o compassion = positive feelings toward others, a desire that others do well
 example: wishing that anxious friend would feel calm, without necessarily feeling any anxiety yourself

Question 15

empathy - positive or negative?

Answer 15

• empathy is often view as having positive effects
  o the experience of empathic distress motivates prosocial behavior toward a suffering individual
  o it can amplify the joys of friendships, parenting etc.
• however, empathy has can also have negative consequences:
  o it can lead to biased and innumerate decisions  immoral decision-making
  o it can motivate cruelty and aggression
  o moreover, it can lead to burnout and exhaustion

Question 16

BIAS AND INNUMERACY

Answer 16

• empathy clashes with moral views and is a poor guide to moral decision-making
  o study: after empathizing with a girl who has a fatal disease, the majority of participants would chose to move her up a waiting list for treatment
• given its spotlight nature, empathy is particularly vulnerable to some biases
  o empathy is inherently innumerate: we can emphasize with a single, and maybe two or three, but not thousands or a million (favoring one specific over many)
   identifiable victim effect = people donate more money after seeing picture and details about a specific sick child, as compared to being told that 8 children are in need
   choice about donations are driven by images of adorable, identifiable victims and animals
   we are insensitive to the seriousness of the climate crises because it has no specific victims we can empathize with
  o empathy is silent: when it comes to statistical concerns (eg. increase in preventable deaths)
  o ingroup bias: we feel more empathy for people form our ingroup
   subjects felt more empathy when a fan of the subject’s team was hurt
• thus, empathy resonates to the suffering of identifiable victims (person who is assaulted by a prisoner released), but it largely silent when it comes to both future costs and statistical benefits (person who is not assaulted, statistical drop in crime rates)

 thus, we should rely on cost-benefit analyses and applications of universal moral principles to make moral judgements that we can rationally defend

Question 17

EMPATHY AS A TOOL

Answer 17

• by shifting our empathic focus, empathy can be a useful tool to motivate good actions
  o you can decide what to do based on a cost-benefit analysis & then empathy can step in and motivate you to actually do it
  o some charitable appeals make use of the motivational force of empathy
• however, empathy can also be used to motivate bad actions
  o empathy can motivate us to harm others (eg. in order to help a good friend to win a challenge, we might harm her competitor)
  o empathy can also be used to generate aggression towards outgroups (eg. in order to evoke hatred towards immigrants, politicians tell stories about innocent victims of crimes that individual immigrants have committed)
  o even though suffering of innocent people can be a reasonable moral motivation for action, empathy makes us focus too much on the welfare of specific individuals we care about and on the pleasure of retaliation toward those who made them suffer
   motivates violent actions
  o however, the costs of such violence do not strike us in the same way: it is often too abstract and statistical (no empathy)

Question 18

THE ONLY FAME IN TOWN?

Answer 18

• we do not necessarily need empathy to motivate us help others
• we can judge all sorts of behaviors as morally wrong, even when empathy does not apply
  o we disapprove people who cheat on taxes even though there is no specific person who suffers because of these actions and nobody to empathize with
  o we comfort a child who is terrified by a dog, even though we do not share the fear
• this can be explained by compassion
• compassion is distinct from empathy
  o distinct neural correlates
  o compassion training promotes prosocial behavior & augments positive affect and resilience
  o empathy training led to empathic distress, a risk factor for burnout and avoidance behavior
  o mediation: move from feeling the distress of others to acting with compassion to alleviate it

 compassion has all the advantages of empathy and few of its weaknesses 

Question 19

WHAT SORT OF PERSON IS LOW IN EMPATHY?

Answer 19

• bad behavior of psychopaths is not predicted by their lack of empathy, but rather by their criminal history, antisocial behavior, lack of inhibition and poor impulse control
• in other
• only 1% of the variation in aggression in non-psychopaths can be explained by a lack of empathy
• people with low empathy might be more rational and less biased moral deliberators

Question 20

EMPATHY AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS

Answer 20

• the feature of empathy that make it worrisome in the policy domain (biased, parochial, innumerate nature), might not be a problem when it comes to family and friends
• we want those who we love to be biased toward us
• empathy has evolved to facilitate close relationships
• however, compassion is even more important in close relationships

Question 21

Why do people sometimes avoid empathy?

Answer 21

• empathy is a motivated phenomenon: people’s motivation to empathize shapes empathic outcomes (less automatic than previously thought: even if experience sharing occurs spontaneously, people have a choice about whether to enter such situations)
  o motivation to empathize derives from its subjective expected value: weigh costs against rewards
• thus, when empathy costs money or time or when it entails much distress, people might choose to avoid it
• additionally, cognitive costs (effort, aversion, inefficacy) might motivate people to avoid empathy
  This paper examines whether people experience empathy as cognitively taxing and costly, leading them to avoid it.

Question 22

IS EMPATHY EFFORTFUL?

Answer 22

• this paper focuses on affective empathy (experience sharing) which is distinct from cognitive empathy (perspective taking) and self-focused personal distress
• authors suggest that affective empathy is cognitively costly as it requires subjective effort
  = subjective intensification of mental and/ or physical activity in order to meet some goal
  o uncertainty, the need to rely on external information, concern about making empathic errors and difficulty make empathy feel effortful
• prior research showed that people are motivated to avoid cognitive work
• thus, it is conceivable that these costs also motivate people to avoid empathy, unless it is offset by sufficient reward  this is tested in the study:

Question 23

THE EMPATHY SELECTION TASK

Answer 23

• situation selection is a common emotion regulation strategy: people select situations to enter or avoid based upon the emotions they want to feel
• therefore, the free choice between situation that elicits empathy vs. alternative course of action as means for empathy regulation
• empathy selection task = measure motivated empathy avoidance via situation selection
  o over repeated trials, people could freely choose one of two decks
  o then, they saw an image of a person
  o further instructions differed depending on the deck: experience sharing vs. objectively describing the image (see figure)
  o this task removes all material costs  focus specifically on cognitive costs associated with experience sharing
• after the task, subjects completed open-ended responses to rate the subjective cognitive costs associated with each deck (NASA)  to measure costs associated with each task
  o mental demand, cognitive workload (how hard was the deck?) effort
  o frustration (how stressed were you by this deck?)  aversion
  o performance (how successful were you in doing the task?)  efficacy

Question 24

STUDIES 1 – 3: VALIDATING THE EMPATHY SELECTION TASK

Answer 24

• study 1 & 2 used empathy selection task as described above using images of child refugees
  o study 1 used labelled decks (describe vs. feel) whereas study 2 used unlabeled decks
• study 3 was a more conservative test: conditions differed only in whether experience sharing was requested (otherwise, tasks are structurally matched)
  o empathy deck: subjects were instructed to share the person’s experiences and write 3 emotion keywords identifying the person’s facial expression
  describe deck: subjects were instructed to remain detached and write 3 emotion keywords identifying the person’s facial expression

 Robust preference to avoid empathy in each of 11 studies (N = 1.204) and a meta-analysis
o preference for objective deck

 This was associated with perceptions of empathy as more effortful, more aversive and less efficacious
o with every additional trial, the odds of choosing empathy deck decreased (empathy is effortful, so willingness to engage in it decreases as the task progresses)
o NASA ratings correlated with preference  cognitive costs moderate the decline in empathy choice over time

those who perceived empathy deck as more costly were less likely to choose empathy

empathy decline was buffered for subjects who perceived empathy as less cognitively costly

Question 25

STUDIES 4 – 6: MANIPULATING TARGET AFFECT

Answer 25

• exclude alternative explanation that people avoid empathy because they want to avoid vicarious distress
• therefore, they tested whether people avoid empathizing with someone experiencing positive affect, which does not entail costly helping or vicarious negative affect
• studies used empathy selection task as before but manipulated valence (angry vs. happy face)
• in study 6, affective targets were shown prior to choice  if subjects knew that empathy would be for positive states & they would still avoid it, it would support the hypothesis that empathy is generally cognitive demanding (strong motivation to avoid empathy)

 people avoided empathy for both, negative and positive targets

• study 5 used an empathy discounting paradigm to examine how much it would cost to motivate people to choose empathy
  o fixed hypothetical payout for empathy deck (2$)
  o variable, lower hypothetical payout for objective deck (adjusted depending on previous choice)
   select larger offer (empathy)  value of objective deck increased
   select smaller offer (describe)  value of objective deck decreased
  o value after final round = point of indifference between the decks
  o subjective cost of empathy = value of empathy (2) – indifference point  quantifies additional money required to empathize
• average indifference point was 1.61$  subjective cost required for empathy was an additional 0.39$
• shows that people are motivated to avoid empathy, and that its costs may be able to offset with sufficient external reward

Question 26

STUDIES 7 – 8: AVOIDANCE OF EMPATHY OR EMOTION VERBALIZATION

Answer 26

• now, empathy selection task involved a choice between “feel-self” or “feel-other” decks  subjects need to evaluate how a picture made them or another person feel
• if people avoid empathy (rather than emotionality in general), people should specifically avoid focusing on feelings of others
• again, people avoided empathy (preference for “feel-self” condition)
• studies excluded alternative explanation that people avoid any kind of emotional state or avoid having to verbalize feelings

Question 27

STUDIES 9 – 10: MANIPULATING EMPATHY EFFICACY

Answer 27

• if cognitive costs of empathy lead people to avoid choosing empathy, reducing these costs should increase empathy choice
• therefore, studies manipulated perceived efficacy in engaging in empathy by providing accuracy feedback after the responses (how accurate did the person described emotional expression)
  o low-efficacy condition: tell participants that they are accurate on all objective trials and on 50% of empathy trials  decreased subjective ratings of empathy efficacy
  o high-efficacy condition: tell participants that they are accurate on all empathy trials and on 50% of objective trials  increased in subjective ratings of empathy efficacy & reduced perceived costs of empathy
• subjects were more likely to choose empathy in the high-efficacy condition & avoided empathy in the low efficacy condition

 experimentally increasing empathy efficacy eliminated empathy avoidance
(suggest that subjective cognitive costs of empathy cause empathy avoidance)

Question 28

STUDY 11: VARYING EMPATHIC DEMAND

Answer 28

• if empathy is cognitively costly, then having to emphasize for longer duration should be costlier than having to empathize for a shorter duration
• empathy selection task included different amounts of empathy as choice options
  o high-demand empathy trial: emphasize for 10 seconds & write down 3 keyterms
  o low-demand empathy trial: empathize for 3 seconds & write down 3 keyterms
• subjects perceived empathizing for longer was more cognitively costly (rates as more effortful) what in turn predicted avoidance of empathy  subjects avoided high-demand empathy deck in favor of the low-demand empathy deck
• choosing higher empathic demand (empathize for longer) resulted in feeling more upset
• however, efficacy of empathy predicted empathy choice when controlling for feelings of upset  avoidance of higher empathic demand was linked to cognitive costs, not merely to the avoidance of feeling more upset
• lastly, choosing higher empathic demand correlated with higher willingness to donate
   task has predictive validity for prosocial behavior

 empathizing for longer was more effortful and less efficacious, leading to more empathy avoidance (people avoid empathy because of its inherent cognitive costs)

Question 29

THE COGNITIVE WORK OF EMPATHY

Answer 29

• measures of effort, aversion and efficacy were associated with empathy avoidance
• however, the strongest unique predictor was felt inefficacy at empathizing  why?
  o it reflects the concern about being accurate
  o it reflects concerns about insufficiently feeling emotions in response to others
• however, effort also plays a critical role
  o (study 11) by spending more time empathizing, you increase accuracy, but it is also more cognitively demanding  empathy avoidance = effort avoidance
• implications: reducing cognitive costs of empathy can increase willingness to empathize

Question 30

REFINING THE EMPATHY SELECTION TASK

Answer 30

• challenge = in empathy selection task, empathy was cognitively costly because of other task features: objective descriptions are easier than constructing internal experiences
• therefore, studies 3-6 used more conservative instructions where conditions only differed in whether experience sharing was requested
• moreover, study 11 varied empathy demands and found associated effect
• this supports the notion that empathy itself is cognitively costly and thus avoided
• the paradigm specifically focuses on one facet of empathy, namely experience sharing
  o reference to perspective taking were minimized
  o very specific instructions to share feelings
• another concern is whether the task captures everyday experiences of empathy
  o situation selection occurs in everyday life (avoid charities etc.)
  o however, targets in the task were presented without context, which might increase uncertainty and therefore cognitive costs
• the task removed any expectation of having to engage in costly helping behavior, which can often inhibit empathy
  o however, empathy avoidance effect was still present, probably because empathy without consequences may seem to have no rewards to offset cognitive costs

Question 31

ADVANCING THE STUDY OF MOTIVATED EMPATHY

Answer 31

• people will not always avoid empathy: cognitive costs of empathy are contextually sensitive and depend on opportunity costs of other available courses of action
• when deciding whether to enter into empathy-eliciting situations, people weigh expected value of mental costs (effort, negative effect, feelings of inefficacy, fatigue) along with material costs (financial, time) and offsetting rewards (morality, social norms, family)