Interaction between valence of empathy and familiarity: is it difficult to empathize with the positive events of a stranger?

Journal of Physiological Anthropology

Shigeki Watanuki¹  Yeon-kyu Kim¹  Takayuki Nishimura³  Yuka Egashira²  Akira Takeshita²  Yuki Motomura¹ 

[1] Faculty of Design, Kyushu University, 4-9-1 Shiobaru, Minami-ku, Fukuoka 815-8540, Japan;Graduate School of Integrated Frontier Science, Kyushu University, 6-10-1 Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan;Department of Public Health, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan

关键词: Friend;    Stranger;    Familiarity;    Friendship;    Global field power;    Event-related potential;    Empathy;   

Others  :  1145352
DOI  :  10.1186/s40101-015-0049-3

 received in 2014-09-30, accepted in 2015-02-14,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Empathy in humans is thought to have evolved via social interactions caused by the formation of social groups. Considering the role of empathy within a social group, there might be a difference between emotional empathy for strangers and familiar others belonging to the same social group. In this study, we used the global field power (GFP) index to investigate empathic brain activity during observation of a cue indicating either a negative or positive image viewed by a stranger or close friend.

Methods

Sixteen healthy participants observed a partner performing an emotional gambling task displayed on a monitor. After the partner's choice-response, a frowning or smiling face symbol was simultaneously presented to the participant’s monitor while a negative or positive emotional image was presented to the partner’s monitor. All participants observed a control condition (CT) showing a computer trial, a stranger-observation condition (SO) showing the trial of a stranger, and a friend-observation condition (FO) to observe the trial of a close friend. During these observations, participants’ event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to calculate GFP, and after the task, a subjective assessment of their feelings was measured.

Results

Positive emotion was significantly larger under the FO compared to the CT and the SO. Significantly larger negative emotion was found under the SO and FO compared to the CT. In response to a positive cue, significantly larger GFP during 300 to 600 ms was observed under the FO compared to the CT and SO. In response to a negative cue, significantly larger GFP was observed under the FO and SO compared to the CT. A significantly larger GFP under the SO was found in response to only a negative cue. Topographic map analysis suggested that these differences were related to frontal-occipital dynamics. GFP was significantly correlated with empathic trait.

Conclusion

These results revealed that familiarity with another person has different effects depending on the valence of empathy. Negative empathy, including the danger perception function, might easily occur even among strangers, whereas positive empathy related to nursing and supporting an inner group does not happen easily with strangers.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Motomura et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Davis MH: Empathy: a social psychological approach. Madison, WI, Brown & Benchmark; 1994.
• [2]Rumble AC, Van Lange PAM, Parks CD: The benefits of empathy: when empathy may sustain cooperation in social dilemmas. Eur J Soc Psychol 2010, 40:856-66.
• [3]Lakin JL, Chartrand TL: Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychol Sci 2003, 14:334-9.
• [4]Batson CD, Ahmad N: Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner’s dilemma II: what if the target of empathy has defected? Eur J Soc Psychol 2001, 31:25-36.
• [5]Knafo A, Zahn-Waxler C, Van Hulle C, Robinson JL, Rhee SH: The developmental origins of a disposition toward empathy: genetic and environmental contributions. Emotion 2008, 8:737-52.
• [6]Roth-Hanania R, Davidov M, Zahn-Waxler C: Empathy development from 8 to 16 months: early signs of concern for others. Infant Behav Dev 2011, 34:447-58.
• [7]Sagi A, Hoffman ML: Empathic distress in the newborn. Dev Psychol 1976, 12:175-6.
• [8]de Waal FB: Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy. Annu Rev Psychol 2008, 59:279-300.
• [9]Nieuwenhuis S, Aston-Jones G, Cohen JD: Decision making, the P3, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system. Psychol Bull 2005, 131:510-32.
• [10]Leng Y, Zhou X: Modulation of the brain activity in outcome evaluation by interpersonal relationship: an ERP study. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48:448-55.
• [11]Gehring WJ, Willoughby AR: The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science 2002, 295:2279-82.
• [12]Ma Q, Shen Q, Xu Q, Li D, Shu L, Weber B: Empathic responses to others’ gains and losses: an electrophysiological investigation. Neuroimage 2011, 54:2472-80.
• [13]Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty J, Kaube H, Dolan RJ, Frith CD: Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science 2004, 303:1157-62.
• [14]Meyer ML, Masten CL, Ma Y, Wang C, Shi Z, Eisenberger NI, et al.: Empathy for the social suffering of friends and strangers recruits distinct patterns of brain activation. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2013, 8:446-54.
• [15]Lehmann D, Skrandies W: Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1980, 48:609-21.
• [16]Pourtois G, Thut G, Grave De Peralta R, Michel C, Vuilleumier P: Two electrophysiological stages of spatial orienting towards fearful faces: early temporo-parietal activation preceding gain control in extrastriate visual cortex. Neuroimage 2005, 26:149-63.
• [17]Murray MM, Brunet D, Michel CM: Topographic ERP analyses: a step-by-step tutorial review. Brain Topogr 2008, 20:249-64.
• [18]Doi H, Shinohara K: Unconscious presentation of fearful face modulates electrophysiological responses to emotional prosody. Cereb Cortex 2015, 25(3):817-32.
• [19]Fan Y, Duncan NW, de Greck M, Northoff G: Is there a core neural network in empathy? An fMRI based quantitative meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav R 2011, 35:903-11.
• [20]Singer T: The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: review of literature and implications for future research. Neurosci Biobehav R 2006, 30:855-63.
• [21]Chakrabarti B, Bullmore ET, Baron-Cohen S: Empathizing with basic emotions: common and discrete neural substrates. Soc Neurosci-UK 2006, 1:364-84.
• [22]Bernasconi F, Schmidt A, Pokorny T, Kometer M, Seifritz E, Vollenweider FX: Spatiotemporal brain dynamics of emotional face processing modulations induced by the serotonin 1A/2A receptor agonist psilocybin. Cereb Cortex 2014, 24(12):3221-31.
• [23]Shinoda H, Skrandies W: Topographic changes in event-related potentials because of learning of meaningful Kanji characters. Neuroreport 2013, 24:555-9.
• [24]Hiessl AK, Skrandies W: Evaluation of multisensory stimuli–dimensions of meaning and electrical brain activity. Neuropsychologia 2013, 51:1330-5.
• [25]Yeung N, Holroyd CB, Cohen JD: ERP correlates of feedback and reward processing in the presence and absence of response choice. Cereb Cortex 2005, 15:535-44.
• [26]Spielberger CD, Gorssuch RL, Lushene PR, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1983
• [27]Tobari M: The development of empathy in adolescence: a multidimensional view. Jpn J Dev Psychol 2003, 14:136-48.
• [28]Davis MH: A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 1980, 10:85.
• [29]Woosnam KM: The inclusion of other in the self (IOS) scale. Ann Tourism Res 2010, 37:857-60.
• [30]Luck SJ, Heinze HJ, Mangun GR, Hillyard SA: Visual event-related potentials index focused attention within bilateral stimulus arrays. II. Functional dissociation of P1 and N1 components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990, 75:528-42.
• [31]Johannes S, Munte TF, Heinze HJ, Mangun GR: Luminance and spatial attention effects on early visual processing. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 1995, 2:189-205.
• [32]Fontenelle LF, Soares ID, Miele F, Borges MC, Prazeres AM, Range BP, et al.: Empathy and symptoms dimensions of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Psychiatr Res 2009, 43:455-63.
• [33]Davis MH: Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 1983, 44:113-26.
• [34]Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty JP, Stephan KE, Dolan RJ, Frith CD: Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature 2006, 439:466-9.
• [35]Dunbar RI: The social brain hypothesis and its implications for social evolution. Ann Hum Biol 2009, 36:562-72.