Social neuroscience

The neuroscience of empathy: progress, pitfalls and promise

Journal name:
Nature Neuroscience
Volume:
15,
Pages:
675–680
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nn.3085
Published online
Corrected online

Abstract

The last decade has witnessed enormous growth in the neuroscience of empathy. Here, we survey research in this domain with an eye toward evaluating its strengths and weaknesses. First, we take stock of the notable progress made by early research in characterizing the neural systems supporting two empathic sub-processes: sharing others' internal states and explicitly considering those states. Second, we describe methodological and conceptual pitfalls into which this work has sometimes fallen, which can limit its validity. These include the use of relatively artificial stimuli that differ qualitatively from the social cues people typically encounter and a lack of focus on the relationship between brain activity and social behavior. Finally, we describe current research trends that are overcoming these pitfalls through simple but important adjustments in focus, and the future promise of empathy research if these trends continue and expand.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Three major facets of empathy.
    Figure 1: Three major facets of empathy.

    For decades, behavioral research has examined each of these processes and developed theories about the nature of and relationships between each one. By contrast, the lion's share of neuroscience research in empathy has focused on two empathic processes: the tendency to take on, resonate with, or 'share' the emotions of others (experience sharing) and the ability to explicitly reason and draw inferences about their mental states (mentalizing). A third facet, the prosocial motivation to help others as a result of using one or both of the other facets to share and/or cognitively understand the emotions they are experiencing (prosocial concern), has begun receiving increasing neuroscientific attention in the last few years. Each of these empathic processes has also been described using other terms, some of which are listed here.

  2. Neuroscientific approaches to studying experience sharing and mentalizing, and the brain regions that are associated with each.
    Figure 2: Neuroscientific approaches to studying experience sharing and mentalizing, and the brain regions that are associated with each.

    (a) The experimental logic underlying studies of experience sharing. The blue circle represents brain regions engaged by direct, first-person experience of an affective response, motor intention or other internal state. The yellow circle represents regions engaged by third-person observation of someone else experiencing the same kind of internal state. To the extent that a region demonstrates neural resonance—common engagement by first- and third-person experience (green overlap)—it is described as supporting a perceiver's vicarious experience of a target's state (regions demonstrating such properties are highlighted in green in c). (b) Studies of mentalizing typically ask participants to make judgments about targets' beliefs, thoughts, intentions and/or feelings, as depicted in highly stylized social cues, including vignettes (top left), posed facial expressions (right), or even more isolated nonverbal cues, such as target eye gaze (bottom left). Regions engaged by such tasks (blue in c) are described as contributing to perceivers' ability to mentalize. (c) Brain regions associated with experience sharing and mentalizing. IPL, inferior parietal lobule; TPJ, temporoparietal junction; pSTS, posterior superior temporal sulcus; TP, temporal ole; AI, anterior insula; PMC, premotor cortex; PCC, posterior cingulate cortex; ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; MPFC, medial prefrontal cortex.

Change history

Corrected online 30 April 2012
In the version of this article initially published, the middle initial of author Kevin N. Ochsner was omitted. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

References

  1. Tomasello, M. The Cultural Origin of Human Cognition (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 2000).
  2. Gallese, V., Keysers, C. & Rizzolatti, G. A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 396403 (2004).
  3. Leslie, A.M., Friedman, O. & German, T.P. Core mechanisms in “theory of mind”. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 528533 (2004).
  4. Batson, C.D. Altruism in Humans (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2011).
  5. de Waal, F.B. Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 279300 (2008).
  6. Rizzolatti, G. & Sinigaglia, C. The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: interpretations and misinterpretations. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 264274 (2010).
  7. Keysers, C., Kaas, J.H. & Gazzola, V. Somatosensation in social perception. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 417428 (2010).
  8. Lamm, C. & Singer, T. The role of anterior insular cortex in social emotions. Brain Struct. Funct. 214, 579591 (2010).
  9. Buckner, R.L. & Carroll, D.C. Self-projection and the brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 4957 (2007).
  10. Spreng, R.N., Mar, R.A. & Kim, A.S. The common neural basis of autobiographical memory, prospection, navigation, theory of mind, and the default mode: a quantitative meta-analysis. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 21, 489510 (2009).
  11. Van Overwalle, F. & Baetens, K. Understanding others' actions and goals by mirror and mentalizing systems: a meta-analysis. Neuroimage 48, 564584 (2009).
  12. Shamay-Tsoory, S.G., Aharon-Peretz, J. & Perry, D. Two systems for empathy: a double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain 132, 617627 (2009).
  13. Davis, M. Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 44, 113126 (1983).
  14. Wagner, D.D., Kelley, W.M. & Heatherton, T.F. Individual differences in the spontaneous recruitment of brain regions supporting mental state understanding when viewing natural social scenes. Cereb. Cortex (2011).
  15. Singer, T. et al. Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science 303, 11571162 (2004).
  16. Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C.D. & Singer, T. Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members' suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron 68, 149160 (2010).
  17. Harris, L.T. & Fiske, S.T. Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychol. Sci. 17, 847853 (2006).
  18. Philip, R.C. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the fMRI investigation of autism spectrum disorders. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 36, 901942 (2012).
  19. Dapretto, M. et al. Understanding emotions in others: mirror neuron dysfunction in children with autism spectrum disorders. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 2830 (2006).
  20. Harvey, P.O., Zaki, J., Lee, J., Ochsner, K. & Green, M.F. Neural substrates of empathic accuracy in people with schizophrenia. Schizophr. Bull. (in the press).
  21. Blair, R.J. Responding to the emotions of others: dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Conscious. Cogn. 14, 698718 (2005).
  22. Keysers, C. & Gazzola, V. Integrating simulation and theory of mind: from self to social cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 194196 (2007).
  23. Saxe, R. Against simulation: the argument from error. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 174179 (2005).
  24. Zaki, J. & Ochsner, K. The need for a cognitive neuroscience of naturalistic social cognition. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1167, 1630 (2009).
  25. Neisser, U. Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1976).
  26. Preston, S.D. & de Waal, F.B. Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav. Brain Sci. 25, 120, discussion 20–71 (2002).
  27. Spunt, R.P. & Lieberman, M.D. An integrative model of the neural systems supporting the comprehension of observed emotional behavior. Neuroimage 59, 30503059 (2012).
  28. Zaki, J., Hennigan, K., Weber, J. & Ochsner, K.N. Social cognitive conflict resolution: Contributions of domain-general and domain-specific neural systems. J. Neurosci. 30, 84818488 (2010).
  29. Wispé, L. The distinction between sympathy and empathy: to call forth a concept, a word is needed. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 314321 (1986).
  30. Ickes, W. Empathic Accuracy (Guilford Press, New York, 1997).
  31. Henson, R. Forward inference using functional neuroimaging: dissociations versus associations. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 6469 (2006).
  32. Poldrack, R.A. Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 5963 (2006).
  33. Wolf, I., Dziobek, I. & Heekeren, H.R. Neural correlates of social cognition in naturalistic settings: a model-free analysis approach. Neuroimage 49, 894904 (2010).
  34. Redcay, E. et al. Live face-to-face interaction during fMRI: a new tool for social cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage 50, 16391647 (2010).
  35. Wheatley, T., Milleville, S.C. & Martin, A. Understanding animate agents: distinct roles for the social network and mirror system. Psychol. Sci. 18, 469474 (2007).
  36. Zaki, J., Ochsner, K.N., Hanelin, J., Wager, T. & Mackey, S.C. Different circuits for different pain: patterns of functional connectivity reveal distinct networks for processing pain in self and others. Soc. Neurosci. 2, 276291 (2007).
  37. Lombardo, M.V. et al. Shared neural circuits for mentalizing about the self and others. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 16231635 (2010).
  38. Zaki, J. & Ochsner, K. Reintegrating accuracy into the study of social cognition. Psychol. Inq. 22, 159182 (2011).
  39. Zaki, J., Weber, J., Bolger, N. & Ochsner, K. The neural bases of empathic accuracy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 1138211387 (2009).
  40. Cialdini, R.B., Brown, S.L., Lewis, B.P., Luce, C. & Neuberg, S.L. Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: when one into one equals oneness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 481494 (1997).
  41. Zaki, J. & Mitchell, J. Equitable decision making is associated with neural markers of subjective value. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 1976119766 (2011).
  42. Harbaugh, W.T., Mayr, U. & Burghart, D.R. Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science 316, 16221625 (2007).
  43. Masten, C.L., Morelli, S.A. & Eisenberger, N.I. An fMRI investigation of empathy for 'social pain' and subsequent prosocial behavior. Neuroimage 55, 381388 (2011).
  44. Ebstein, R.P., Israel, S., Chew, S.H., Zhong, S. & Knafo, A. Genetics of human social behavior. Neuron 65, 831844 (2010).
  45. Bartz, J.A., Zaki, J., Bolger, N. & Ochsner, K.N. Social effects of oxytocin in humans: context and person matter. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 301309 (2011).
  46. Avenanti, A., Bueti, D., Galati, G. & Aglioti, S.M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation highlights the sensorimotor side of empathy for pain. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 955960 (2005).
  47. Fan, Y. & Han, S. Temporal dynamic of neural mechanisms involved in empathy for pain: an event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia 46, 160173 (2008).
  48. Oberman, L.M. & Ramachandran, V.S. The simulating social mind: the role of the mirror neuron system and simulation in the social and communicative deficits of autism spectrum disorders. Psychol. Bull. 133, 310327 (2007).
  49. Golan, O. & Baron-Cohen, S. Systemizing empathy: teaching adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism to recognize complex emotions using interactive multimedia. Dev. Psychopathol. 18, 591617 (2006).
  50. Courchesne, E. & Pierce, K. Why the frontal cortex in autism might be talking only to itself: local over-connectivity but long-distance disconnection. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 15, 225230 (2005).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Jamil Zaki
  2. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.

    • Kevin N Ochsner

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to:

Author details

Additional data