Rats display empathic behavior independent of the opportunity for social interaction

Subjects

Abstract

Empathy, the capacity for shared emotional valence with others, can allow for cooperativity and social bonding between individuals. However, clinical studies indicate it is dysregulated in neuropsychiatric disorders like autism and addiction, making a translationally relevant model of empathy extremely important. The evolutionary basis of the empathic behaviors observed across numerous species can be described using the Perception Action Model (PAM), in which shared affect can promote an action that eliminates the distress of both the “Target” and, by extension, the “Observer”. Increasing evidence suggests rodents will work to reduce the distress of a conspecific, but current models of helping behavior are unable to completely parse apart whether the reported behavior is driven by empathy or social reward. The current study demonstrates, using a novel behavioral model, rats learn to aid a distressed conspecific in the absence of social reward, retain the task over time, and previous experience increases the rate of task acquisition. Further, our model suggests that empathic behavior is subject to low effort as compared to a social reward. We next validated the specificity of this model to study empathic processes, characterized the importance of both the Target’s level of distress and the impact of the Observer’s familiarity with the Target on empathic behavior. Overall, we believe this model adheres to the PAM of empathy by eliminating the influence of social interaction. Importantly, it can be used to directly evaluate the neurocircuitry of empathy and explore the interplay between blunted empathic behavior and neuropsychiatric disorders.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Meyza KZ, Bartal IB-A, Monfils MH, Panksepp JB, Knapska E. The roots of empathy: through the lens of rodent models. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;76:216–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Preston SD, de Waal FBM. Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav Brain Sci. 2002;25:1–20. Discussion 20–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    de Waal FBM, Preston SD. Mammalian empathy: behavioural manifestations and neural basis. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2017;18:498–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Meyza K, Knapska E. What can rodents teach us about empathy? Curr Opin Psychol. 2018;24:15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sivaselvachandran S, Acland EL, Abdallah S & Martin LJ. Behavioral and mechanistic insight into rodent empathy. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;91:130–7.

  6. 6.

    Panksepp J, Panksepp JB. Toward a cross-species understanding of empathy. Trends Neurosci. 2013;36:489–96.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Church RM. Emotional reactions of rats to the pain of others. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1959;52:132–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rice GE, Gainer P. ‘Altruism’ in the albino rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1962;55:123–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sato N, Tan L, Tate K, Okada M. Rats demonstrate helping behavior toward a soaked conspecific. Anim Cogn. 2015;18:1039–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Ben-Ami Bartal I, Decety J, Mason P. Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science. 2011;334:1427–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ben-Ami Bartal I, Rodgers DA, Bernardez Sarria MS, Decety J, Mason P. Pro-social behavior in rats is modulated by social experience. Elife. 2014;3:e01385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hachiga Y, Schwartz LP, Silberberg A, Kearns DN, Gomez M, Slotnick B. Does a rat free a trapped rat due to empathy or for sociality? J Exp Anal Behav. 2018;110:267–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Silberberg A, Allouch C, Sandfort S, Kearns D, Karpel H, Slotnick B. Desire for social contact, not empathy, may explain “rescue” behavior in rats. Anim Cognition. 2014;17:609–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Decety J, Moriguchi Y. The empathic brain and its dysfunction in psychiatric populations: implications for intervention across different clinical conditions. Biopsychosoc Med. 2007;1:22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cook R, Brewer R, Shah P, Bird G. Alexithymia, not autism, predicts poor recognition of emotional facial expressions. Psychological Sci. 2013;24:723–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bird G, Cook R. Mixed emotions: the contribution of alexithymia to the emotional symptoms of autism. Transl Psychiatry. 2013;3:e285.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Maurage P, et al. Dissociation between affective and cognitive empathy in alcoholism: a specific deficit for the emotional dimension. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2011;35:1662–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    McCown W. The relationship between impulsivity, empathy and involvement in twelve step self-help substance abuse treatment groups. Br J Addiction. 1989;84:391–3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    McCown W. The effect of impulsivity and empathy on abstinence of poly-substance abusers: a prospective study. Br J Addiction. 1990;85:635–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Massey SH, Newmark RL, Wakschlag LS. Explicating the role of empathic processes in substance use disorders: a conceptual framework and research agenda. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37:316–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Robinson CSH, Fokas K, Witkiewitz K. Relationship between empathic processing and drinking behavior in project MATCH. Addict Behav. 2018;77:180–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Lamm C, Decety J, Singer T. Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. Neuroimage. 2011;54:2492–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Carvalheiro J, Seara-Cardoso A, Mesquita AR, de Sousa L, Oliveira P, Summavielle T, et al. Helping behavior in rats (Rattus norvegicus) when an escape alternative is present. J. Comp. Psychol. 2019;133:452–62.

  24. 24.

    Lockwood PL, Hamonet M, Zhang SH, Ratnavel A, Salmony FU, Husain M, et al. Prosocial apathy for helping others when effort is required. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:0131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cameron CD, Hutcherson CA, Ferguson AM, Scheffer JA, Hadjiandreou E, Inzlicht M. Empathy is hard work: people choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019;148:962–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cialdini RB, Brown SL, Lewis BP, Luce C, Neuberg SL. Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: when one into one equals oneness. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1997;73:481–94.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Levine M, Prosser A, Evans D, Reicher S. Identity and emergency intervention: how social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2005;31:443–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Echols S, Correll J. It’s more than skin deep: empathy and helping behavior across social groups. In: Decety, J, editor. Empathy: from bench to bedside. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2012. p. 55–71.

  29. 29.

    Batson CD, Lishner DA, Cook J, Sawyer S. Similarity and nurturance: two possible sources of empathy for strangers. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2005;27:15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mathur VA, Harada T, Lipke T, Chiao JY. Neural basis of extraordinary empathy and altruistic motivation. NeuroImage. 2010;51:1468–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Karakilic A, Kizildag S, Kandis S, Guvendi G, Koc B, Camsari GB, et al. The effects of acute foot shock stress on empathy levels in rats. Behavioural Brain Res. 2018;349:31–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vanderschuren LJMJ, Achterberg EJM, Trezza V. The neurobiology of social play and its rewarding value in rats. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;70:86–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lee A, Clancy S, Fleming AS. Mother rats bar-press for pups: Effects of lesions of the mpoa and limbic sites on maternal behavior and operant responding for pup-reinforcement. Behavioural Brain Res. 2000;108:215–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Trezza V, Campolongo P, Vanderschuren LJMJ. Evaluating the rewarding nature of social interactions in laboratory animals. Developmental Cogn Neurosci. 2011;1:444–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Calcagnetti DJ, Schechter MD. Place conditioning reveals the rewarding aspect of social interaction in juvenile rats. Physiol Behav. 1992;51:667–72.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Douglas LA, Varlinskaya EI, Spear LP. Rewarding properties of social interactions in adolescent and adult male and female rats: impact of social versus isolate housing of subjects and partners. Developmental Psychobiol. 2004;45:153–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Fritz M, El Rawas R, Salti A, Klement S, Bardo MT, Kemmler G, et al. Reversal of cocaine-conditioned place preference and mesocorticolimbic Zif268 expression by social interaction in rats. Addiction Biol. 2011;16:273–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Ikemoto S, Panksepp J. The effects of early social isolation on the motivation for social play in juvenile rats. Developmental Psychobiol. 1992;25:261–74.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Normansell L, Panksepp J. Effects of morphine and naloxone on play-rewarded spatial discrimination in juvenile rats. Developmental Psychobiol. 1990;23:75–83.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Yates JR, Beckmann JS, Meyer AC, Bardo MT. Concurrent choice for social interaction and amphetamine using conditioned place preference in rats: effects of age and housing condition. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;129:240–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Fritz M, Klement S, El Rawas R, Saria A, Zernig G. Sigma1 receptor antagonist BD1047 enhances reversal of conditioned place preference from cocaine to social interaction. Pharmacology. 2011;87:45–48.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Venniro M, Zhang M, Caprioli D, Hoots JK, Golden SA, Heins C, et al. Volitional social interaction prevents drug addiction in rat models. Nat Neurosci. 2018;21:1520–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Angela Kearns, Samantha Brown, Carole Berini, and Jordan Hopkins for their assistance in collecting preliminary data for this manuscript. We would also like to thank Drs. Rachel Penrod and Brett Froeliger for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmela M. Reichel.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cox, S.S., Reichel, C.M. Rats display empathic behavior independent of the opportunity for social interaction. Neuropsychopharmacol. 45, 1097–1104 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-019-0572-8

Download citation

Further reading

Search