Self-Interest Induces Counter- Empathy at the Late Stage of Empathic Responses to Others' Economic Payoffs

I am entitled to it! Social power and context modulate disadvantageous inequity aversion

Previous research consistently indicated that social power influences one's fairness consideration. However, it is unclear how social power and context jointly affect inequity aversion and whether these processes would be manifested in brain activities. In this study, participants were randomly assigned into either high or low power condition and then took part in a modified ultimatum game (UG) as responders in both gain and loss contexts, with their event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded. Behavioral results showed that powerful participants were more likely to reject unfair offers in both contexts compared with powerless ones. In addition, powerful participants showed a more negative feedback-related negativity (FRN) loss-win difference wave (d-FRN) upon presentation of proposed offers compared with powerless participants only in the gain context. Interestingly, in a later time window, differences of P300 responses to proposed offers were modulated by social power in both gain and loss contexts. These results suggested that powerful people were more sensitive to fairness levels and FRN may manifest fairness consideration in a gain context, but not in a loss context. Meanwhile, P300 is sensitive to fairness considerations in both gain and loss contexts.

Development and Validation of the Counter-Empathy Scale

Counter-empathy refers to an emotional response that is valence-opposite from the emotional state of another individual. Screening for counter-empathy characteristics is of great significance for social psychology, clinical psychology, and criminal psychology research. Unfortunately, until now, there has been no specific scale to measure counter-empathy, creating a main bottleneck in counter-empathy research. We developed and validated a new instrument to measure counter-empathy: the Counter-Empathy Scale (CES). We tested the CES in a survey of 1265 Chinese college students. Both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a clear two-factor structure (feeling annoyed with others' happiness and taking pleasure in others' pain) for the CES. The CES is internally consistent, test-retest stable, and acceptable in terms of criterion-related validity. In conclusion, the CES is a promising instrument to assess counter-empathy.

The Influence of Organizational Justice and Prosocial Behavior toward Empathy on the Care of Islamic Religious Patients with Welfare Moderators

BACKGROUND: Individuals in organizations behave and empathize in several studies can be influenced by organizational policies, including their welfare; this has indeed been widely studied. Even so, a firm answer is needed as to whether empathy is affected by organizational justice along with well-being and also whether empathy is influenced by prosocial behavior to increase empathy? This research unequivocally answers this question. AIM: The aim of this study is to know the effect of organizational justice on empathy, knowing whether welfare moderates the influence of organizational justice variables on empathy, knowing whether prosocial behavior affects empathy, and knowing whether welfare moderates the effect of prosocial behavior on empathy. METHODS: This study uses a quantitative survey research method and data collection by cross-sectional research with a sample of 226 inpatient nurses at Muhammadiyah Hospital type B throughout Indonesia. The sample used is a probability sampling model. Data analysis is done using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) AMOS 22.00. RESULTS: Ha1 test results, p = 0.032; this has a significant meaning. Ha2 is the interaction value 1: p = 0.001, which means that 1 is significant interaction, Ha3 p = 0.011 with welfare moderation, which has a significant meaning, and Ha4 interaction 2, welfare on the effect of prosocial behavior on empathy the value is p = 0.001, which means it is significant. CONCLUSIONS: (1). Organizational justice has a positive effect on empathy, (2). welfare moderates the positive effect of organizational justice on empathy, (3). prosocial behavior has a positive effect on empathy, (4). welfare moderates the effect of prosocial behavior on empathy.

Establishing a Counter-Empathy Processing Model: Evidence from Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Counter-empathy significantly affects people's social lives. Previous evidence indicates that the degree of counter-empathy can be either strong or weak. Strong counter-empathy easily occurs when empathizers are prejudiced against the targets of empathy (e.g., prejudice against outgroup members) and activates brain regions that are opposite to those activated by empathy. Weak counter-empathy may have different neural processing paths from strong one, but its underlying neural mechanisms remain unclear. In this work, we used an unfair distribution paradigm, which can reduce participants' prejudice against persons empathized with, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to explore the neural mechanisms underlying counter-empathy. Here, empathy and counter-empathy shared a common neural mechanism, induced by unfair distribution, in the right middle temporal gyrus. Counter-empathy activated distinct brain regions that differed from those of empathic responses in different situations. The functions of these brain regions, which included the middle frontal, middle temporal and left medial superior gyri, were similar and mostly related to emotional regulation and cognitive processing. Here, we propose a process model of counter-empathy, involving two processing paths according to whether or not prejudice exists. This study has theoretical significance and broadens our understanding of the cognitive neural mechanisms underlying empathy and counter-empathy.

Social Exclusion Down-Regulates Pain Empathy at the Late Stage of Empathic Responses: Electrophysiological Evidence

Social exclusion has a significant impact on cognition, emotion, and behavior. Some behavioral studies investigated how social exclusion affects pain empathy. Conclusions were inconsistent, and there is a lack of clarity in identifying which component of pain empathy is more likely to be affected. To investigate these issues, we used a Cyberball task to manipulate feelings of social exclusion. Two groups (social exclusion and social inclusion) participated in the same pain empathy task while we recorded event-related potentials (ERP) when participants viewed static images of body parts in painful and neutral situations. The results showed early N2 differentiation between painful and neutral pictures in the central regions in both groups. The pattern at the late controlled processing stage was different. Parietal P3 amplitudes for painful pictures were significantly smaller than those for neutral pictures in the social exclusion group; they did not differ in the social inclusion group. We observed a parietal late positive potential (LPP) differentiation between painful and neutral pictures in both groups. LPP amplitudes were significantly smaller in the social exclusion group than those in the social inclusion group for painful stimuli. Our results indicate that social exclusion does not affect empathic responses during the early emotional sharing stage. However, it down-regulates empathic responses at the late cognitive controlled stage, and this modulation is attenuated gradually. The current study provides neuroscientific evidence of how social exclusion dynamically influences pain empathy.

I Can But I Shall Not Always Be Empathic

Empathy, a core process for social interactions, is the capacity to understand and share others' mental states and emotions. Each individual is thought to have a maximum level of empathy (empathic ability) and a spontaneous tendency to express it (empathic propensity), which can be affected by multiple factors. Two within-subject studies were conducted to assess the malleability of empathy by modulating contextual factors and measuring their interaction with psychological characteristics. In Study 1, 59 healthy adults evaluated their empathy for people showing facial expressions of pain following different instructions: Passive Observation and Instruction to Actively Empathize. In Study 2, 56 healthy adults performed a similar task under two conditions: Passive Observation and Observation under a Cognitive Load. The results revealed that empathy was significantly increased in the actively empathizing condition (Study 1) and under a cognitive load, but more importantly for men (Study 2). The level of change between the two conditions was associated with self-reported empathy, autistic, alexithymia and psychopathic traits (Study 1), as well as with working memory capacities and the level of empathy reported in the passive observation condition (Study 2). These findings suggest that an instruction to actively empathize and, surprisingly, a cognitive load can both increase empathy, but not for the same individuals. An instruction to actively empathize seems to increase empathy for individuals with good empathic dispositions, while a cognitive load enhances empathy in people for which empathic propensity is sub-optimal.

Gender differences in empathic responses to others' economic payoffs: an event-related potentials study

Although gender differences in empathy have been well established through measuring subjective outcomes, some studies of the neural mechanisms of pain empathy have not found gender differences. This inconsistent evidence may be caused by different research methods or different paradigms. The present study adopted a different approach from the pain empathy paradigm to examine gender differences in empathic responses to others' economic payoffs using event-related potentials. The results showed that the N2 amplitudes in female participants were more negative than those in male participants, indicating a greater female than male susceptibility to facial expressions at the early stage of empathy. The LPP amplitudes for male participants were found to be more positive in the observation condition (involving no self-interest) than in the participation condition (involving self-interest), but there was no significant difference in the LPP amplitudes for the female participants between the two conditions. The results suggest that females' empathic responses are more likely to be elicited automatically by the perception of others' emotional states. In contrast, males' empathic responses are more likely to be mediated by self-interest, which subsequently reduces their empathic responses.