18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Men, women…who cares? A population-based study on sex differences and gender roles in empathy and moral cognition

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Research on sex differences in empathy has revealed mixed findings. Whereas experimental and neuropsychological measures show no consistent sex effect, self-report data consistently indicates greater empathy in women. However, available results mainly come from separate populations with relatively small samples, which may inflate effect sizes and hinder comparability between both empirical corpora. To elucidate the issue, we conducted two large-scale studies. First, we examined whether sex differences emerge in a large population-based sample ( n = 10,802) when empathy is measured with an experimental empathy-for-pain paradigm. Moreover, we investigated the relationship between empathy and moral judgment. In the second study, a subsample ( n = 334) completed a self-report empathy questionnaire. Results showed some sex differences in the experimental paradigm, but with minuscule effect sizes. Conversely, women did portray themselves as more empathic through self-reports. In addition, utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas were less frequent in women, although these differences also had small effect sizes. These findings suggest that sex differences in empathy are highly driven by the assessment measure. In particular, self-reports may induce biases leading individuals to assume gender-role stereotypes. Awareness of the role of measurement instruments in this field may hone our understanding of the links between empathy, sex differences, and gender roles.

          Related collections

          Most cited references83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain.

          Our ability to have an experience of another's pain is characteristic of empathy. Using functional imaging, we assessed brain activity while volunteers experienced a painful stimulus and compared it to that elicited when they observed a signal indicating that their loved one--present in the same room--was receiving a similar pain stimulus. Bilateral anterior insula (AI), rostral anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), brainstem, and cerebellum were activated when subjects received pain and also by a signal that a loved one experienced pain. AI and ACC activation correlated with individual empathy scores. Activity in the posterior insula/secondary somatosensory cortex, the sensorimotor cortex (SI/MI), and the caudal ACC was specific to receiving pain. Thus, a neural response in AI and rostral ACC, activated in common for "self" and "other" conditions, suggests that the neural substrate for empathic experience does not involve the entire "pain matrix." We conclude that only that part of the pain network associated with its affective qualities, but not its sensory qualities, mediates empathy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The social neuroscience of empathy.

            The phenomenon of empathy entails the ability to share the affective experiences of others. In recent years social neuroscience made considerable progress in revealing the mechanisms that enable a person to feel what another is feeling. The present review provides an in-depth and critical discussion of these findings. Consistent evidence shows that sharing the emotions of others is associated with activation in neural structures that are also active during the first-hand experience of that emotion. Part of the neural activation shared between self- and other-related experiences seems to be rather automatically activated. However, recent studies also show that empathy is a highly flexible phenomenon, and that vicarious responses are malleable with respect to a number of factors--such as contextual appraisal, the interpersonal relationship between empathizer and other, or the perspective adopted during observation of the other. Future investigations are needed to provide more detailed insights into these factors and their neural underpinnings. Questions such as whether individual differences in empathy can be explained by stable personality traits, whether we can train ourselves to be more empathic, and how empathy relates to prosocial behavior are of utmost relevance for both science and society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data.

              Wider use in psychology of confidence intervals (CIs), especially as error bars in figures, is a desirable development. However, psychologists seldom use CIs and may not understand them well. The authors discuss the interpretation of figures with error bars and analyze the relationship between CIs and statistical significance testing. They propose 7 rules of eye to guide the inferential use of figures with error bars. These include general principles: Seek bars that relate directly to effects of interest, be sensitive to experimental design, and interpret the intervals. They also include guidelines for inferential interpretation of the overlap of CIs on independent group means. Wider use of interval estimation in psychology has the potential to improve research communication substantially. ((c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                20 June 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 6
                : e0179336
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN), Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience (INCyT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [2 ]Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
                [3 ]Grupo de Investigación Cerebro y Cognición Social, Bogotá, Colombia
                [4 ]National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [5 ]Intra Med, , Buenos Aires, Argentina
                [6 ]Faculty of Elementary and Special Education (FEEyE), National University of Cuyo (UNCuyo), Mendoza, Argentina
                [7 ]Universidad Autónoma del Caribe, Barranquilla, Colombia
                [8 ]Center for Social and Cognitive Neuroscience (CSCN), School of Psychology, Adolfo Ibáñez University, Santiago de Chile, Chile
                [9 ]Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Sydney, Australia
                Universitatsklinikum Tubingen, GERMANY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6758-5101
                Article
                PONE-D-17-01232
                10.1371/journal.pone.0179336
                5478130
                28632770
                40cd3f25-8d5a-4bb4-a03d-a04e35a6f7cc
                © 2017 Baez et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 10 January 2017
                : 26 May 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 0, Pages: 21
                Funding
                Funded by: CONICYT/FONDECYT
                Award ID: 1130920
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FONCyT-PICT
                Award ID: 2012-0412
                Funded by: FONCyT-PICT
                Award ID: 2012-1309
                Funded by: FONDAP
                Award ID: 2012-1309
                Funded by: INECO Foundation
                Funded by: CONICET
                This work was partially supported by grants from CONICET, CONICYT/FONDECYT Regular (1170010), FONCyT-PICT 2012-0412, FONCyT-PICT 2012-1309, FONDAP 15150012, and the INECO Foundation.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Questionnaires
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Regression Analysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics (Mathematics)
                Statistical Methods
                Regression Analysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics (Mathematics)
                Confidence Intervals
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Behavior
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Neuroscience
                Reaction Time
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Neuroscience
                Reaction Time
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Imaging Techniques
                Neuroimaging
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Neuroimaging
                Custom metadata
                Data are available from https://figshare.com/s/06fa32a3c57b93adc1a7.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article