Empathy, guilt-aversion, and patterns of reciprocity.

Pelligra, Vittorio

doi:10.1037/a0024688

Cited by 37 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The definition of empathy varies greatly among researchers (Cuff et al, 2014; Sivaraman, 2017). For example, Davis (1980) defined empathy as a reaction to the observed experiences of another person, Trimmer et al (2017) defined empathy as the ability to share and understand the emotions and feelings of others, and Pelligra (2011) defined empathy as the capacity to anticipate and share other people's emotional states. Pavey et al (2012) further defined empathy as the experience of sympathetic emotions and concern for another person in distress.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empathy Impairment in Individuals With Autism Spectrum Conditions From a Multidimensional Perspective: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although empathy has always been considered to be impaired in individuals with autism spectrum conditions (ASCs), the relevant findings have been inconsistent. The present meta-analysis aims to determine which empathy components are impaired and how culture, gender, and age moderate such empathy impairment.Methods: By using “Autism,” “Asperger Syndrome,” “Empathy,” and related Chinese synonyms as keywords, we searched the databases of Weipu, Wanfang, CNKI, Web of Science, Science Direct, SpringerLink, and Elsevier through “subject” and “keyword” searches. We also conducted a manual search according to the references. In total, 51 studies from Eastern and Western countries were included in this meta-analysis, which comprised 144 independent effects, 2,095 individuals with ASCs and 2,869 controls without ASCs. For the retrieved data, Hedge's g was taken as the quantitative measure of effect, and CMA V2.0 software was used for publication bias tests (by using Rosenthal's Classic Failsafe-N and Egger's methods), heterogeneity tests (by using a Q-test, I2-test, and H-test) and a moderating effect test (by using a univariate regression model).Results: The results showed that the empathy impairment evident in individuals with ASCs is component specific; that is, trait-cognitive empathy, trait-empathic concern, state-cognitive empathy, and state-empathic concern are impaired, whereas state-empathic accuracy remains intact, and trait-empathic accuracy is superior to the trait-empathic accuracy in neurotypical individuals. The univariate regression model showed that gender moderates the impairment of the trait-empathic concern, trait-empathic accuracy, and state-cognitive empathy in autistic individuals and that age moderates the impairment of the trait-cognitive empathy, trait-empathic accuracy, state-empathic concern, and state-empathic accuracy in autistic individuals. However, culture does not moderate any empathy components (trait-cognitive empathy, trait-empathic concern, or state-cognitive empathy) involved in the present meta-analysis.Conclusions: These findings contribute to ending the controversy over the empathic integrity of individuals with ASCs and shed some light on future research about the empathy impairment of autistic individuals. More specifically, subsequent studies should distinguish specific empathy components and consider the role of gender and age when demonstrating empathy impairment in individuals with ASCs. Moreover, related studies based on Asian collectivist cultural samples and female samples should be further enriched.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empathy Impairment in Individuals With Autism Spectrum Conditions From a Multidimensional Perspective: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Tangney (1995) individuals differ in the degree to which they are prone to feel guilt. Thus, expectations as well as the sensitivity of a person to experience guilt influence the choice, and a series of empirical evidence supports these relationships (e.g., Charness and Dufwenberg, 2006;Pelligra, 2011;Bracht and Regner, 2013;Khalmetski, 2016;Cartwright, 2019). In our baseline, the relationship between the choice of Y and what X receives is transparent.…”

Section: Behavioral Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 72%

What's Behind Image? Toward a Better Understanding of Image-Driven Behavior

Regner¹

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our experimental design systematically varies image concerns in a dictator/trust game. In comparison to the baseline, we either decrease the role of self-image concerns (by providing an excuse for selfish behavior) or increase the role of social-image concerns (by conveying the transfer choice to a third person). In this set up, we analyze the underlying processes that motivate subjects to give less/more. Controlling for distributional preferences and expectations, our results indicate that moral emotions (guilt and shame) are a significant determinant of pro-social behavior. The disposition to guilt explains giving in the baseline, while it does not when an excuse for selfish behavior exists. Subjects' disposition to shame is correlated to giving when their choice is public and they can be identified.JEL Classifications: C72, C91, D03, D80

show abstract

“…In this perspective, the reciprocation factor depends not only on the effect of the second mover's actions on the first mover's payoff, but also on the beliefs that the second mover holds about the expectations of the first mover. In a recent experiment, Pelligra (2011) finds that empathy significantly affects subjects' willingness to repay trust in an investment game.…”

Section: Behavioral Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%