Individual differences in local gray matter density are associated with differences in affective and cognitive empathy

Abstract

The understanding of empathy from a neuroscientific perspective has recently developed quickly, with numerous functional MRI studies associating different brain regions with different components of empathy. A recent meta-analysis across 40 fMRI studies revealed that affective empathy is most often associated with increased activity in the insula, whereas cognitive empathy is most often associated with activity in the midcingulate cortex and adjacent dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (MCC/dmPFC). To date, however, it remains unclear whether individual differences in brain morphometry in these regions underlie different dispositions in affective and cognitive empathy. In order to test this hypothesis, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) was used to examine the extent to which gray matter density predicts scores from an established empathy measure (Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy; QCAE). One hundred and seventy-six participants completed the QCAE and underwent MRI in order to acquire a high-resolution, three-dimensional T1-weighted structural scans. A factor analysis of the questionnaire scores revealed two distinct factors of empathy, affective and cognitive, which confirmed the validity of the QCAE. VBM results revealed gray matter density differences associated with the distinct components of empathy.Higher scores on affective empathy were associated with greater gray matter density in the insula cortex and higher scores of cognitive empathy were associated with greater gray matter density in the MCC/dmPFC. Taken together, these results provide validation for empathy being a multi-component construct, suggesting that affective and cognitive empathy are differentially represented in brain morphometry as well as providing convergent evidence for empathy being represented by different neural and structural correlates.

Multidimensional assessment of empathic abilities in patients with insular glioma

“…AE is also different from personal distress or empathic concern, as the latter reflects an internal state of emotion and discomfort that stems from the concern for another person but not necessarily a sharing of their emotions (Bernhardt & Singer, 2012;Decety & Cowell, 2014). What needs to be specifically stressed is that we do not indicate that these processes (e.g., emotion contagion or empathic concern) are unrelated to AE, rather AE can be deemed to be an umbrella term that encompasses multiple processes (Eres et al, 2015). We used the IRI, a widely used self-report, multidimensional measure of dispositional empathy (Davis, 1983).…”

“…The emphasis of AE is representatively focused on experiencing the emotional states of others consciously, which implies a self-other distinction (Eres et al, 2015;Mattan et al, 2016), as well as an understanding of the origin of emotional experience (Bernhardt & Singer, 2012). AE differs from emotion contagion, which responds automatically to another person's emotional state but not necessarily self-other distinction (de Waal, 2012;Dimberg & Thunberg, 2012;Mattan et al, 2016).…”

“…Despite the extensive history of behavioral psychology and philosophy research, the definition of empathy differs from study to study and has no universally accepted definition (Batson, 2009;Eisenberg, 2000). A large number of studies on empathy stress that the construct is multifaceted, but it is composed of at least two important components (Decety & Jackson, 2004;Decety & Ickes, 2009;Decety, Michalska, & Kinzler, 2012;Eres, Decety, Louis, & Molenberghs, 2015;O'Brien, Konrath, Gruhn, & Hagen, 2013): an affective component, which is defined as the ability to experience an appropriate emotional response of another's state (O'Brien et al, 2013), and a cognitive component, which is related to our capacity to predict and understand another's mental state using cognitive processes (Decety et al, 2012). When we empathize, we vicariously experience the emotional state of the other person while realizing that what we are feeling is not our own affective state but that of another person.…”

Contributions of Neuroscience to a New Empathy Epistemology: Implications for Developmental Training

“…Affective brain systems stimulate corresponding cognitive processes. The density of gray matter regulates levels of cognitive and affective empathy (Eres, Decety, Louis, & Molenberghs, 2015). Greater density in one region enhances cognitive empathy; greater density in another region of the gyrus affects perspective-taking (Chambers & Davis, 2012).…”

The Hajnal Line and Gene-Culture Coevolution in Northwest Europe

“…Individuals with high cognitive empathy have denser gray matter in the midcingulate cortex and the adjacent dorsomedial prefontal cortex, whereas individuals with high affective empathy have denser gray matter in the insula cortex (Eres et al, 2015). A high capacity for empathy is also associated with enlargement of the amygdala, which controls responses to facial expressions of fear and to other signs of distress (Goerlich-Dobre et al, 2015;Marsh et al, 2014).…”