↓ Skip to main content

Interaction between valence of empathy and familiarity: is it difficult to empathize with the positive events of a stranger?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Physiological Anthropology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interaction between valence of empathy and familiarity: is it difficult to empathize with the positive events of a stranger?
Published in
Journal of Physiological Anthropology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40101-015-0049-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuki Motomura, Akira Takeshita, Yuka Egashira, Takayuki Nishimura, Yeon-kyu Kim, Shigeki Watanuki

Abstract

Empathy in humans is thought to have evolved via social interactions caused by the formation of social groups. Considering the role of empathy within a social group, there might be a difference between emotional empathy for strangers and familiar others belonging to the same social group. In this study, we used the global field power (GFP) index to investigate empathic brain activity during observation of a cue indicating either a negative or positive image viewed by a stranger or close friend. Sixteen healthy participants observed a partner performing an emotional gambling task displayed on a monitor. After the partner's choice-response, a frowning or smiling face symbol was simultaneously presented to the participant's monitor while a negative or positive emotional image was presented to the partner's monitor. All participants observed a control condition (CT) showing a computer trial, a stranger-observation condition (SO) showing the trial of a stranger, and a friend-observation condition (FO) to observe the trial of a close friend. During these observations, participants' event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to calculate GFP, and after the task, a subjective assessment of their feelings was measured. Positive emotion was significantly larger under the FO compared to the CT and the SO. Significantly larger negative emotion was found under the SO and FO compared to the CT. In response to a positive cue, significantly larger GFP during 300 to 600 ms was observed under the FO compared to the CT and SO. In response to a negative cue, significantly larger GFP was observed under the FO and SO compared to the CT. A significantly larger GFP under the SO was found in response to only a negative cue. Topographic map analysis suggested that these differences were related to frontal-occipital dynamics. GFP was significantly correlated with empathic trait. These results revealed that familiarity with another person has different effects depending on the valence of empathy. Negative empathy, including the danger perception function, might easily occur even among strangers, whereas positive empathy related to nursing and supporting an inner group does not happen easily with strangers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Student > Bachelor 15 23%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 18 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2015.
All research outputs
#7,242,700
of 11,630,661 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physiological Anthropology
#102
of 168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,539
of 210,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physiological Anthropology
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,630,661 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.