Cited by 64Action Observation and SynchronizationChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentEmotions and Moral Behavior

Models, Mechanisms and Moderators Dissociating Empathy and Theory of Mind

Kanske, Philipp, Böckler, Anne, Singer, Tania·2015·Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences

Abstract

Most instances of social interaction provide a wealth of information about the states of other people, be it sensations, feelings, thoughts, or convictions. How we represent these states has been a major question in social neuroscience, leading to the identification of two routes to understanding others: an affective route for the direct sharing of others' emotions (empathy) that involves, among others, anterior insula and middle anterior cingulate cortex and a cognitive route for representing and reasoning about others' states (Theory of Mind) that entails, among others, ventral temporoparietal junction and anterior and posterior midline regions. Additionally, research has revealed a number of situational and personal factors that shape the functioning of empathy and Theory of Mind. Concerning situational modulators, it has been shown, for instance, that ingroup membership enhances empathic responding and that Theory of Mind performance seems to be susceptible to stress. Personal modulators include psychopathological conditions, for which alterations in empathy and mentalizing have consistently been demonstrated; people on the autism spectrum, for instance, are impaired specifically in mentalizing, while spontaneous empathic responding seems selectively reduced in psychopathy. Given the multifaceted evidence for separability of the two routes, current research endeavors aiming at fostering interpersonal cooperation explore the differential malleability of affective and cognitive understanding of others.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/7854_2015_412

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kanske, P., Böckler, A., & Singer, T.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Kanske, Philipp
  • Böckler, Anne
Venue
Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences
Published
2015
Volume
30
Pages
193-206
ISSN
  • 1866-3370 (ISSN-L)
  • 1866-3389
OpenAlex
W1884670578
Cited by
64
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
12.49
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current topics in behavioral neurosciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
Keywords
empathy, theory of mind, mentalization, affective empathy, cognitive empathy, anterior insula, stress, autism spectrum disorder, psychopathy, interpersonal cooperation, social cognition
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Empathy, Humans, Social Perception, Theory of Mind

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review