Cited by 348Action Observation and SynchronizationChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentEmotions and Moral Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 69 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

On the interaction of social affect and cognition: empathy, compassion and theory of mind

Open access
Preckel, Katrin, Kanske, Philipp, Singer, Tania·2018·Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Abstract

Empathy, compassion and Theory of Mind (ToM) are central topics in social psychology and neuroscience. While empathy enables the sharing of others’ emotions and may result in empathic distress, a maladaptive form of empathic resonance, or compassion, a feeling of warmth and concern for others, ToM provides cognitive understanding of someone else's thoughts or intentions. These socio-affective and socio-cognitive routes to understanding others are subserved by separable, independent brain networks. Nonetheless they are jointly required in many complex social situations. A process that is critical for both, empathy and ToM, is self-other distinction, which is implemented in different temporoparietal brain regions. Thus, adaptive social behavior is a result of dynamic interplay of socio-affective and socio-cognitive processes.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This narrative review argues that empathy, compassion, and Theory of Mind (ToM) are separable socio-affective and socio-cognitive functions supported by distinct brain networks, yet they interact dynamically in complex social situations. Self-other distinction, implemented in temporoparietal regions, is proposed as a process critical to both empathy and ToM.

Key findings

  • Empathy (sharing others' feelings) and ToM (inferring others' mental states) are separable on conceptual, behavioral, and neural levels: "strong empathizers are not necessarily proficient mentalizers," and each domain can be selectively impaired — ToM in autism, empathy propensity in psychopathy/chronic aggression.
  • Empathy for pain recruits shared activations in anterior insula (AI) and anterior middle cingulate cortex (aMCC); compassion instead engages reward/affiliation networks (ventral striatum, nucleus accumbens, VTA, mOFC, sgACC); ToM engages ventral TPJ, STS, temporal poles, MPFC, and precuneus/PCC.
  • The networks interact: when confronted with others' distress, AI activity inhibits TPJ activity, and this reduction in TPJ activity is related to impaired ToM performance.
  • Self-other distinction relies on distinct temporoparietal regions — right TPJ for overcoming cognitive egocentricity and right supramarginal gyrus (rSMG) for emotional egocentricity; TMS disruption of rSMG increases emotional egocentricity.
  • Empathic distress is described as a maladaptive outcome of empathy, whereas compassion acts as an emotion-regulation strategy that buffers negative affect by up-regulating positive affect via reward- and affiliation-related circuitry.

Methods

  • Design: narrative review of social psychology and neuroscience literature on empathy, compassion, and ToM, with no new empirical data reported.
  • The review describes the EmpaToM task (Kanske et al.), a 2 (emotionality of video) × 2 (ToM requirements) design in which each actor presented emotional negative/neutral videos and videos with ToM or factual-reasoning demands, followed by valence, compassion, and confidence ratings.
  • Cited supporting evidence includes a structural covariance analysis in 270 healthy adults and a charitable donation task linking AI activity to empathy-based giving and TPJ activity to perspective-taking-based giving.

Limitations

  • The paper states no limitations; its only declaration is "Conflict: Nothing declared."
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review it reports no systematic search strategy or formal quality appraisal, and the empirical claims (e.g., AI–TPJ inhibition, rSMG causality) are drawn from cited primary studies rather than re-analyzed here.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.07.010

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 69 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 15
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 3
17 of 17

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 54 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 348

Metadata

Authors
Preckel, K., Kanske, P., & Singer, T.
Affiliations
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
Corresponding author
Preckel, Katrin
Venue
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
19
Pages
1-6
ISSN
2352-1546 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2740027066
Cited by
348
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 17
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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, compassion, theory of mind, social affect, socio-cognitive processes, self-other distinction, temporoparietal cortex, empathic distress, empathic resonance, social cognition, social behavior

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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