CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsAction Observation and SynchronizationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Empathy in depression: egocentric and altercentric biases and the role of alexithymia

Hoffmann, Ferdinand, Banzhaf, Christian, Kanske, Philipp, Gärtner, Matti, Bermpohl, Felix, Singer, Tania·2016·Journal of Affective Disorders
DOI 10.1016/j.jad.2016.03.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) has been associated with empathy deficits. The exact nature of these deficits and their relation to concurrent alexithymia remain unknown. Here we tested under which conditions MDD patients with high and low alexithymia show deficient empathy, particularly investigating empathic abilities when inhibition of self-related emotional states is needed and when it is not.Methods Healthy controls (low: n=28, high: n=14) and currently depressed MDD patients (low: n=11, high: n=18) with low or high alexithymia performed an emotional egocentricity paradigm based on tactile stimulation. This task measures empathic judgements, when emotional states of self and other differ and inhibition of self-related emotional states is needed, and when they do not and thus empathic judgments can be based on simple projection mechanisms.Results Only alexithymia but not depression decreased empathy, in situations when simple projection sufficed. However, when inhibition of self-related emotional states was needed, MDD patients showed an egocentric bias during empathic judgments and an altercentric bias during self emotion judgments, the latter suggesting heightened emotional contagion, both independent of alexithymia. Across the entire sample, alexithymia decreased the size of the egocentric bias.Limitations This study was based on a relatively sample size.Conclusions These results suggest that MDD patients show intact empathic judgments, when simple projection is required and no concurrent alexithymia is present. In situations when incongruent emotional states of self and other have to be resolved, MDD patients are prone to egocentric and altercentric biases.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2016.03.007

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • Self-other distinction is critical for both empathy and Theory of Mind.

    “A process that is critical for both, empathy and ToM, is self-other distinction, which is implemented in different temporoparietal brain regions.”

    From On the interaction of social affect and cognition: empathy, compassion and theory of mind (2018) · cites this paper as [43]

  • Failure of self-other distinction results in a blending of these states, thereby inducing an egocentricity bias or an altercentric bias.

    “Failure of selfother distinction results in a blending of these states, thereby inducing an egocentricity bias, the tendency to project one's own emotional or mental state on someone else [41,42], or an altercentric bias, the influence of others' states on judgments about oneself [43].”

    From On the interaction of social affect and cognition: empathy, compassion and theory of mind (2018) · cites this paper as [43]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hoffmann, F., Banzhaf, C., Kanske, P., Gärtner, M., Bermpohl, F., & Singer, T.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Hoffmann, Ferdinand
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-07
Volume
199
Pages
23-29
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jad.2016.03.007
OpenAlex
W2299561048
Cited by
71
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
empathy, major depressive disorder, alexithymia, egocentric bias, emotional contagion, projection, tactile stimulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Affective Symptoms, Depression, Emotions, Empathy, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Morals, Social Perception

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