Cited by 224Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorPrimate Behavior and EcologyChild and Animal Learning Development

Rodent empathy and affective neuroscience

Open access
Panksepp, Jules B., Lahvis, Garet P.·2011·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

In the past few years, several experimental studies have suggested that empathy occurs in the social lives of rodents. Thus, rodent behavioral models can now be developed to elucidate the mechanistic substrates of empathy at levels that have heretofore been unavailable. For example, the finding that mice from certain inbred strains express behavioral and physiological responses to conspecific distress, while others do not, underscores that the genetic underpinnings of empathy are specifiable and that they could be harnessed to develop new therapies for human psychosocial impairments. However, the advent of rodent models of empathy is met at the outset with a number of theoretical and semantic problems that are similar to those previously confronted by studies of empathy in humans. The distinct underlying components of empathy must be differentiated from one another and from lay usage of the term. The primary goal of this paper is to review a set of seminal studies that are directly relevant to developing a concept of empathy in rodents. We first consider some of the psychological phenomena that have been associated with empathy, and within this context, we consider the component processes, or endophenotypes of rodent empathy. We then review a series of recent experimental studies that demonstrate the capability of rodents to detect and respond to the affective state of their social partners. We focus primarily on experiments that examine how rodents share affective experiences of fear, but we also highlight how similar types of experimental paradigms can be utilized to evaluate the possibility that rodents share positive affective experiences. Taken together, these studies were inspired by Jaak Panksepp's theory that all mammals are capable of felt affective experiences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.05.013

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Rodents are able to perceive the affective state of conspecifics as evidenced by emotional contagion.

    “While once thought to be a purely human capability, rodents are able to perceive the affective state of conspecifics as evidenced by, for example, the phenomenon of emotional contagion, during which perceiving a behavioral change in one individual reflexively elicits a similar state in the observer [88].”

    From Neural circuits regulating prosocial behaviors (2023) · cites this paper as [88]

  • Multiple sensory modalities are implicated in mediating the social transfer of pain, with both the assay and species under investigation critically determining the dominant modality.

    “Multiple sensory modalities are implicated in mediating the social transfer of pain, with both the assay and species under investigation critically determining the dominant modality [88,89].”

    From Neural circuits regulating prosocial behaviors (2023) · cites this paper as [88]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Panksepp, J. B., & Lahvis, G. P.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Panksepp, Jules B.
  • Lahvis, Garet P.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
35
Issue
9
Pages
1864-1875
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002401366
Cited by
224
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R03HD046716)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
empathy, rodents, affective neuroscience, inbred mouse strains, endophenotypes, positive affective states, Panksepp
MeSH terms
Affect, Animals, Empathy, Fear, Interpersonal Relations, Neurosciences, Pain, Rodentia, Social Behavior, Social Environment, Mice, Rats

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