Cited by 472Action Observation and SynchronizationChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentEmotions and Moral Behavior

The self to other model of empathy: providing a new framework for understanding empathy impairments in psychopathy, autism, and alexithymia

Bird, Geoffrey, Viding, Essi·2014·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Despite increasing empirical and theoretical work on empathy, particularly on the content of empathic representations, there is a relative lack of consensus regarding the information processing necessary for empathy to occur. Here we attempt to delineate a mechanistic cognitive model of empathy in order to provide a framework within which neuroimaging work on empathy can be located, and which may be used in order to understand various disorders characterised by atypical levels of empathy. To this end data from individuals with psychopathy, autism, and alexithymia inform the model, and the model is used to provide a unifying framework for any empathy impairments seen in these disorders. The model adopts a developmental framework and tries to address the four difficult questions of empathy: How do we know what another is feeling? What is the role of theory of mind in empathy? How does the state of another cause a corresponding state in the self? How do we represent another's emotion once emotional contagion has taken place?

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.021

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Intact ability to distinguish between the self and other allows the observer to attribute the emotional state to the observed individual, thereby reducing personal distress and giving rise to empathic concern.

    “Intact ability to distinguish between the self and other then allows the observer to attribute the emotional state to the observed individual, thereby reducing personal distress, and giving rise to empathic concern (Bird and Viding, 2014; Coll, Viding, et al., 2017; Davis, 1980; Decety and Lamm, 2006; Moriguchi et al., 2007b).”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Bird and Viding, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bird, G., & Viding, E.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Bird, Geoffrey
  • Viding, Essi
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
47
Pages
520-532
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981060433
Cited by
472
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 14
FWCI
33.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/H007059/1)
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, psychopathy, autism spectrum disorder, alexithymia, theory of mind, emotional contagion, emotion representation
MeSH terms
Affective Symptoms, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Autistic Disorder, Empathy, Humans, Models, Psychological, Self Concept, Recognition, Psychology, 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