Towards a unified theory of emotional contagion in rodents—A meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Here we leverage 80 years of emotional contagion research in rodents and perform the first meta-analysis on this topic. Using 457 effect sizes, we show that, while both rats and mice are capable of emotional contagion, there are differences in how various factors modulate empathy in these species: 1) only mice show strain-specific differences in emotional contagion response; 2) although rats and mice have equivalent contagion response to familiar and unfamiliar individuals, our results show that familiarity length is negatively correlated with level of contagion in rats only; 3) prior experience with emotional stimuli almost doubles fear contagion response in rats while no changes are detected in pre-exposed mice; 4) both mice and rats tested alone show comparable reduced contagion compared to animals tested in a group; 5) emotional contagion is reduced in animals from both species missing one sensory modality compared to situations where all sensory modalities are recruited during emotional contagion. Lastly, we report similar patterns of brain activation during emotional contagion in rats and mice.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Current evidence supports the hypothesis that corticolimbic circuits regulate empathy-related behaviors.
“Overall, current evidence supports the hypothesis that corticolimbic circuits regulate empathy-related behaviors [116].”
From Neural circuits regulating prosocial behaviors (2023) · cites this paper as [116]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 186 · Cited by 53
- Authors
- Hernandez-Lallement, J., Gómez-Sotres, P., & Carrillo, M.
- Affiliations
- Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Carrillo, Maria
- ORCID
- Gómez-Sotres, Paula
- Venue
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-01
- Volume
- 132
- Pages
- 1229-1248
- ISSN
- 0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3091432993
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 186
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 0.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- KNAW Research Portal (The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- KNAW research portal (Royal Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW)) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (453-15-009)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
- Keywords
- emotional contagion, empathy, rats, mice, cross-species comparison, strain differences, familiarity, sensory deprivation, social environment, brain activation
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brain, Emotions, Empathy, Rodentia, Recognition, Psychology, 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