Cited by 1,726Action Observation and SynchronizationExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others

Open access
Singer, Tania, Seymour, Ben, O'Doherty, John P., Stephan, Klaas E., Dolan, Raymond J., Frith, Chris D.·2006·Nature

Abstract

The neural processes underlying empathy are a subject of intense interest within the social neurosciences. However, very little is known about how brain empathic responses are modulated by the affective link between individuals. We show here that empathic responses are modulated by learned preferences, a result consistent with economic models of social preferences. We engaged male and female volunteers in an economic game, in which two confederates played fairly or unfairly, and then measured brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging while these same volunteers observed the confederates receiving pain. Both sexes exhibited empathy-related activation in pain-related brain areas (fronto-insular and anterior cingulate cortices) towards fair players. However, these empathy-related responses were significantly reduced in males when observing an unfair person receiving pain. This effect was accompanied by increased activation in reward-related areas, correlated with an expressed desire for revenge. We conclude that in men (at least) empathic responses are shaped by valuation of other people's social behaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents, a finding that echoes recent evidence for altruistic punishment.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Empathic brain responses to another person’s pain are shaped by perceived fairness: participants showed pain-related empathy in fronto-insular and anterior cingulate cortices toward fair players, but men showed reduced empathic responses and increased reward-related activity when an unfair player received pain. The authors conclude that, at least in men, empathy is modulated by social valuation, with unfair opponents’ pain potentially linked to reward and revenge.

Key findings

  • After a sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma game, both male and female subjects rated the fair player as significantly more fair, agreeable, likeable, and attractive than the unfair player (scale range 2 to 22; P < 0.001).
  • Both sexes showed empathy-related activation in pain-related brain areas, including bilateral anterior insula/fronto-insular cortex and anterior cingulate cortex, when observing a fair player in pain; ACC activation was significant in women ([9, 18, 27]; P < 0.001 uncorrected, P < 0.05 whole-brain corrected) but borderline in men ([29, 39, 27]; P = 0.001 uncorrected).
  • Men showed significantly enhanced bilateral fronto-insular activation when observing fair compared with unfair players in pain, whereas women showed no significant difference in empathy-related pain regions for fair versus unfair players.
  • In men, but not women, observing an unfair player receiving pain increased activation in left ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens and left orbito-frontal cortex; men also expressed a stronger desire for revenge than women (t(30) = 2.40, P < 0.05), and men with stronger revenge desire showed greater nucleus accumbens activation for unfair versus fair player pain.

Methods

  • Subjects were 16 men and 16 women; four professional actors (two female, two male) served as confederates. Subjects played a sequential iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game in which confederates reciprocated fairly or unfairly, inducing liking or disliking.
  • In an empathy-for-pain fMRI task, subjects observed cues indicating that they, the fair player, or the unfair player would receive low or high electrical stimulation; each 12-s trial included a cue followed after 6 s by a circle indicating stimulation onset.
  • fMRI data were acquired on a 1.5-T Siemens Sonata scanner and analyzed in SPM2 using an event-related model with a 2 × 3 × 2 factorial design (pain vs no pain; self, fair, unfair; male vs female subject), random-effects group analyses, conjunction/masking, and regression analyses; results are reported at P < 0.005 uncorrected in a priori regions of interest.

Limitations

  • The paper states that further experiments are needed to confirm the gender specificity of the effect.
  • The paper notes that the experimental design may have favoured men because the punishment modality involved physical threat rather than psychological or financial threat; alternatively, the findings could indicate a predominant role for males in maintaining justice and punishing norm violation.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was small (32 subjects), several key results are reported at uncorrected thresholds within a priori regions of interest, and the gender analysis is binary and based on male/female subject groups.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature04271

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 27 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In women, the reduction in empathic activity when observing an unfair versus fair player in pain was very small.

    “In women this reduction in activity was very small, whereas in men the knowledge that an unfair player was in receipt of pain elicited no increase in empathic activity in FI.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    For women, there was no significant difference when comparing painful trials for fair versus unfair players in empathy-related pain regions.

    “And indeed, formal analysis revealed no significant difference for women when comparing painful trials for fair versus unfair players in empathy-related pain regions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Men showed significantly enhanced activation in bilateral FI when observing fair compared with unfair players in pain.

    “However, men showed significantly enhanced activation in bilateral FI when observing fair compared with unfair players in pain (Supplementary Tables 8 and 11).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Both male and female subjects rated the fair player as significantly more attractive than the unfair player.

    “Post-scan behavioural ratings confirmed that both male and female subjects rated the fair player as being significantly more fair, more agreeable, more likeable and more attractive than the unfair player (range of scale ρ2 to 22; P , 0.001; Supplementary Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Both male and female subjects rated the fair player as significantly more likeable than the unfair player.

    “Post-scan behavioural ratings confirmed that both male and female subjects rated the fair player as being significantly more fair, more agreeable, more likeable and more attractive than the unfair player (range of scale ρ2 to 22; P , 0.001; Supplementary Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 8
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 11
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    ACC activation to seeing a fair person in pain was significant in women but borderline in men.

    “The activation in ACC was significant in women ([9, 18, 27]; P , 0.001 uncorrected, P , 0.05 whole-brain corrected) but was borderline in men ([29, 39, 27]; P 1/4 0.001 uncorrected; Supplementary Tables 4 and 5; coordinates refer to the peak of activations in MNI (Montreal Neurological Institute) space).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Women but not men displayed significant activation in bilateral AI/FI and ACC in all three conditions (self, fair, unfair).

    “Consistent with this finding, supplementary analysis showed that women but not men displayed significant activation in bilateral AI/FI and ACC in all three conditions (Supplementary Tables 7 and 10).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The perception-action model of empathy states that observation or imagination of another person in a particular emotional state automatically activates a representation of that state in the observer.

    “The perception–action model of empathy states that the observation or imagination of another person in a particular emotional state automatically activates a representation of that state in the observer1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Preston, S. D. & de-Waal, F. B. M. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav. Brain Sci. 25, 1–72 (2002) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    These results suggest that our ability to empathize relies on neuronal systems that underpin our own bodily and emotional states.

    “These results suggest that our ability to empathize relies on neuronal systems that underpin our own bodily and emotional states1,2,10,13.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [1] Preston, S. D. & de-Waal, F. B. M. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav. Brain Sci. 25, 1–72 (2002) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] Gallese, V., Keysers, C. & Rizzolatti, G. A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 396–403 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] Singer, T. et al. Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science 303, 1157–1162 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] Craig, A. D. Human feelings: why are some more aware than others? Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 239–241 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All four possible gender combinations between the sex of the subject and the sex of the confederates were used equally often throughout the study.

    “Although the two confederates were always of the same sex, all four possible gender combinations between the sex of the subject and the sex of the confederates were used equally often throughout the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Theories of social preferences suggest that people value the gains of others positively if they are perceived to behave fairly, but value others' gains negatively if they behave unfairly.

    “These theories4,7 suggest that people value the gains of others positively if they are perceived to behave fairly, but value others' gains negatively if they behave unfairly.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [4] Rabin, M. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 83, 1281–1302 (1993)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114, 817–868 (1999) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Subjects completed a standard empathy scale.

    “After scanning, subjects completed a standard empathy scale22 and were asked to rate the intensity of the low and high stimulation, their liking for the two confederates, and their desire for revenge on the two confederates (see Fig. 1b, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] Davis, M. A. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat. Selected Docs Psychol. 10, 85 (1980)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In men (at least), empathic responses are shaped by valuation of other people's social behaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring physical punishment of unfair opponents.

    “We conclude that in men (at least) empathic responses are shaped by valuation of other people's social behaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents, a finding that echoes recent evidence for altruistic punishment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The pattern of preferences implies that people like cooperating with fair opponents but also like punishing unfair opponents.

    “This pattern of preferences implies that people like cooperating with fair opponents but also like punishing unfair opponents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Studies on empathy for pain have found that activation observed in AI/FI and ACC to pain in oneself is also seen when observing pain in someone else.

    “For example, studies on empathy for pain have found that the activation observed in anterior insula/fronto-insular cortex (AI/FI) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) to pain in oneself is also seen when observing pain in someone else10,12.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] Singer, T. et al. Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science 303, 1157–1162 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Morrison, I., Lloyd, D., di Pellegrino, G. & Roberts, N. Vicarious responses to pain in anterior cingulate cortex: is empathy a multisensory issue? Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 4, 270–278 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Cues indicating self, fair player, or unfair player and pain/no pain were presented in random order.

    “As shown in Fig. 1c, cues (coloured arrows) were presented in random order indicating whether she/he (self condition), the fair player (fair condition) or the unfair player (unfair condition) would get low stimulation (no pain condition) or high stimulation (pain condition).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    It has been shown that people reward others for cooperative behaviour but punish violations of social fairness even at a personal cost, an effect likely to be mediated by neural mechanisms that provide intrinsic motivation (satisfaction) from punishing violators.

    “It has been shown that people reward others for cooperative behaviour but punish violations of social fairness even at a personal cost15,16, an effect likely to be mediated by neural mechanisms that provide intrinsic motivation (that is, satisfaction) from punishing violators21.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [15] Fehr, E. & Gachter, S. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415, 137–140 (2002) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [16] Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. The nature of human altruism. Nature 425, 785–791 (2003) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] de Quervain, D. J. et al. The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science 305, 1254–1258 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Recent imaging studies provide evidence for common activation elicited when experiencing disgust, touch or pain in oneself, and when perceiving the same feelings in others.

    “Recent imaging studies provide evidence for common activation elicited when experiencing disgust8, touch9 or pain10-12 in oneself, and when perceiving the same feelings in others.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [8] Wicker, B. et al. Both of us disgusted in my insula: The common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron 40, 655–664 (2003) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Keysers, C. et al. A touching sight: SII/PV activation during the observation and experience of touch. Neuron 42, 335–346 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] Singer, T. et al. Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science 303, 1157–1162 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [11] Jackson, P. L., Meltzoff, A. N. & Decety, J. How do we perceive the pain of others: A window into the neural processes involved in empathy. Neuroimage 3, 771–779 (2005) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [12] Morrison, I., Lloyd, D., di Pellegrino, G. & Roberts, N. Vicarious responses to pain in anterior cingulate cortex: is empathy a multisensory issue? Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 4, 270–278 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Results are reported at P < 0.005 uncorrected for multiple comparisons in a priori regions of interest.

    “We report results at P < 0.005 uncorrected for multiple comparisons in the a priori regions of interest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Cooperation nourishes the affective link, but selfish behaviour detrimental to others effectively compromises this link (at least with males), such that empathic responses in the brain are diminished or abolished.

    “Our findings indicate that cooperation nourishes this link, but selfish behaviour that is detrimental to others effectively compromises this link (at least with males), such that empathic responses in the brain are diminished or abolished.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The findings are consistent with different functions associated with distinct regions of the striatum: afferent projections to dorsal striatum are crucial for learning correct actions to maximize reward, whereas projections to ventral striatum including nucleus accumbens have a key function in reward prediction and pavlovian learning.

    “These findings are consistent with the different functions associated with distinct regions of the striatum: afferent projections to dorsal striatum are thought to be crucial for learning correct actions so as to maximize reward, whereas projections to ventral striatum, including nucleus accumbens, have a key function in reward prediction and pavlovian learning18-20,23,24.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [18] Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J. & Everitt, B. J. Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 26, 321–352 (2002) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] O'Doherty, J. et al. Dissociable roles of ventral and dorsal striatum in instrumental conditioning. Science 304, 452–454 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] Schultz, W. Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 1, 199–207 (2000) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] Dayan, P. & Balleine, B. W. Reward, motivation, and reinforcement learning. Neuron 36, 285–298 (2002) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] Montague, P. R., Hyman, S. E. & Cohen, J. D. Computational roles for dopamine in behavioural control. Nature 431, 760–767 (2004) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The position (left or right) of the actor (fair or unfair) was counterbalanced across subjects.

    “The position (left or right) of the actor (fair or unfair) was counterbalanced across subjects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
17 of 17
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The modulation of empathic neural responses by the social relations between individuals is unknown.

    “However, it is unclear whether or how these responses are modulated by the social relations between individuals.”
1 of 1

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?

  • Males and females have been shown to use different strategies in emotion paradigms.

    “males and females have been shown to use different strategies in emotion paradigms”

    From Anterior insular cortex and emotional awareness (2013) · cites this paper as Singer et al., 2006

    The passage labeled Abstract reports different empathic neural responses in men and women when they observed an unfair person receiving pain. It does not establish that males and females use different strategies across emotion paradigms; the finding concerns responses in this specific empathy-for-pain task. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All parts of insula (posterior, mid and anterior) as well as cACC may be regulated by top-down systems during processing of bottom-up interoceptive input and processing of top-down induced activation in the interoceptive stream.

    “While it is not clear to what extent early interoceptive signals are prone to modulation, it has been shown that all parts of insula (posterior, mid and anterior) as well as cACC may be regulated by top-down systems during processing of bottom-up interoceptive input (Atlas and Wager, 2014) and processing of top-down induced activation in the interoceptive stream (Singer et al., 2006; Rutgen et al.”

    From Top-Down Dysregulation—From ADHD to Emotional Instability (2016) · cites this paper as Singer et al., 2006

    The Abstract reports that learned preferences modulated empathy-related activity in fronto-insular and anterior cingulate cortices when participants observed others receiving pain. It does not establish regulation of posterior and mid-insula, or identify a top-down system acting on an interoceptive stream. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In male participants, ventral striatum activity increases when passively seeing a partner, who has previously acted unfairly, incur pain.

    “That is, in male participants, ventral striatum activity increases when passively seeing partner, who has previously acted unfairly, incur pain 98.”
  • In certain conditions, ventral striatum activity appears related to seeing others receive a deserved misfortune.

    “In certain conditions, ventral striatum activity appears related to seeing others receive a deserved misfortune.”
  • The striatum displays signals related to observing a punishment meted out to someone who has acted unfairly.

    “The striatum displays signals that are related to making a decision to punish someone for acting unfairly 96, 97, as well as related to observing a punishment meted out to someone who has acted unfairly 98.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Wellcome Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Singer, Tania
Venue
Nature
Published
2006-01
Volume
439
Issue
7075
Pages
466-469
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2098425678
Cited by
1,726
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 139 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 74 · 2016: 93 · 2015: 105 · 2014: 98 · 2013: 111 · 2012: 100
FWCI
139.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (078865)
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
empathy, perceived fairness, social preferences, schadenfreude, altruistic punishment, revenge, sex differences, anterior cingulate cortex, reward processing, economic games, corporal punishment
MeSH terms
Brain, Empathy, Female, Game Theory, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nucleus Accumbens, Pain, Photic Stimulation, Punishment, Reward, Sex Characteristics, Social Justice

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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