The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 27 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own result · 10 Not checked yet · 6 Own interpretation · 4 Own method · 1 Supported so far
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And indeed, formal analysis revealed no significant difference for women when comparing painful trials for fair versus unfair players in empathy-related pain regions.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, men showed significantly enhanced activation in bilateral FI when observing fair compared with unfair players in pain (Supplementary Tables 8 and 11).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we observed pain-related empathic responses in both genders in bilateral AI extending into FI and brainstem when seeing an unfamiliar but likeable person in pain (Fig. 2a, b).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we extended previous findings10 by showing that men, as well as women, who scored higher on standard empathy scales22 had higher empathy-related brain activity in ACC and AI/FI (Supplementary Fig. 2).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Davis, M. A. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat. Selected Docs Psychol. 10, 85 (1980)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The comparison of brain activity associated with painful and non-painful trials in the ‘self’ condition for men and women revealed an expected increase in the ‘pain network’, including activity in AI and ACC (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 8
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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
- Supportedcites [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
This source is cited for the pain portion of the sentence, not for disgust or touch. The Whole Brain Contrasts section reports a common right anterior cingulate activation when participants felt a painful stimulus and when they observed another person receive one; the Summary and Conclusions reiterates that finding. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Preston, S. D. & de-Waal, F. B. M. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav. Brain Sci. 25, 1–72 (2002) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These results suggest that our ability to empathize relies on neuronal systems that underpin our own bodily and emotional states1,2,10,13.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [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 yetcites [13] Craig, A. D. Human feelings: why are some more aware than others? Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 239–241 (2004) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > METHODS > Empathy for pain model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Rabin, M. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 83, 1281–1302 (1993)
- Not checked yetcites [7] Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114, 817–868 (1999) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > METHODS > Post-scan questionnaires
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Davis, M. A. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat. Selected Docs Psychol. 10, 85 (1980)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern of preferences implies that people like cooperating with fair opponents but also like punishing unfair opponents.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Fehr, E. & Gachter, S. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415, 137–140 (2002) source
- Not checked yetcites [16] Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. The nature of human altruism. Nature 425, 785–791 (2003) source
- Not checked yetcites [21] de Quervain, D. J. et al. The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science 305, 1254–1258 (2004) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We report results at P < 0.005 uncorrected for multiple comparisons in the a priori regions of interest.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > METHODS > Image acquisition and analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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 yetcites [19] O'Doherty, J. et al. Dissociable roles of ventral and dorsal striatum in instrumental conditioning. Science 304, 452–454 (2004) source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Schultz, W. Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 1, 199–207 (2000) source
- Not checked yetcites [23] Dayan, P. & Balleine, B. W. Reward, motivation, and reinforcement learning. Neuron 36, 285–298 (2002) source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Montague, P. R., Hyman, S. E. & Cohen, J. D. Computational roles for dopamine in behavioural control. Nature 431, 760–767 (2004) source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The position (left or right) of the actor (fair or unfair) was counterbalanced across subjects.”
§ Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others > METHODS > Empathy for pain model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“That is, in male participants, ventral striatum activity increases when passively seeing partner, who has previously acted unfairly, incur pain 98.”
From The social brain and reward: Social information processing in the human striatum (2014) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“In certain conditions, ventral striatum activity appears related to seeing others receive a deserved misfortune.”
From The social brain and reward: Social information processing in the human striatum (2014) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“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.”
From The social brain and reward: Social information processing in the human striatum (2014) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, the level of ventral striatum activation is related to male participants’ desire for revenge against the unfair partner98.”
From The social brain and reward: Social information processing in the human striatum (2014) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“As gender differences in social emotions were observed in previous neuroscientific research (e.g.Singer et al., 2006), we decided to control for possible gender effects by restricting our sample to female participants only.”
From Differential pattern of functional brain plasticity after compassion and empathy training (2014) · cites this paper as Singer et al., 2006
Citations
Cites
A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355399556151 · Cited by 11,264
Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach
Friston, K. J., Holmes, A. P., Worsley, K. J., Poline, J. ‐., Frith, C. D., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1994) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.460020402 · Cited by 9,688
Self-citationAltruistic punishment in humans
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415137a · Cited by 5,616 · cited 3×
“Increased pain-related activation (asterisk indicates whole-brain corrected) for women in ACC* [9, 18, 27], left FI* [242, 15,23], right FI* [30, 18,218], left SII* [260,230, 18], right SII* [63,230, 24] and brainstem* [3,218,218]; for men in left FI* [233, 33, 3] right FI [42, 33, 3] and brainstem [3,233,230].”
BackgroundTrust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,712
Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics
Rabin, M. (2011) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j8j.15 · Cited by 4,614
Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x02000018 · Cited by 4,126
Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1093535 · Cited by 3,929
Self-citationSpatial registration and normalization of images
Friston, K. J., Ashburner, J., Frith, C., Poline, J.-B., Heather, J. D., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1995) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.460030303 · Cited by 3,744
Self-citationBehavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction
Camerer, C. F. (2003) · Cited by 3,722
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy
de Waal, F. B. M. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625 · Cited by 2,483
“…of previous experience have recently been confirmed by functional magnetic resonance imaging: Seeing the pain of a cooperative confederate activates painrelated brain areas, but seeing the pain of an unfair confederate activates reward-related brain areas, at least in men (Singer et al. 2006).”
Compassion: an evolutionary analysis and empirical review
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018807 · Cited by 2,200
“For example, does the neural representation of another person's undeserved pain differ from the neural representation of morally justified or retributive pain (Decety, Michalska, & Akitsuki, 2008; Singer et al., 2006)? Studies of central nervous system activity also offer the promise of testing some of the predictions…”
BackgroundThe social constructionist movement in modern psychology.
Gergen, K. J. (1985) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.40.3.266 · Cited by 3,987
Lamm, C., Decety, J., & Singer, T. (2011) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.014 · Cited by 2,016
Self-citationSocial Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes
Lieberman, M. D. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085654 · Cited by 2,010
“From childhood through adulthood, increasingly complex and domain-specific theories form (Reeder 1993), although this increasing sophistication does not always yield greater accuracy (Gilbert & Malone 1995).”
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC2636868
- OpenAlex
- W2098425678
- Semantic Scholar
- a9adbab6dae28c23a205786c725a988649d155ef
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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 › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
