CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 180

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Empathy and compassion toward other species decrease with evolutionary divergence time

Miralles, Aurélien, Raymond, Michel, Lecointre, Guillaume·2019·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-019-56006-9PMC PMC6925286
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Currently the planet is inhabited by several millions of extremely diversified species. Not all of them arouse emotions of the same nature or intensity in humans. Little is known about the extent of our affective responses toward them and the factors that may explain these differences. Our online survey involved 3500 raters who had to make choices depending on specific questions designed to either assess their empathic perceptions or their compassionate reactions toward an extended photographic sampling of organisms. Results show a strong negative correlation between empathy scores and the divergence time separating them from us. However, beyond a certain time of divergence, our empathic perceptions stabilize at a minimum level. Compassion scores, although based on less spontaneous choices, remain strongly correlated to empathy scores and time of divergence. The mosaic of features characterizing humans has been acquired gradually over the course of the evolution, and the phylogenetically closer a species is to us, the more it shares common traits with us. Our results could be explained by the fact that many of these traits may arouse sensory biases. These anthropomorphic signals could be able to mobilize cognitive circuitry and to trigger prosocial behaviors usually at work in human relationships.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s41598-019-56006-9

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Experimental procedure. Based on a focused question, each evaluator had 22 pairs of pictures to evaluate (randomly drawn from a total of 52 species). The question, also randomly drawn at the beginning of the test, was intended to assess either empathic or compassionate preferences. (photos by A. Miralles).
Figure 1 Experimental procedure. Based on a focused question, each evaluator had 22 pairs of pictures to evaluate (randomly drawn from a total of 52 species). The question, also randomly drawn at the beginning of the test, was intended to assess either empathic or compassionate preferences. (photos by A. Miralles).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Empathy and compassion scores attributed to each organisms as a function of divergence time (Mya) between them and humans. The scores correspond to the probability that a given species is chosen from a pair of species that includes it and another randomly selected (n = 52 species). See SI Appendix, Results S1 for details. (Illustrations by A. Miralles).
Figure 2 Empathy and compassion scores attributed to each organisms as a function of divergence time (Mya) between them and humans. The scores correspond to the probability that a given species is chosen from a pair of species that includes it and another randomly selected (n = 52 species). See SI Appendix, Results S1 for details. (Illustrations by A. Miralles).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Effect of confounding variables and response time. (A) Effect of rater’s traits on both questions. Odds ratio (for a qualitative variable: ratio of the odds of choosing the most phylogenetically related species in the depicted factor level to the odds of it occurring in the reference factor level; for age, centered variable: ratio of the odds of choosing the most phylogenetically related species in age 1 to the odds of it occurring in age 0) are represented by dots and 95% confidence interval by lines; blue or red dots indicate variables linked with an increased or decreased, respectively, choice probability for the most phylogenetically related species (n raters = 1134 for the empathy test and 1213 for the compassion test). (B) Predicted participants’ response time as a function of the absolute divergence time between the two species presented in each pair (area depicts the 95% confidence interval, n responses = 25001 for the empathy test and 26781 for the compassion test).
Figure 3 Effect of confounding variables and response time. (A) Effect of rater’s traits on both questions. Odds ratio (for a qualitative variable: ratio of the odds of choosing the most phylogenetically related species in the depicted factor level to the odds of it occurring in the reference factor level; for age, centered variable: ratio of the odds of choosing the most phylogenetically related species in age 1 to the odds of it occurring in age 0) are represented by dots and 95% confidence interval by lines; blue or red dots indicate variables linked with an increased or decreased, respectively, choice probability for the most phylogenetically related species (n raters = 1134 for the empathy test and 1213 for the compassion test). (B) Predicted participants’ response time as a function of the absolute divergence time between the two species presented in each pair (area depicts the 95% confidence interval, n responses = 25001 for the empathy test and 26781 for the compassion test).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Relationships between empathy and compassion scores. While the oak benefits from an excessive compassion score when compared to its ability to arouse empathy, the tick suffers from a clear compassion deficit (n = 52 species).
Figure 4 Relationships between empathy and compassion scores. While the oak benefits from an excessive compassion score when compared to its ability to arouse empathy, the tick suffers from a clear compassion deficit (n = 52 species).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Darwin, C. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. 1st ed. (1871). · DOI
  2. Kopnina, H. The Lorax complex: deep ecology, ecocentrism and exclusion. J Integr. Environ. Sci. 9, 235–254, https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2012.742914 (2012). · DOI
  3. Nelson, M. P., Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A. & Chapron, G. Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation decisions: lessons from Cecil the Lion. Conserv. Lett. 9, 302–306, https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12232 (2016). · DOI
  4. Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R. & Legendre, F. Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci. Rep. 7, 9132, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6 (2017). · DOI
  5. Colléony, A., Clayton, S., Couvet, D., Saint Jalme, M. & Prévot, A.-C. Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biol. Conserv. 206, 263–269, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.035 (2017). · DOI
  6. Gunnthorsdottir, A. Physical Attractiveness of an Animal Species as a Decision Factor for its Preservation. Anthrozoös 14, 204–215, https://doi.org/10.2752/089279301786999355 (2001). · DOI
  7. Stokes, D. L. Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation. Hum. Ecol. 35, 361–369, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Landová, E. et al. Beauty ranking of mammalian species kept in the Prague Zoo: does beauty of animals increase the respondents’ willingness to protect them? Sci. Nat. 105, 69, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-018-1596-3 (2018). · DOI
  9. Schuetz, J. G. & Johnston, A. Characterizing the cultural niches of North American birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 10868–10873, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820670116 (2019). · DOI
  10. Prguda, A. & Neumann, D. L. Inter-human and animal-directed empathy: A test for evolutionary biases in empathetic responding. Behav. Process. 108, 80–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.012 (2014). · DOI
  11. Borgi, M. & Cirulli, F. Attitudes toward Animals among Kindergarten Children: Species Preferences. Anthrozoös 28, 45–59, https://doi.org/10.2752/089279315X14129350721939 (2015). · DOI
  12. Lamm, C., Rütger, M. & Wagner, I. C. Imaging empathy and prosocial emotions. Neurosci. Lett. 693, 49–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.06.054 (2019). · DOI
  13. Panksepp, J. & Panksepp, J. B. Toward a cross-species understanding of empathy. Trends Neurosci. 36, 489–496, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2013.04.009 (2013). · DOI
  14. Bloom, P. Empathy, schmempathy response to Zaki. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 60–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.003 (2017). · DOI
  15. Zaki, J. Moving beyond stereotypes of empathy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 59–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.12.004 (2017). · DOI
  16. Chierchia, G. & Singer, T. The Neuroscience of Compassion and Empathy and Their Link to Prosocial Motivation and Behavior, In Decision Neuroscience, Editor(s): Jean-Claude Dreher, Léon Tremblay, Pages 247–257, Academic Press, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805308-9.00020-8 (2017). · DOI
  17. Marsh, A. A. The neuroscience of empathy. Curr. Opin. behav. Sci. 19, 110–115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.12.016 (2018). · DOI
  18. Bird, G. et al. Empathic brain responses in insula are modulated by levels of alexithymia but not autism. Brain 133, 1515–1525, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awq060 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Warrier, V. et al. Genome-wide analyses of self-reported empathy: correlations with autism, schizophrenia, and anorexia nervosa. Transl. Psychiatry 8, 35, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-017-0082-6 (2018). · DOI
  20. Wyatt, G. A., West, S. A. & Gardner, A. Can natural selection favour altruism between species? J. Evol. Biol. 26, 1854–1865, https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12195 (2013). · DOI
  21. Izar, P. et al. Cross-genus adoption of a marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) by wild capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus): case report. Am. J. Primatol. 68, 692–700, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20259 (2006). · DOI
  22. Oswald, S. A., Wails, C. N., Morey, B. E. & Arnold, J. M. Caspian Terns (Hydroprogne caspia) Fledge a Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) Chick: Successful Waterbird Adoption Across Taxonomic Families. Waterbirds 36, 385–389, https://doi.org/10.1675/063.036.0318 (2013). · DOI
  23. Ducatez, S. Brood parasitism: a good strategy in our changing world? Proc. Royal Soc. B. 281, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2404 (2014). · DOI
  24. Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Suleski, M. & Hedges, S. B. TimeTree: A Resource for Timelines, Timetrees, and Divergence Times. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 1812–1819, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx116 (2017). · DOI
  25. Hedges, S. B., Marin, J., Suleski, M., Paymer, M. & Kumar, S. Tree of life reveals clock-like speciation and diversification. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 835–845, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msv037 (2015). · DOI
  26. Mebane, W. R. & Sekhon, J. S. Genetic Optimization Using Derivatives: The rgenoud Package for R. J. Stat. Softw. 42, 1–26 (2011). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 180

Metadata

Authors
Miralles, A., Raymond, M., & Lecointre, G.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-12-20
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322
DOI
10.1038/s41598-019-56006-9
PMC
PMC6925286
Cited by
180
References
4
Language
en
Licence

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