Cited by 1,981Action Observation and SynchronizationEmotions and Moral BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The social neuroscience of empathy

Open access
Singer, Tania, Lamm, Claus·2009·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The phenomenon of empathy entails the ability to share the affective experiences of others. In recent years social neuroscience made considerable progress in revealing the mechanisms that enable a person to feel what another is feeling. The present review provides an in‐depth and critical discussion of these findings. Consistent evidence shows that sharing the emotions of others is associated with activation in neural structures that are also active during the first‐hand experience of that emotion. Part of the neural activation shared between self‐ and other‐related experiences seems to be rather automatically activated. However, recent studies also show that empathy is a highly flexible phenomenon, and that vicarious responses are malleable with respect to a number of factors—such as contextual appraisal, the interpersonal relationship between empathizer and other, or the perspective adopted during observation of the other. Future investigations are needed to provide more detailed insights into these factors and their neural underpinnings. Questions such as whether individual differences in empathy can be explained by stable personality traits, whether we can train ourselves to be more empathic, and how empathy relates to prosocial behavior are of utmost relevance for both science and society.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04418.x

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Empathy results from neural network activations that resemble those observed when the same emotion is experienced first-hand (shared network hypothesis).

    “This socio-affective process results from neural network activations that resemble those activations observed when the same emotion is experienced first-hand (shared network hypothesis) [2][3][4][5].”
  • ToM and empathy differ in representational content (mental states versus affect), yet both might be similarly brought about by interaction between top-down and bottom-up processes.

    “ToM and empathy differ in the representational content (mental states versus affect), yet both might be similarly brought about by interaction between top-down and bottom-up processes”
  • More automatic, bottom-up driven mapping and awareness of others' emotional states in empathy might be modulated by more controlled, top-down processes involved in attributing mind states (ToM).

    “more automatic, bottom-up driven mapping and awareness of others emotional states in the context of self–other distinction (i.e., empathy) might be modulated by more controlled, top-down processes involved in attributing mind states (i.e., ToM)”
  • Interoception-related meta-representation of emotion has been suggested to underlie the concomitant involvement of the aMCC/SMA and AI/IFG in neuroimaging studies on empathy as reflecting affective sharing.

    “Interoception-related meta-representation of emotion has thus been suggested to underlie the concomitant involvement of the aMCC/SMA and AI/IFG in neuroimaging studies on empathy as reflecting affective sharing (Singer and Lamm 2009; Fan et al. 2011).”
  • Studies using static pictures of emotional facial expressions were disregarded because such tasks are probably too simple to reliably entail sharing others' emotions and maintaining a self-other distinction.

    “we disregarded studies in which participants were presented with emotion recognition tasks using static pictures of emotional facial expressions. That is because such tasks are probably too simple to reliably entail sharing others’ emotions and maintaining a self–other distinction”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singer, T., & Lamm, C.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
  • Singer, Tania
  • Lamm, Claus
Venue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03
Volume
1156
Issue
1
Pages
81-96
ISSN
  • 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-6632
OpenAlex
W2147093380
Cited by
1,981
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 107 · 2025: 121 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 136 · 2022: 128 · 2021: 138 · 2020: 174 · 2019: 109 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 109 · 2016: 105 · 2015: 105 · 2014: 132 · 2013: 131 · 2012: 110
FWCI
12.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Universität Zürich
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
empathy, social neuroscience, neural mechanisms of empathy, affective sharing, interpersonal relationships, perspective taking, personality traits, empathy training, prosocial behavior
MeSH terms
Empathy, Humans, Nerve Net, Nervous System Physiological Phenomena, Neurosciences, Social Behavior

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