CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 309Action Observation and SynchronizationNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Decoding the charitable brain: empathy, perspective taking, and attention shifts differentially predict altruistic giving

Open access
Tusche, Anita, Böckler, Anne, Kanske, Philipp, Trautwein, Fynn-Mathis, Singer, Tania·2016·The Journal of Neuroscience
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.3392-15.2016PMC PMC6601722
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Altruistic behavior varies considerably across people and decision contexts. The relevant computational and motivational mechanisms that underlie its heterogeneity, however, are poorly understood. Using a charitable giving task together with multivariate decoding techniques, we identified three distinct psychological mechanisms underlying altruistic decision-making (empathy, perspective taking, and attentional reorienting) and linked them to dissociable neural computations. Neural responses in the anterior insula (AI) (but not temporoparietal junction [TPJ]) encoded trial-wise empathy for beneficiaries, whereas the TPJ (but not AI) predicted the degree of perspective taking. Importantly, the relative influence of both socio-cognitive processes differed across individuals: participants whose donation behavior was heavily influenced by affective empathy exhibited higher predictive accuracies for generosity in AI, whereas those who strongly relied on cognitive perspective taking showed improved predictions of generous donations in TPJ. Furthermore, subject-specific contributions of both processes for donations were reflected in participants' empathy and perspective taking responses in a separate fMRI task (EmpaToM), suggesting that process-specific inputs into altruistic choices may reflect participants' general propensity to either empathize or mentalize. Finally, using independent attention task data, we identified shared neural codes for attentional reorienting and generous donations in the posterior superior temporal sulcus, suggesting that domain-general attention shifts also contribute to generous behavior (but not in TPJ or AI). Overall, our findings demonstrate highly specific roles of AI for affective empathy and TPJ for cognitive perspective taking as precursors of prosocial behavior and suggest that these discrete routes of social cognition differentially drive intraindividual and interindividual differences in altruistic behavior. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Human societies depend on the altruistic behavior of their members, but teasing apart its underlying motivations and neural mechanisms poses a serious challenge. Using multivariate decoding techniques, we delineated three distinct processes for altruistic decision-making (affective empathy, cognitive perspective taking, and domain-general attention shifts), linked them to dissociable neural computations, and identified their relative influence across individuals. Distinguishing process-specific computations both behaviorally and neurally is crucial for developing complete theoretical and neuroscientific accounts of altruistic behavior and more effective means of increasing it. Moreover, information on the relative influence of subprocesses across individuals and its link to people's more general propensity to engage empathy or perspective taking can inform training programs to increase prosociality, considering their “fit” with different individuals.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using fMRI donation, EmpaToM, and Posner attention tasks with multivariate decoding, the study dissociates affective empathy, cognitive perspective taking, and domain-general attention shifts in altruistic giving. Right AI encoded empathy, right TPJ encoded perspective taking, and right pSTS shared codes for attention reorienting and generous donations.

Key findings

  • Donations varied substantially: mean €22.30 ± 9.09, range €6.6–€37.68; high-donation trials averaged €31.38 ± 2.95 and low-donation trials €13.95 ± 2.36. In mixed regression, empathy (β = 1.97, p < 0.001), perspective taking (β = 0.78, p < 0.003), deservingness (β = 4.52, p < 0.001), and opposition (β = 1.97, p < 0.001) predicted donations; similarity (p = 0.14) and closeness (p = 0.885) did not.
  • Right AI and right TPJ encoded generous versus selfish donation choices. Trial-wise empathy was encoded in right AI (average r = 0.14) but not TPJ, while perspective taking was encoded in right TPJ (average r = 0.11) but not AI; pairwise comparisons were significant (p = 0.002 and p = 0.008).
  • Independent EmpaToM neural signatures predicted subject-specific reliance on perspective taking (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and empathy (r = 0.16, p < 0.001) in donations, with cross-predictions not significant (r = −0.001 and r = −0.04). Subject-specific empathy weights were stronger than perspective-taking weights (p = 0.03).
  • In the attention task, invalidly cued trials had longer reaction times (754 ± 101 ms) than validly cued trials (644 ± 84 ms; p < 0.001). Cross-task decoding found shared neural code for attention reorienting and generous donations in right pSTS (p < 0.05, corrected), but not in TPJ (p > 0.44, uncorrected) or AI.

Methods

  • Thirty-three volunteers (15 female, mean age 26 years, range 20–34) completed an fMRI charitable donation task, an fMRI EmpaToM task, and a behavioral post-test; a subset of 23 also completed an fMRI Posner attention task. In the donation task, participants had a €50 endowment, read 60 charity descriptions, and chose donations from €0–€50; one random trial was paid, and participants kept 20% of the non-donated amount.
  • EmpaToM used 48 trials with emotionally negative or neutral videos, affect and compassion ratings, and ToM/noToM questions. The attention task used 240 Posner cueing trials (80% valid, 20% invalid cues).
  • Analyses used SPM8 GLMs and whole-brain searchlight multivariate pattern analysis with SVM classification and SVR, cross-validated across donation blocks or folds, with permutation tests and cross-task decoding; behavior was modeled with linear mixed regression.

Limitations

  • Stated: effect sizes were generally small, and future research needs to examine generalization across different altruistic behaviors and decision contexts.
  • Evident: the sample was modest (33 participants; 23 for attention; EmpaToM data unavailable for 2; exclusions for insufficient generosity and high attention error rates), and the post-test social-process ratings were retrospective self-reports collected after scanning.
  • Evident: the design is correlational/decoding-based, so it cannot establish causal direction between neural computations, social processes, and donation behavior.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.3392-15.2016

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 52 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    These three mechanisms are linked to dissociable neural computations.

    “and linked them to dissociable neural computations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Using independent attention task data, shared neural codes for attentional reorienting and generous donations were identified in the posterior superior temporal sulcus.

    “using independent attention task data, we identified shared neural codes for attentional reorienting and generous donations in the posterior superior temporal sulcus”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Participants whose donation behavior was heavily influenced by affective empathy exhibited higher predictive accuracies for generosity in AI.

    “participants whose donation behavior was heavily influenced by affective empathy exhibited higher predictive accuracies for generosity in AI”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants can accurately reconstruct and report their engagement in empathy and perspective taking during the previous donation decisions in the scanner.
  • Findingown data

    Neural responses in the anterior insula (AI), but not temporoparietal junction (TPJ), encoded trial-wise empathy for beneficiaries.

    “Neural responses in the anterior insula (AI) (but not temporoparietal junction [TPJ]) encoded trial-wise empathy for beneficiaries”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The relative influence of empathy and perspective taking on donation decisions differed across individuals.

    “Importantly, the relative influence of both socio-cognitive processes differed across individuals”
    • Also stated in: § MVPA · plain
      “Behavioral regressions in the donation task (described below) revealed that the relative influence of empathy and perspective taking in donation decisions varied across individuals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants can accurately reconstruct and report their engagement in empathy and perspective taking during the previous donation decisions in the scanner.
  • May combine two claims. 23
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 28

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The TPJ, but not AI, predicted the degree of perspective taking.

    “whereas the TPJ (but not AI) predicted the degree of perspective taking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    EmpaToM questions with perspective taking demands had slightly faster reaction times (8073 ± 1213 ms) than those without (8286 ± 1113 ms), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.196, two-tailed).

    “slightly faster reaction times (8073 Ϯ 1213 ms) compared with those without perspective taking requirements (errors: 42 Ϯ 13%; reaction times: 8286 Ϯ 1113 ms; paired t test for errors: p Ͻ 0.001, for reaction times: p ϭ 0.196, two-tailed).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Beneficiaries were perceived as moderately similar (mean ± SD: 1.88 ± 0.60).

    “moderately similar (1.88 Ϯ 0.60)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Participants reported relatively little opposition to the general goals of the charities (mean ± SD: 1.56 ± 0.59).

    “Participants also reported relatively little opposition to the general goals of the charities (1.56 Ϯ 0.59)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Beneficiaries were perceived as highly deserving (mean ± SD: 3.71 ± 0.53).

    “Self-reports also indicated that beneficiaries were perceived as highly deserving (mean Ϯ SD: 3.71 Ϯ 0.53)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Beneficiaries were perceived as close to participants (mean ± SD: 2.11 ± 0.61).

    “and close (2.11Ϯ 0.61) to themselves.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    On average, participants reported a considerable degree of perceived empathy for beneficiaries of a charity (mean ± SD: 3.22 ± 0.64).

    “On average, participants reported a considerable degree of perceived empathy (mean Ϯ SD: 3.22 Ϯ 0.64)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Perceived similarity, closeness, and opposition to the charities' general causes could not be decoded at a stringent statistical threshold, suggesting that these variables are not reliably encoded in localized response patterns during donation decisions.

    “Perceived similarity, closeness, and opposition to the charities general causes could not be decoded at this stringent statistical threshold, suggesting that these variables are not reliably encoded in localized response patterns during donation decisions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Independently measured empathic brain responses (EmpaToM) predicted subject-specific contributions of empathy in the donation task, but not of perspective taking.

    “independently measured empathic brain responses (EmpaToM) (Kanske et al., 2015b) predicted subject-specific contributions of empathy in the donation task (but not of perspective taking)”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Independent empathy-related neural signatures (EmpaToM) reliably predicted the degree to which participants relied on affective empathy during donation decisions (␤ empathy )(r ϭ 0.16, p Ͻ 0.001, corrected), but not contributions of cognitive perspective taking (␤ perspective taking ) that varied around chance (r ϭ Ϫ0.04, p Ͼ 0.05, corrected).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kanske et al., 2015b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants' response times in invalid trials were significantly longer than in valid trials (754 ± 101 ms vs 644 ± 84 ms, paired t test, p < 0.001), reflecting attention shifts.

    “As expected, participants' response times in invalid (mean Ϯ SD: 754 Ϯ 101 ms) trials were found to be significantly longer (paired t test, p Ͻ 0.001) than in valid trials (644 Ϯ 84 ms), reflecting attention shifts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants' average donations ranged from €6.69 to €37.68 (mean ± SD: €22.30 ± 9.09), confirming considerable variations in average generosity.

    “Histogram of participants' average donations (range of €6.69 to €37.68; mean Ϯ SD: €22.30Ϯ 9.09), confirming considerable variations in participants' average generosity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Patients with autistic spectrum disorders often exhibit deficits in perspective taking but not necessarily empathy.

    “patients with autistic spectrum disorders often exhibit deficits in perspective taking (Frith, 2001;Hoffmann et al., 2015) but not necessarily empathy (Bird et al., 2010)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Frith, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hoffmann et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bird et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    Altruism is a complex phenomenon resulting from numerous mental processes.

    “Altruism, which involves costly other-regarding behavior, is a complex phenomenon resulting from numerous mental pro-cesses (Fehr and Fischbacher, 2003;Penner et al., 2005;Tankersley et al., 2007;Zaki and Mitchell, 2011;Hutcherson et al., 2015)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fehr and Fischbacher, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Penner et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tankersley et al., 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    AI has a highly specific role for affective empathy and TPJ for cognitive perspective taking as precursors of prosocial behavior.

    “Overall, our findings demonstrate highly specific roles of AI for affective empathy and TPJ for cognitive perspective taking as precursors of prosocial behavior”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Empathy and perspective taking likely act in concert.

    “although both social capacities likely act in concert (Lamm et al., 2011;Kanske et al., 2015b)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lamm et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kanske et al., 2015b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Psychopaths demonstrate a lack of empathy but are not impaired in perspective taking.

    “whereas psychopaths demonstrate a lack of empathy but are not impaired in perspective taking (Blair, 2008;Meffert et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Blair, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Meffert et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Domain-general attention shifts also contribute to generous behavior, but not in TPJ or AI.

    “suggesting that domain-general attention shifts also contribute to generous behavior (but not in TPJ or AI).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Empathy and perspective taking have been repeatedly linked to altruistic behavior.

    “Empathy and perspective taking have been repeatedly linked to altruistic behavior (Hare et al., 2010;Hein et al., 2010;Mathur et al., 2010;Masten et al., 2011;Telzer et al., 2011;Morishima et al., 2012;Rameson et al., 2012;Waytz et al., 2012;Morelli et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hare et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hein et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mathur et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the EmpaToM paradigm, AI reflects self-reported empathy, whereas ventral TPJ is selectively linked to perspective taking performance.

    “in a paradigm (EmpaToM) that simultaneously assesses and independently manipulates both processes (Kanske et al., 2015b), AI reflected self-reported empathy, whereas ventral TPJ was selectively linked to perspective taking performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kanske et al., 2015b

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Empathy with others' suffering involves the anterior insula (AI) and mid cingulate cortex (mCC).

    “Empathy with others' suffering has been suggested to involve the anterior insula (AI) and mid cingulate cortex (mCC) (Singer and Lamm, 2009;Kurth et al., 2010;Fan et al., 2011)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Singer and Lamm, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kurth et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fan et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Head movement of all participants was below the criterion of 3 mm/3° throughout the scanning session.

    “Head movement of all participants was found to be below the criterion of 3 mm/3° throughout the scanning session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The selection of voxels based on comparisons of task-related experimental conditions of interest is conceptually well grounded, data-driven, and completely independent from the donation task.

    “The selection of voxels based on comparisons of task-related experimental conditions of interest is conceptually well grounded, data-driven, and completely independent from the donation task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Behavioral measures of empathy and perspective taking are comparable with previous implementations of the EmpaToM task, suggesting that the implementation of the donation task did not affect these independent process measures.

    “Notably, behavioral measures of empathy and perspective taking are comparable with previous implementations of the Em-paToM task (Kanske et al., 2015b), suggesting that the implementation of the donation task did not affect these independent process measures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kanske et al., 2015b

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The 60 charities used in the task were selected based on pretests using independent samples.

    “The 60 charities used in the task were selected based on pretests using independent samples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The donation task data for one participant was excluded from further analyses due to insufficient generosity (<1%).

    “The donation task data for one participant was excluded from further analyses due to insufficient generosity (Ͻ1%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Similar results were obtained for using unsigned difference scores as a covariate (p < 0.001, uncorrected).

    “Similar results were obtained for using unsigned difference scores (͉␦ high 2 Ϫ ␦ low 2 ͉) as a covariate ( p Ͻ 0.001, uncorrected).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Bonferroni correction was used to adjust p values for multiple comparisons across the total of 12 independent tests.

    “Bonferroni correction was used to adjust p values for multiple comparisons across the total of 12 independent tests.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The attention data of one participant was excluded from the analysis because of exceedingly high error rates (90%).

    “The attention data of one participant was excluded from the analysis because of exceedingly high error rates (90%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Only correct trials were considered as input for the MVPA and the number of validly and invalidly cued trials was matched.

    “Only correct trials were considered as input for the MVPA and the number of validly and invalidly cued trials was matched.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Compared with validly cued targets, invalidly cued targets require reorienting of attention, reflected in increased reaction times.

    “Compared with validly cued targets (80%, 192 trials), invalidly cued targets (20%, 48 trials) require reorienting of attention as reflected in increased reaction times (Muller and Rabbitt, 1989).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Muller and Rabbitt, 1989

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The correlation between EmpaToM empathic responses and donation task empathy ratings was comparable when controlling for social desirability (r = 0.35, p = 0.064), indicating that the effect was not due to self-report biases or demand characteristics.

    “Correlation coefficients were comparable (r ϭ 0.35, p ϭ 0.064, two-tailed) when we controlled for social desirability as measured in a questionnaire score (Stöber, 2001), indicating that this effect was not due to self-report biases or demand characteristics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stöber, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The assignment of videos to high and low emotionality conditions in the EmpaToM task was defined a priori based on extensive validations of the EmpaToM paradigm.

    “The assignment of videos to both conditions was defined a priori based on extensive validations of the EmpaToM paradigm (Kanske et al., 2015b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kanske et al., 2015b

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    EmpaToM data of 2 participants were not available due to technical difficulties with the scanner.

    “due to technical difficulties with the scanner, EmpaToM data of 2 participants were not available.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Cluster-wise permutation-based null distributions were created for all other whole-brain searchlight decoding analyses, verifying theoretical chance levels without exception.

    “Cluster-wise permutation-based null distributions were also created for all other whole-brain searchlight decoding analyses, verifying theoretical chance levels (e.g., of 50% for binary clas-sifications) without exception.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Patients with autistic spectrum disorders frequently display impaired perspective taking but not necessarily impaired empathy.

    “Patients with autistic spectrum disorders frequently display impaired perspective taking (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985;Hoffmann et al., 2015) but not necessarily impaired empathy (Silani et al., 2008;Bird et al., 2010)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Baron-Cohen et al., 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hoffmann et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Silani et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    The results are consistent with previous findings on the neural network recruited for the Posner cueing paradigm.

    “Moreover, the results are consistent with previous findings on the neural network recruited for the Posner cueing paradigm (Corbetta et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Corbetta et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Psychopaths often lack empathy but are not impaired in perspective taking.

    “psychopaths often lack empathy but are not impaired in perspective taking (Blair, 2008;Meffert et al., 2013)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Blair, 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Meffert et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Distributed activation patterns of fMRI data have been suggested to reflect the underlying neural population code.

    “Interestingly, distributed activation patterns of fMRI data have even been suggested to reflect the underlying neural population code (Kamitani and Tong, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kamitani and Tong, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Effect sizes were generally small but were achieved using conservative cross-validation approaches and stringent statistical thresholding.

    “Although effect sizes were generally small, they were achieved using conservative cross-validation approaches and stringent statistical thresholding”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The results were found when controlling for the impact of all other post-test measures using serial orthogonalization.

    “Notably, these results were found when controlling for the impact of all other post-test measures (using serial orthogonalization as implemented in SPM in different GLMs that only differed in the order of covariates).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Neuroscience has started to shed light on the neural underpinnings of altruistic behavior, such as charitable giving, revealing a prominent role of areas such as AI, TPJ, pSTS, and mPFC for differences in prosociality across people and decision contexts.

    “Neuroscience has started to shed light on the neural underpinnings of altruistic behavior, such as charitable giving (Moll et al., 2006;Harbaugh et al., 2007), revealing a prominent role of areas such as AI, TPJ, pSTS, and mPFC for differences in prosociality across people and decision contexts”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Moll et al., 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Harbaugh et al., 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The right TPJ has a highly specific role for the neural encoding of perspective taking, and the right AI has a highly specific role in encoding empathic responses during charitable giving.

    “These findings suggest a highly specific role of the right TPJ for the neural encoding of perspective taking and of the right AI in encoding empathic responses during charitable giving.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    MVPA takes advantage of information contained in differential response biases across multiple voxels that are spatially distributed.

    “In contrast to conventional mass-univariate analysis of BOLD-response in single voxels, MVPA takes advantage of information contained in differential response biases across multiple voxels (which in turn are driven by population of neurons whose activity increases or decreases as a function of a variable/condition of interest) that are spatially distributed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    While recruitment of these areas during altruistic behavior has been suggested to reflect socio-affective and socio-cognitive processes, such as empathy or perspective taking, or domain-general attentional shifts, previous research has not distinguished specific contributions of these interrelated processes.

    “While recruitment of these areas during altruistic behavior has been suggested to reflect socio-affective and socio-cognitive processes, such as empathy or perspective taking, or domaingeneral attentional shifts, previous research has not distinguished specific contributions of these interrelated processes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    There is a double dissociation of information encoded in neural activity, with the AI reflecting the degree of empathy elicited by different charities and the TPJ reflecting the degree of perspective taking associated with each decision.

    “Together, these findings suggest a double dissociation of information encoded in neural activity, with AI reflecting the degree of empathy elicited by the different charities, and the TPJ reflecting the degree of perspective taking associated with each decision.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    AI mediates empathy and TPJ mediates perspective taking, but not deservingness, during altruistic behavior.

    “These findings demonstrate a high degree of functional specificity for AI (mediating empathy) and TPJ (mediating perspective taking, but not deservingness) (Hare et al., 2010) during altruistic behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hare et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationcitation

    Flexible recruitment of empathy might account for people's tendency to preferentially give to identified versus anonymous victims.

    “Flexible recruitment of empathy might also account for people's tendency to preferentially give to identified versus anonymous victims (Genevsky et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Genevsky et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

47 of 47

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Empathy and perspective taking are almost always studied in isolation, making it impossible to disentangle their behavioral and neural contributions to prosociality.

    “they are almost always studied in isolation, making it impossible to disentangle their behavioral and neural contributions to prosociality.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants can accurately reconstruct and report their engagement in empathy and perspective taking during the previous donation decisions in the scanner.

    “Importantly, participants were instructed to reconstruct and report their engagement in these processes during the previous donation decisions in the scanner.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Attentional shifts contribute to altruistic giving.

    “assuming that attentional shifts indeed contribute to altruistic giving, we hypothesized that neural responses that encode attentional reorienting might be reactivated during generous donations.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The computations and motivations that underlie the heterogeneity in human altruism are poorly understood.

    “The computations and motivations that underlie the heterogeneity in human altruism are poorly understood.”
4 of 4

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?

  • A recent study using donation choices for charity organizations showed that an extensive cortical network is involved in forming prosocial decisions.

    “For instance, using donation choices for charity organizations, a recent study [48 ] showed that an extensive cortical network is involved in forming such prosocial decisions.”

    From On the interaction of social affect and cognition: empathy, compassion and theory of mind (2018) · cites this paper as [48]

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Temporal-gyrus clusters are assigned to opposite hemispheres

    Minor

    The results describe the mid and inferior temporal gyrus clusters as left-sided, but Table 2 lists both as right-sided.

  • Attention-task table includes clusters below its stated size threshold

    Minor

    The results specify a cluster threshold greater than five voxels, yet Table 6 lists a TPJ/pSTS cluster of exactly five voxels.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tusche, A., Böckler, A., Kanske, P., Trautwein, F.-M., & Singer, T.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Society for Neuroscience
Published
2016-04-27
Volume
36
Issue
17
Pages
4719-4732
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
DOI
10.1523/jneurosci.3392-15.2016
PMC
PMC6601722
OpenAlex
W2343814767
Cited by
309
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 2
FWCI
42.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
altruistic giving, empathy, perspective taking, attentional reorienting, affective empathy, cognitive perspective taking, anterior insula, temporoparietal junction, superior temporal sulcus, charitable giving, individual differences, prosocial behavior, mentalization, neural decoding
MeSH terms
Adult, Altruism, Attention, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Decision Making, Empathy, Female, Germany, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Social Behavior, Temporal Lobe, Theory of Mind

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