Cited by 92Action Observation and SynchronizationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyChild and Animal Learning Development

The influence of group membership on the neural correlates involved in empathy

Open access
Eres, Robert, Molenberghs, Pascal·2013·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Abstract

Empathy involves affective, cognitive, and emotion regulative components. The affective component relies on the sharing of emotional states with others and is discussed here in relation to the human Mirror System. On the other hand, the cognitive component is related to understanding the mental states of others and draws upon literature surrounding Theory of Mind (ToM). The final component, emotion regulation, depends on executive function and is responsible for managing the degree to which explicit empathic responses are made. This mini-review provides information on how each of the three components is individually affected by group membership and how this leads to in-group bias.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00176

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • A large body of research documents that there is a racial gap in empathy, in which individuals have empathic responses to members of their own group but not to members of a racial outgroup.

    “A large body of research documents that there is a racial gap in empathy, in which individuals have empathic responses to members of their own group but not to members of a racial outgroup [109].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eres, R., & Molenberghs, P.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Molenberghs, Pascal
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2013
Volume
7
Pages
176-176
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027504557
Cited by
92
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3
FWCI
14.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
empathy, group membership, mirror system, theory of mind, emotion regulation, executive function, in-group favoritism, affective empathy, cognitive empathy, neural correlates of empathy

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