↓ Skip to main content

The ethology of empathy: a taxonomy of real-world targets of need and their effect on observers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The ethology of empathy: a taxonomy of real-world targets of need and their effect on observers
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00488
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie D. Preston, Alicia J. Hofelich, R. Brent Stansfield

Abstract

Empathy is inherently interpersonal, but the majority of research has only examined observers. Targets of need have been largely held constant through hypothetical and fictionalized depictions of sympathetic distress and need. In the real world, people's response to life stressors varies widely-from stoicism to resilience to complete breakdown-variations that should profoundly influence the prosocial exchange. The current study examined naturally-varying affect in real hospital patients with serious chronic or terminal illness during videotaped interviews about quality of life. Participants viewed each video while psychophysiological data were recorded and then rated each patient's and their own emotion. Patients displayed three major emotion factors (disturbed, softhearted, and amused) that were used to classify them into five basic types (distraught, resilient, sanguine, reticent, wistful). These types elicited four major emotions in observers [personal distress (PD), empathic concern (EC), horror, pleasure], two of which were never discovered previously with fictionalized targets. Across studies and measures, distraught targets usually received the greatest aid, but approximately as many observers preferred the positive and likeable resilient patients or the quietly sad wistful targets, with multiple observers even giving their greatest aid to sanguine or reticent targets who did not display distress or need. Trait empathy motivated aid toward more emotive targets while perspective taking (PT) motivated aid for those who did not overtly display distress. A second study replicated key results without even providing the content of patients' speech. Through an ecological examination of real need we discovered variation and commonality in the emotional response to need that interacts strongly with the preferences of observers. Social interactions need to be studied in ethological contexts that retain the complex interplay between senders and receivers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Germany 1 1%
Hungary 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Unknown 87 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 14 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,221,061
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,037
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,187
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#170
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.