Gender differences in empathic responses to others’ economic payoffs: an event-related potentials study
Although gender differences in empathy have been well established through measuring subjective outcomes, some studies of the neural mechanisms of pain empathy have not found gender differences. This inconsistent evidence may be caused by different research methods or different paradigms. The present study adopted a different approach from the pain empathy paradigm to examine gender differences in empathic responses to others’ economic payoffs using event-related potentials. The results showed that the N2 amplitudes in female participants were more negative than those in male participants, indicating a greater female than male susceptibility to facial expressions at the early stage of empathy. The LPP amplitudes for male participants were found to be more positive in the observation condition (involving no self-interest) than in the participation condition (involving self-interest), but there was no significant difference in the LPP amplitudes for the female participants between the two conditions. The results suggest that females’ empathic responses are more likely to be elicited automatically by the perception of others’ emotional states. In contrast, males’ empathic responses are more likely to be mediated by self-interest, which subsequently reduces their empathic responses.
KeywordsAffective empathy Cognitive empathy N2 Late positive potential (LPP) Event-related potential
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 31771218), the Major Program of the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 14ZDB259), and the Educational Science Project during the Twelfth Five-year Plan Period of Hainan, China (Grant no. QJY1251505).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of South China Normal University and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S (2004) The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism, and normal sex differences. J Autism Dev Disord 34(2):163–175Google Scholar
- Baron-Cohen S, Knickmeyer R, Belmonte MK (2005) Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining autism. Science 310(5749):819–823Google Scholar
- Berthoz S, Wessa M, Kedia G, Wicker B, Grezes J (2008) Cross-cultural validation of the empathy quotient in a French-speaking sample. Can J Psychiatry 53(7):469–477Google Scholar
- Cheng Y, Chou K, Decety J, Chen I, Hung DM, Tzeng OJ, Lin C (2009) Sex differences in the neuroanatomy of human mirror-neuron system: a voxel-based morphometric investigation. Neuroscience 158(2):713–720Google Scholar
- Cheng Y, Chen C, Decety J (2014) An EEG/ERP investigation of the development of empathy in early and middle childhood. Dev Cogn Neurosci 10:160–169Google Scholar
- Collignon O, Girard S, Gosselin F, Saint-Amour D, Lepore F, Lassonde M (2010) Women process multisensory emotion expressions more efficiently than men. Neuropsychologia 48(1):220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.007 Google Scholar
- Cuthbert BN, Schupp HT, Bradley MM, Birbaumer N, Lang PJ (2000) Brain potentials in affective picture processing: covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biol Psychol 52(2):95–111Google Scholar
- Davis MH (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 44(1):113–126Google Scholar
- Decety J (2011) Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy. Emot Rev 3:92–108Google Scholar
- Decety J, Michalska KJ, Kinzler KD (2012) The contribution of emotion and cognition to moral sensitivity: a neurodevelopmental study. Cereb Cortex 22(1):209–220Google Scholar
- Decety J, Lewis KL, Cowell JM (2015) Specific electrophysiological components disentangle affective sharing and empathic concern in psychopathy. J Neurophysiol 114(1):493–504Google Scholar
- Eagly AH (2009) The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. Am Psychol 64(8):644–658Google Scholar
- Fan Y, Han S (2008) Temporal dynamic of neural mechanisms involved in empathy for pain: an event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia 46(1):160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.023 Google Scholar
- Gneezy U, Leonard KL, List JA (2008) Gender differences in competition: evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 77(5):1637–1664Google Scholar
- Groen Y, Wijers AA, Tucha O, Althaus M (2013) Are there sex differences in ERPs related to processing empathy-evoking pictures? Neuropsychologia 51(1):142–155Google Scholar
- Hampson E, Vananders S, Mullin L (2006) A female advantage in the recognition of emotional facial expressions: test of an evolutionary hypothesis. Evol Hum Behav 27(6):401–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.002 Google Scholar
- Ibanez A, Hurtado E, Lobos A, Escobar J, Trujillo N, Baez S, … Decety J (2011) Subliminal presentation of other faces (but not own face) primes behavioral and evoked cortical processing of empathy for pain. Brain Res 1398:72–85Google Scholar
- Itagaki S, Katayama J (2008) Self-relevant criteria determine the evaluation of outcomes induced by others. Neuroreport 19(3):383–387Google Scholar
- Klein KJ, Hodges SD (2001) Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: when it pays to understand. Pers Soc Psychol B 27(6):720–730Google Scholar
- Lamm C, Decety J, Singer T (2011) Meta-analytic evidence for common and distinct neural networks associated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. NeuroImage 54(3):2492–2502Google Scholar
- Lawrence E, Shaw P, Baker D, Baroncohen S, David AS (2004) Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient. Psychol Med 34(5):911–919Google Scholar
- Luo P, Zheng X, Chen X, Li Y, Wang J, Deng L, Zheng X (2014) Sex differences in affective response to different intensity of emotionally negative stimuli: an event-related potentials study. Neurosci Lett 578:85–89Google Scholar
- Michalska KJ, Kinzler KD, Decety J (2013) Age-related sex differences in explicit measures of empathy do not predict brain responses across childhood and adolescence. Dev Cogn Neurosci 3:22–32Google Scholar
- Niedenthal PM (2007) Embodying emotion. Science 316:1002–1005Google Scholar
- Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Q J Econ 122(3):1067–1101Google Scholar
- Perry A, Bentin S, Bartal IB, Lamm C, Decety J (2010) “Feeling” the pain of those who are different from us: modulation of EEG in the mu/alpha range. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 10(4):493–504Google Scholar
- Reniers RL, Corcoran R, Drake R, Shryane N, Vollm B (2011) The QCAE: a questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. J Pers Assess 93(1):84–95Google Scholar
- Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD (2003) The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science 300(5626):1755–1758Google Scholar
- Topcu C, Erdur-Baker O (2012) Affective and cognitive empathy as mediators of gender differences in cyber and traditional bullying. Sch Psychol Int 33(5):550–561Google Scholar
- World Medical Organization (1999) Declaration of Helsinki (1964). Br Med J 313:1448–1449Google Scholar