Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Social Networks
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / s o c n e t
Empathic people have more friends: Empathic abilities predict social network size and position in social network predicts empathic efforts
Peter Kardos
a,∗, Bernhard Leidner
b, Csaba Pléh
c, Péter Soltész
d, Zsolt Unoka
eaDivisionofSocial&BehavioralScience,BloomfieldCollege,NJ,UnitedStates
bUniversityofMassachusettsAmherst,UnitedStates
cCentralEuropeanUniversity,HungaryandCollegiumdeLyon,France
dPázmányPéterCatholicUniversity,Hungary
eSemmelweisUniversity,Hungary
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Keywords:
Socialnetwork Empathy
Socialbrainhypothesis Empathicconcern
a b s t r a c t
Livinginlargegroupsandmaintainingextensivesocialrelationships,ashumansdo,requiresspecial socialcapabilities.Pastresearchhasshownthatsocialcognitiveabilitiespredictpeople’ssocialnetwork size.Toextendthesefindingsweexploredtheroleofasocialemotionalability,andinvestigatedhow empathicabilitiesshapepeople’ssocialnetwork.Inlinewiththesocialbrainhypothesisthefindings showthatdispositionalempathicabilities(IRI),andempathicconcernspecifically,predicthowmany closerelationshipspeoplemaintain.Thestudyalsofoundthatemphaticabilitiesarestrategicallyused inpeople’ssocialnetwork,withmoreempathyexercisedinthesupportgroupwithcloserrelation- ships.Thefindingsfurtherdemonstratethesocialfunctionofempathyandhighlighttheimportanceof understandingempathyintermsofitsstrategicexerciseamongvarioussocialrelationships.
©2017ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
Humansevolvedlivingingroups.Thereproductiveandsurvival benefitsthatgroups provided explainthebasichumanmotiva- tiontoestablishandmaintainsocialbonds(BaumeisterandLeary, 1995;Bowlby,1969;Buss,1990;Fiske,2010).Whilelivinginbig groupsprovidedprotection,maintainingmultipleandvariousrela- tionshipsandthusmaneuveringinacomplexsocialenvironment requiresspecialabilities.Humansadaptedwelltothisrequirement.
Infact,thesocialbrainhypothesisproposesthatitisforthereason ofmaintainingsocialrelationshipsthatsocialanimalshavedevel- opedlargebrainswithspecificsocialcapabilities(Dunbar,1993;
Dunbarand Shultz,2007).Aspecies’socialcapabilitiesnotonly enable,butalsolimit,thenumberofrelationshipsitsmemberscan maintain.Understandingandtrackingothers’mentalstatesinthe socialenvironmentdepletessocialcapabilities(Dávid-Barrettand Dunbar,2013)andbuildinguptrustandclosetiesrequirelarge timeinvestment(Sutcliffeetal.,2012).
Becauseoftimeandsocialcapabilitiesarefinite,peopleallo- catethemstrategicallyamongtheirrelationshipsintheirsocial network.Tobestusetheirlimitedcapabilities,therelationships inaperson’ssocialnetworkarestructuredinlayers.Individuals spendmoretimeandusemoretheirsocialcapabilitiesforthose
∗Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddress:peterkardos@bloomfield.edu(P.Kardos).
intheirsupportgroup—thenetwork’smostcentrallayercontain- ingtheclosestrelationshipswithhighcontactfrequency(Roberts andDunbar,2011).Theyinvestlesseffortintorelationshipsinthe lesscentralnetworklayers(Sutcliffeetal.,2012),likethesecond network layercalledsympathygroup,which containsimportant relationshipswithonaveragemonthlycontact(HillandDunbar, 2003);thethirdnetworklayerthatcontainslessimportantrela- tionships;orthefourthlayerthatcontainstheperipheralsocial relationships(KudoandDunbar,2001;Zhouetal.,2005).
Demonstratingtherelationshipbetweensocialcapabilitiesand network size,pastresearchfoundthat individualdifferencesin social-cognitiveabilitiespredictthenumberofrelationshipsthat peoplemaintain.Mentalisingisasocialcognitiveabilitythatallows peopletocorrectlyinferandrememberothers’higher-orderinten- tionsanddesires.Itwasfoundthatthebetterpeopleareableto mentalise,thelargeristheirsocial networkaswellasthebrain regionsassociatedwithintention-attribution(Dunbar,2012;Lewis etal.,2011;Powelletal.,2012;StillerandDunbar,2007).More specifically,people’smentalisingabilitypredictsthesizeoftheir supportgroups,whereaspeople’smemorycapacitypredictsthesize oftheirsympathygroups(StillerandDunbar,2007).
Sofarresearchhasfocusedontherolethatcognitiveabilities andthebrainregionsassociatedwiththemplayinpredictingthe numberofrelationshipspeoplemaintain.Psychologicalresearch, howeversuggeststhatsocialrelationshipsdependonboth cog- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.01.004
0378-8733/©2017ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
nitiveandaffectivecapabilities.Inthispaperwefocusonasocial affectivecapability,empathy,theabilitytounderstandandrelateto others’affectivestates,andinvestigatedif,andifso,how,itshapes people’ssocialnetworks.
Empathy
People’sunderstandingofothers’mentalstateslaysthefounda- tionofsocialinteractionsandbonding(TheoryofMind;Frithand Frith,1999;Herrmannetal.,2007).Boththeunderstandingofoth- ers’intentionsandattendingtotheiremotionalstatesarenecessary forsocialrelationshipstolast(Shamay-TsooryandAharon-Peretz, 2007).Infact,understandingothers’intentionsoremotionswith- outproperlyreactingtothemcansignalpsychopathic(Decetyetal., 2013)orMachiavellian(DaviesandStone,2003;JonesandPaulhus, 2009)personalitydisorder.Mentalisingability,forexample,corre- lateswithemotionrecognition,butitdoesnotpredictperformance onother empathicmeasures that are associated with properly reactingtothoseemotions,(Launayetal.,2015).Thecrucialcapa- bilitythatshapeshumans’understandingofandproperreactionto others’emotionalstatesiscalledempathy(Batson,1991,2009).
Empathyconnectsand unitespeoplewitheachother(Davis, 2004),andprovidesthe“socialglue”(Hoffman,2000)thatholds societiestogether (McDougall,1908/1923).Empathy evolved in mammalianspecies thatliveincomplexsocialgroups,facilitat- ing bonding and cooperation(de Waal, 2009; de Waal, 2012).
Importantly,peopledifferintheirempathicabilities.Theindividual differencesarepartlyduetogeneticcauses(Rodriguesetal.,2009) butempathicabilitiescanalsobeimprovedthroughlearning(e.g.
DecetyandFotopoulou,2015).
Giventhecentralroleofempathyinsocialinteractions(Batson, 2009),wehypothesizedthatindividualdifferencesindispositional empathicabilitieswouldexplainvariationinnetworksize.Specifi- cally,asemotionalclosenessandunderstandingismostimportant inthe supportgroup(vs.theouter layers),empathyshouldbe mostlikelypredictthesizeofthesupportgroup.Wethusexpected thatpeoplewithbetterdispositionalempathicabilitieswouldhave morerelationshipsintheirsupportgroup.Inlinewiththishypothe- sis,neuroimagingstudieshaveshownthatthesizeoftheamygdala –abrainregionthatplaysanimportantrole inempathicreac- tions(Decety,2010;DecetyandMichalska,2010)–predictssocial networksize(Bickartetal.,2011).
Thesocialbrainhypothesisalsosuggeststhatsocialcapabilities areunevenlyusedwithinone’ssocialnetwork.Peopledonotinvest theirlimitedsocialcapabilitieshomogeneouslyintheirsocialnet- work(Polletetal.,2013).Instead,theyexertdifferentlevelsofeffort tomaintainrelationshipsinthedifferentnetworklayers:morein thecentrallayers(i.e.supportgroup;Curryetal.,2012;Sutcliffe etal.,2012).Asaresult,peoplecanmaintaintheirmostimportant relationshipswithhighintensity(Binderetal.,2012;Robertsetal., 2009).Likemenatlising,empathyhasitslimitstoo.Peoplecannot empathizeatequallyhighlevelwitheveryonetheyknow,norcan theymanagetofeelthepainofeveryonetheyseesuffering(Cheng etal.,2007;Decetyetal.,2010;Slovic,2007).Wethuspredictedthat peoplewouldnotempathizeevenlyacrossdifferentnetworklay- ers.Becausepeoplearemostmotivatedtomaintaintheirintimate relationshipsthatalsoshouldrequirethemostempathiceffortto besustained,wehypothesizedthatpeoplewouldexercisemore empathyinrelationshipswithintheirsupportgroupinparticular, ratherthanrelationshipswithinothernetworklayers(e.g.sympa- thygroup).
Ourpredictionthatpeopleuseempathyselectivelytosustain somerelationshipsoverothersissupportedbysocialpsychologi- calresearch.Whileempathyisgenerallyhardwiredandautomatic (DecetyandIckes,2009;PrestonanddeWaal,2002),peoplecan
stillcontroltheirempathicresponses(HodgesandWegner,1997).
Strategicmotivationtoavoidexcessivedistressornegativeatti- tudestowardthetargetoftencurtailempathicresponses(Castano, 2012;Cikaraetal.,2011a,2011b;Decetyetal.,2010;Dovidioetal., 2010).Inotherwords,whilepeoplearepredisposedtowardsempa- thy(e.g.Davis,1980;Baron-CohenandWeelwright,2004), they modulatetheirpredisposedlevel ofempathy,exertingmore or lessempathydependingonthesituationand thetargetperson.
Extendingthismorenuancedunderstandingofempathy,wepre- dictedthat peoplesystematically varytheirempathic reactions evenamongtheirclosesocialrelationships.Totestthisassump- tion,inadditiontoexaminingpeople’sdispositionalempathyasa globaltrait(ascommonlydone),wealsoexaminedtheircontextu- alizedempathydirectedtowardsdifferentmembersintheirsocial network.
Method Participants
EightyAmericansrecruitedviaAmazonMechanicalTurkcom- pletedthestudyonline,usingQualtrics(Mage=34.58,SD=11.03, range:19–72;46female).Thesamplesizewasdeterminedbased onpastresearchtestingsimilarhypotheseswithsimilardesigns (e.g.,StillerandDunbar,2007).TheInstitutionalReviewBoardof thefirstauthor’shomeinstitutionhasreviewedandapprovedthe study.
Materialsandprocedure
Participantsfirstcompletedademographicquestionnaire,fol- lowedbytheInterpersonalReactivityIndex(IRI;Davis,1980)as a measure ofdispositionalempathy. TheIRI reflects themulti- dimensional nature of empathy, encompassing both empathic understandingofandreactionstoothers(Shamay-Tsoory,2011).
WeadministeredthreeoftheIRI’sfoursubscales,eachwithseven items(IRI’sfourthsubscaleofFantasy,assessingtheabilitytoimag- ineandexperiencetheemotionsoffictitiouscharacters,didnot pertaintoourtopicofinterestandwasnotmeasured).Theperspec- tivetaking(PT)subscalemeasuredpeople’sabilityandtendencyto viewtheworldfromothers’pointofview(e.g.WhenI’mupsetat someone,Iusuallytryto“putmyselfinhisshoes”forawhile).The empathicconcern(EC)subscalemeasuredthetendencytofeelfor othersandreactemotionallytoothers’misfortune(e.g.Iamoften quitetouchedbythingsthatIseehappen).Theempathicdistress(ED) subscalemeasuredhowwellpeoplecopewithemotionallydisturb- ingsituations(e.g.IsometimesfeelhelplesswhenIaminthemiddle ofaveryemotionalsituation).Participantsexpressedtheiragree- mentwitheachofthe21items,presentedinrandomorder,ona scalewiththeendpointslabeledStronglydisagree(1)andStrongly agree(9).Anexploratoryfactor analysisof allitemsresultedin threefactorscorrespondingtothethreeintendedsubscales.We thusaveragedthesevenitemsofeachsubscaleintothefollowing compositescores:perspectivetaking(M=6.73,SD=1.48,␣=0.89), empathicconcern(M=6.79,SD=1.64,␣=0.90),andempathicdis- tress(M=3.81,SD=1.86,␣=0.93).
Namegenerator
Toextractparticipants’socialnetworks,weaskedparticipants tolisttheiracquaintances(so-calledalters).Focusingonthecen- traltwonetworklayersofsupportandsympathygroup,weasked participantstolistonlythosealtersthattheywereincontactwith atleastoncepermonthandhadsomesortofpersonalrelationship with.Followingothers(HillandDunbar,2003;Polletetal.,2011), altersthatparticipantswereonlyincontactwithinworkenviron- ments,professionally(e.g.doctor),orbriefly(e.g.mailman),were
Table1
Correlationsbetweendispositionalempathicabilitiesandthesizeofthecentraltwonetworklayers.
Supportclique Sympathygroup Perspectivetaking Empathicconcern Empathicdistress Perspectivetaking r=0.22
p=0.049
r=−0.00 p=0.990
1 r=0.49
p<0.001
r=−0.19 p=0.086 Empathicconcern r=0.36
p=0.001
r=0.06 p=0.607
– 1 r=0.02
p=0.872 Empathicdistress r=0.10
p=0.382
r=0.05 p=0.655
– – 1
noteligibleunlesstheywerealsofriends.Participantscouldenter amaximumof22names.Participantswerethenaskedtoaddup toeightmorenamestothelist,forpeoplewhomtheyfeltemo- tionallyclosetoregardlessofcontactfrequency,aswellastheir parents,siblings,spousesand/orchildreniftheyhadnotlistedthem previously.
Alterquestionnaire
Next,participantsanswereda seriesofquestionsabouteach altertheylisted.Participantsreportedthealter’sage,gender,how frequentlytheywereincontactwiththealter(onafive-pointscale:
Everyday/nearlyeveryday;Atleastonceaweek;Atleastonceevery twoweeks;Atleast onceamonth;Lessthenonce amonth), their empathytowardthealteraswellasclosenesstothealter.Foreach question,thealter’snameappearedinthequestiontext(e.g.Whatis theageofHenry?).Participants’empathytowardthealterwasmea- suredwiththreeitems,oneforeachofthethreemeasuredaspects oftheIRI:alter-levelperspectivetaking(IeasilyadoptHenry’spoint ofviewandimaginehowIwouldfeelinhisplace,M=6.25,SD=1.51);
alter-levelempathicconcern(Ioftenhavetender,concernedfeelings whenHenryishavingproblems;M=6.90,SD=1.49;andalter-level empathicdistress(IfHenryneededhelpinanemergencyorveryemo- tionalsituation,Iwouldprobablyfeeldistressedandanxious;M=5.91, SD=2.05). These itemsweremeasured oncontinuousanalogue scalesrangingfromStronglydisagree(1)toStronglyagree(9).Par- ticipants’closenesstothealter(Howclosedoyoufeelemotionallyto Henry?M=6.54,SD=1.54)wasmeasuredonacontinuousanalogue scalefromNotatall(1)toVerymuch(9).
Followingothers(Polletetal.,2011;DunbarandSpurs,1995;
Hill and Dunbar, 2003), the support group was operationally definedasthesetofalterswithwhomparticipantshadatleast weeklycontactandscoredabovethe80thpercentileonemotional closeness.Thesympathygroupwasdefinedasthesetofalterswith whomparticipantshadlessthanweeklybutatleastmonthlycon- tact,regardlessofemotionalcloseness.Thehierarchicallayersof thesocialnetworkarecommonlyunderstoodtobeinclusive,mean- ingthattheouterlayersincludethealtersofthemorecentrallayers (butnotviceversa).Allaltersinthesupportgroup,forexample,also belongtothesympathygroup,whilethealtersinthesympathy groupdonotnecessarilyalsobelongtothesupportgroup.Based onthisoperationaldefinitionofsupportandsympathygroup,the meansupportgroupsizewas3.57(SD=3.06)andthemeansym- pathygroupsizewas8.47(SD=5.56),bothfallingintothetypical rangeofthesegroups’sizesfoundin pastresearch(Zhouetal., 2005).Yet,becauseweaimedtoassesshowdispositionalempathic abilitiespredictthesizeof thedifferentnetwork layersas well asthevariationofcontextualized,alter-levelempathicreactions indifferentlayers,anon-inclusive,mutuallyexclusiveoperational definitionofsupportandsympathygroupwasstatisticallymore accurateforourpurposes(seealsoPolletetal.,2011;Robertsetal., 2008).Thisway,theresultsforthesympathygroupcouldnotbe confoundedwithanyoverlapbetweensympathygroupandsup- portgroupinclusivelydefined.Definingthegroupsinthisexclusive way,themeansupportgroupsizewasofcourseidenticaltoitssize
accordingtotheinclusivedefinition(M=3.57,SD=3.06),butthe meansympathygroupsizewas4.90(SD=4.22).
Results
Dispositionalempathyasapredictorofnetworklayersize
Firstwetestedthehypothesisthatdispositionalempathywould predictthesizeofthesupport(butnotsympathy)groupinone’s social network. Similarly toothers whopredictednetwork size basedonsocial-cognitivecapabilities(e.g.Lewisetal.,2011),weran acorrelationalanalysiswiththethreefacetsofdispositionalempa- thy(IRI)andthesizeofthesupportandsympathygroup.Consistent withpastresearchonmentalising,thesizeofthesupportgroup wassignificantlycorrelatedwithperspectivetaking,themorecog- nitivecomponentofempathy(Davis,1980;Shamay-Tsoory,2011), r=0.22, p=0.049.Importantly, however, it alsocorrelated with empathicconcern,theaffectivecomponent ofempathy,r=0.36, p=0.001.Empathicdistressdidnotcorrelatewithsupportgroup size,r=0.10,p=0.381.Thesizeofsympathygroup,ontheother hand, was not predicted by any of the empathic abilities (see Table1).Noneoftheempathysub-scaleswassignificantlycorre- latedwithemotionalclosenessinthesupportorinthesympathy group,allrs<0.19,allps>0.10.
Becausethethreetypesofempathicabilitiescorrelatedwith eachother(whilemulticollinearitywasnotpresent:nocompo- nentcontributedtomorethan0.15proportionofvariationoftwo predictorvariables),wefurthertested theirindependenteffects onsupportandsympathygroupsizeswithmultipleregression.
Supportgroupsizewasonlypredictedsignificantlybyempathic concern,ˇ=0.31,t(76)=2.54,p=0.013.Itwasnotpredictedany- morebyperspectivetakingoncetheoverlapbetweenperspective taking and empathic concern and distress was accounted for, p=0.470.Sympathygroup sizewasnot influenced significantly by anypredictor.These resultsalsoheldwhen we additionally controlledforemotionalcloseness.Thesepatternssupportedour hypothesis that above and beyondmore cognitive elementsof empathy, dispositional empathic concern – the affective com- ponent of empathy – determines how many very close social relationshipspeoplemaintain.
Table2
Meansandstandarderrorsofthedifferenttypesofalter-levelempathybynetwork layer.
Supportgroup Sympathy
group Perspectivetaking M=0.52
SE=0.073
M=−0.27 SE=0.071 Empathicconcern M=0.57
SE=0.073
M=−0.28 SE=0.071 Empathicdistress M=0.34
SE=0.073
M=−0.17 SE=0.071
Table3
tvaluesandpvaluesofthepairwisecomparisonsofempathytypeswithinandbetweenlayers.
Empathicconcern –supportgroup
Empathicdistress– supportgroup
Perspectivetaking –sympathygroup
Empathicconcern –sympathygroup
Empathicdistress– sympathygroup Perspectivetaking–supportgroup t=−0.88
p=0.375
t=3.05 p=0.002
t=9.66 p<0.001
t=9.81 p<0.001
t=8.45 p<0.001
Empathicconcern–supportgroup t=3.94
p<0.001
t=10.29 p<0.001
t=10.44 p<0.001
t=9.08 p<0.001
Empathicdistress– supportgroup t=7.48
p<0.001
t=7.63 p<0.001
t=6.27 p<0.001
Perspectivetaking–sympathygroup t=0.25
p=0.801
t=−1.96 p=0.050
Empathicconcern–sympathygroup t=−2.21
p=0.027
Contextualizedempathyasapredictorofnetworklayersize
Nextwetestedthehypothesisthatpeopledistributetheircon- textualized empathy unevenly among the alters in their social networkandexertmoreempathytowardthealtersintheirsupport thanintheirsympathygroup.Heretheunitsofobservationwere thealtersthatparticipantslisted,andthedependentvariableswere thethreetypesofalter-levelempathythatparticipantsreportedto experiencetowardeachalter(i.e.,alter-levelperspectivetaking, alter-levelempathicconcern,and alter-levelempathicdistress).
Wethustransposedthedatasothatalterswerethe“cases,”result- inginasmanycasesforeachparticipantasthenumberofalters theyhadlisted,multipliedbythenumberoftypesofalter-level empathy(i.e.3).Thus,hereweused801observationsandthetrans- poseddatasethad2007cases.Weranageneralizedlinearmixed modelwithalter-levelempathicconcern,perspectivetaking,and empathicdistressasdependentvariables,typeofalter-levelempa- thy(empathicconcern,perspectivetaking,empathicdistress)as three-levelwithin-subjectfactor,typeofsocialnetworklayer(sup- portgroupvs.sympathygroup)astwo-levelwithin-subjectfactor, andparticipantsasrandomfactor.
Typeof alter-levelempathy didnot havea significantmain effect, F(2, 1855)=1.23, p=0.294. As predicted, however, type of social network layer did have a significant main effect, F(1,67)=109.69, p<0.001,with peopleexercising more empa- thytoward altersin theirsupport(M=0.48, SE=0.065) than in theirsympathy group(M=−0.24, SE=0.064). This pattern held generallytrueforalltypesofalter-levelempathy:empathiccon- cern,t(1855)=10.44,p<0.001,perspectivetaking,t(1855)=9.66, p<0.001and empathicdistress,t(1855)=6.27, p<0.001(forthe meansandstandarderrorsofeachempathicabilityineachnet- worklayerseeTable2).Addingparticipants’gender,ageorbothas predictorsdidnotchangeresults.
Theinteractionbetweenthetypeoflayerandthetypeofempa- thy was also significant, F(2, 1855)=11.08, p<0.001. Empathic concernand perspective taking didnot differ from each other significantlyinthesupportgroup,t(1855)=0.89p=0.375,orthe sympathygroup,t(1855)=−0.25 p=0.806,butevery otherpos- siblepairwisecomparison wassignificant,ts>1.96, ps<0.05, or marginallysignificantasforthecomparisonbetweenperspective takingandempathicdistressinthesympathygroup(seeTable3).
Peoplethusexertedmoreempathytowardtheiraltersinthesup- port than in the sympathy group, with empathic concern and perspectivetakingbeingequallyandprimarilyimportantinthe supportgroup,andmoresothaninthesympathygroup.Inother words,peopleutilizetheirempathicabilitiesinastrategicpattern tomaintaintheirclosestsocialrelationships.
Totestiftheresultsholdifwecontrolledforthepossibleeffects ofthedispositionalempathies,weranagainthegeneralizedlin- earmixedmodelbutnowaddingthethreetypesofdispositional empathiesascovariates.Thislefttheresultsvirtuallythesame.
Thenwetestedifthedegreeofthedifferenttypesofdispositional empathieswouldqualifythereportedresults.Forthatreason,we ranagainthegeneralizedlinearmixedmodelbutnowintroduc- ingthethreedispositionalempathicabilities(empathicconcern, perspectivetakingandempathicdistress)asthreeseparatecontin- uousmoderatorvariables.Noneofthetwo-wayinteractionterms betweenthedispositionalempathicabilitiesandthetypeoflay- ersorthethree-wayinteractiontermsbetweenthedispositional empathicabilities,thetypeoflayersandthetypeofempathywas significant,allFs<2.31,allps>0.10.
Discussion
Supportingandfurtherextendingthesocialbrainhypothesis, the findings show that similarly to cognitive social capabili- ties,affectivesocialcapabilitiesalsopredictthenumberof core relationships in people’s social networks. People with higher dispositionalempathicabilities,andspecificallywithhigherdis- positionalempathicconcern,maintainedmorecloserelationships.
Thissuggeststhatbesidestheabilitytounderstandandtrackoth- ers’intentionsanddesires(StillerandDunbar,2007),theability tounderstandand reacttoothers’affectivestatesplayacritical roleinsuccessfullynavigatingacomplexsocialworld.Thisheld trueforpeople’ssupportgroupsinparticular—thatis,people’smost importantandintimaterelationshipsinlife.Ourdataindicatethat themaintenanceoftheserelationshipsrequires,oratleastbenefits from,mutualemotionalunderstandingandconcern.Relationships intheouterlayers,ontheotherhand,arelesscharacterizedwith deepemotionalunderstandingandattention.Ourdatashowthat therelationshipsinpeople’ssympathygroupsdonotrelyasmuch onmutualemotionalunderstandingandconcern.
In addition to contributing to research on social networks and thesocial brain hypothesis, thepresent researchalso con- tributestopsychologicaltheoryandresearchonempathy.First,it demonstratesempathy’sfunctionalroleinmaintainingsocialrela- tionshipsandlendssupporttotheoriessuggestingthatempathy evolvedinmammalianspeciesasaninstrumentofthesocialbrain.
Further,ithighlightstheimportanceofunderstandingempathyin termsofitsdistributionamongsocialrelationships–inadditionto themorecommonunderstandingofempathicabilitiesasadispo- sitionortrait.Whilepeopleoftenregulatetheirempathicefforts withrespecttootherswhomightcausethemdistressorwhom theyrelatetonegatively,thepresent findingsshowthatpeople alsoregulatetheirempathicefforts withrespecttoothers who areemotionallyclosetothem,dependingonthetargets’position inthesocialnetwork anditsassociatedneedtobeemphasized withinordertomaintaintherelationship.Thus,itappearsthat people’ssocialnetworksarenotonlydeterminedbypeople’sover- all,trait-levelempathy.Theyappeartobedeterminedinamore fine-grainedmanner,bypeople’scontextualizedempathyforspe- cificothersintheirnetworks.Specifically,peopleunevenlyutilized
theirempathicabilityacrosstheirsocialnetwork,withmoreempa- thygoingtowardstheclosestrelationshipsinthesupportgroup andlesstowardsrelativelylesscloserelationshipsinthesympathy group.Inthissense,people’sdispositionalempathycanbethought ofassettinganoveralllimittoempathicabilitiestomaintainsocial relationships.Atthesametime,peopleareabletomakedifferen- tial,context-specificuseoftheirempathicabilitiesdependingon thepositionofanygivenrelationshipintheirsocialnetwork.This way,peoplecanmostefficientlyusetheirempathicabilityasthe socialcontextdemands.
References
Batson,C.D.,1991.TheAltruismQuestion:TowardaSocial-PsychologicalAnswer.
Erlbaum,Hillsdale,NJ.
Batson,C.D.,2009.Thesethingscalledempathy:eightrelatedbutdistinct phenomena.In:Decety,J.,Ickes,W.(Eds.),TheSocialNeuroscienceof Empathy.MITPress,Cambridge,MA,pp.3–15.
Baumeister,R.F.,Leary,M.R.,1995.Theneedtobelong:desireforinterpersonal attachmentsasafundamentalhumanmotivation.Psychol.Bull.117,497–529.
Bickart,K.C.,Wright,C.I.,Dautoff,R.J.,Dickerson,B.C.,Barrett,L.F.,2011.Amygdala volumeandsocialnetworksizeinhumans.Nat.Neurosci.14,163–164.
Binder,J.,Roberts,S.,Sutcliffe,A.,2012.Closeness,loneliness:support:coreties andsignificanttiesinpersonalcommunities.Soc.Netw.34,206–214.
Bowlby,J.,1969/1982.AttachmentandLoss.BasicBooks,NewYork,NY.
Buss,D.M.,1990.Theevolutionofanxietyandsocialexclusion.J.Soc.Clin.Psychol.
9,196–201.
Castano,E.,2012.Antisocialbehaviorinindividualsandgroups:an
empathy-focusedapproach.In:Deaux,Kay,Snyder,Mark(Eds.),Handbookof PersonalityandSocialPsychology.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYorkand Oxford,pp.419–445.
Cikara,M.,Botvinick,M.M.,Fiske,S.T.,2011a.Usversusthem:socialidentity shapesneuralresponsestointergroupcompetitionandharm.Psychol.Sci.22, 306–313.
Cikara,M.,Bruneau,E.,Saxe,R.,2011b.Usandthem:intergroupfailuresof empathy.Curr.Dir.Psychol.Sci.20,149–153.
Curry,O.,Roberts,S.,Dunbar,R.,2012.Altruisminsocialnetworks:evidencefora kinshippremium.Br.J.Psychol.104,283–295.
Dávid-Barrett,T.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2013.Processingpowerlimitssocialgroupsize:
computationalevidenceforthecognitivecostsofsociality.Proc.R.Soc.Lond.B 280,1765.
Davis,M.H.,1980.Amultidimensionalapproachtoindividualdifferencesin empathy.JSASCat.Sel.Doc.Psychol.10,85.
Davis,M.H.,2004.Empathy:negotiatingtheborderbetweenselfandother.In:
Tiedens,L.Z.,Leach,C.W.(Eds.),TheSocialLifeofEmotions.StudiesinEmotion andSocialInteraction.CambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork,NY,pp.19–42.
Decety,J.,Fotopoulou,A.,2015.Whyempathyhasabeneficialimpactonothersin medicine–unifyingtheories.Front.Behav.Neurosci.8,457.
Decety,J.,Ickes,W.(Eds.),2009.TheSocialNeuroscienceofEmpathy.MITPress, Cambridge,MA.
Decety,J.,Michalska,K.J.,2010.Neurodevelopmentalchangesinthecircuits underlyingempathyandsympathyfromchildhoodtoadulthood.Dev.Sci.13, 886–899.
Decety,J.,Yang,C.-Y.,Cheng,Y.,2010.Physiciansdown-regulatetheirpain empathyresponse:anevent-relatedbrainpotentialstudy.Neuroimage50, 1676–1682.
Decety,J.,Chen,C.,Harenski,C.L.,Kiehl,K.A.,2013.AnfMRIstudyofaffective perspectivetakinginindividualswithpsychopathy:imagininganotherinpain doesnotevokeempathy.Front.Hum.Neurosci.7,489.
Decety,J.,2010.Towhatextentistheexperienceofempathymediatedbyshared neuralcircuits?Emot.Rev.2,204–207.
Dovidio,J.F.,Johnson,J.D.,Gaertner,S.L.,Pearson,A.R.,Saguy,T.,Ashburn-Nardo,L., 2010.Empathyandintergrouprelations.In:Mikulincer,M.,Shaver,P.R.(Eds.), ProsocialMotives,Emotions,andBehavior:TheBetterAngelsofOurNature.
AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Washington,DC,pp.393–408.
Dunbar,R.I.M.,Shultz,S.,2007.Evolutioninthesocialbrain.Science317, 1344–1347.
Dunbar,R.I.M.,1993.Coevolutionofneocorticalsize:groupsizeandlanguagein humans.Behav.BrainSci.16,681–735.
Dunbar,R.I.M.,2012.Thesocialbrainmeetsneuroimaging.TrendsCogn.Sci.16, 101–102.
Fiske,S.T.,2010.SocialBeings:CoreMotivesinSocialPsychology.Wiley,NewYork.
Frith,C.,Frith,U.,1999.Interactingminds–Abiologicalbasis.Science286, 1692–1695.
Herrmann,E.,Call,J.,Hernandez-Lloreda,M.V.,Hare,B.,Tomasello,M.,2007.
Humanshaveevolvedspecializedskillsofsocialcognition:thecultural intelligencehypothesis.Science317,1360–1366.
Hill,R.A.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2003.Socialnetworksizeinhumans.Hum.Nat.14,53–72.
Hodges,S.D.,Wegner,D.M.,1997.Automaticandcontrolledempathy.In:Ickes,W.
(Ed.),EmpathicAccuracy.Guilford,NewYork,NY,pp.311–339.
Hoffman,M.L.,2000.EmpathyandMoralDevelopment:ImplicationsforCaring andJustice.UniversityPress,NewYork:Cambridge.
Kudo,H.,Dunbar,R.,2001.Neocortexsizeandsocialnetworksizeinprimates.
Anim.Behav.62,711–722.
Launay,J.,Pearce,E.,Wlodarski,R.,vanDuijn,M.,Carney,J.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2015.
Higher-ordermentalisingandexecutivefunctioning.Personal.Individ.Differ.
86,6–14.
Lewis,P.A.,Rezaie,R.,Brown,R.,Roberts,N.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2011.Ventromedial prefrontalvolumepredictsunderstadingothersandsocialnetworksize.
Neuroimage57,1624–1629.
McDougall,W.,1923.AnIntroductiontoSocialPsychology,18thed.Methuen, London,UK(Originalworkpublished1908).
Pollet,T.V.,Roberts,S.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2011.Extravertshavelargersocialnetwork layersbutdonotfeelemotionallyclosertoindividualsatanylayer.J.Individ.
Differ.32,161–169.
Pollet,T.V.,Roberts,S.G.B.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2013.Goingthatextramile:individuals travelfurthertomaintainface-to-facecontactwithhighlyrelatedkinthan withlessrelatedkin.PLoSOne8(1),e53929.
Powell,J.,Lewis,P.,Roberts,N.,García-Fi ˜nana,M.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2012.Orbital prefrontalcortexvolumepredictssocialnetworksize:animagingstudyof individualdifferencesinhumans.Proc.R.Soc.Lond.B,2157–2162.
Preston,S.D.,deWaal,F.B.M.,2002.Empathy:itsultimateandproximatebases.
Behav.BrainSci.25,1–71.
Roberts,S.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2011.Communicationinsocialnetworks:effectsof kinship,networksizeandemotionalcloseness.Pers.Relatsh.18,439–452.
Roberts,S.,Wilson,R.,Fedurek,P.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2008.Individualdifferencesand personalsocialnetworksizeandstructure.Personal.Individ.Differ.44, 954–964.
Roberts,S.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,Pollet,T.,Kuppens,T.,2009.Exploringvariationsin activenetworksize:constraintsandegocharacteristics.Soc.Netw.31, 138–146.
Rodrigues,S.M.,Saslow,L.R.,Garcia,N.,John,O.P.,Keltner,D.,2009.Oxytocin receptorgeneticvariationrelatestoempathyandstressreactivityinhumans.
Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.106,21437–21441.
Shamay-Tsoory,S.G.,2011.Theneuralbasesforempathy.Neuroscientist17, 18–24.
Shamay-Tsoory,S.G.,Aharon-Peretz,J.,2007.Dissociableprefrontalnetworksfor cognitiveandaffectivetheoryofmind:Alesionstudy.Neuropsychologia45, 3054–3067.
Stiller,J.,Dunbar,R.,2007.Perspective-takingandmemorycapacitypredictsocial networksize.Soc.Netw.29,93–104.
Sutcliffe,A.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,Binder,J.,Arrow,H.,2012.Relationshipsandthesocial brain:integratingpsychologicalandevolutionaryperspectives.Br.J.Psychol.
103,149–168.
Zhou,W.-X.,Sornette,D.,Hill,R.A.,Dunbar,R.I.M.,2005.Discretehierarchical organizationofsocialgroupsizes.Proc.R.Soc.Lond.B272,439–444.
deWaal,F.B.M.,2009.TheAgeofEmpathy:Nature’sLessonsforaKinderSociety.
HarmonyBooks,NewYork,NY.
deWaal,F.B.M.,2012.Theantiquityofempathy.Science336,874–876.
