Ability to literally imagine oneself in another's shoes may be tied to empathy

Jun 23, 2009
This photo shows example stimuli from the perspective-taking task. Panel A. Back-facing condition; no perspective transformation is required. Panel B. Front-facing condition; requires imagined self-other transformation. Credit: Katharine N. Thakkar

New research from Vanderbilt University indicates the way our brain handles how we move through space -- including being able to imagine literally stepping into someone else's shoes -- may be related to how and why we experience empathy toward others.

The research was recently published in the online scientific journal PLoS ONE.

Empathy involves, in part, the ability to simulate the internal states of others. The authors hypothesized that our ability to manipulate, rotate and simulate mental representations of the physical world, including our own bodies, would contribute significantly to our ability to empathize.

"Our language is full of spatial metaphors, particularly when we attempt to explain or understand how other people think or feel. We often talk about putting ourselves in others' shoes, seeing something from someone else's point of view, or figuratively looking over someone's shoulder," Sohee Park, report co-author and professor of psychology, said. "Although future work is needed to elucidate the nature of the between empathy, spatial abilities and their potentially overlapping neural underpinnings, this work provides initial evidence that empathy might be, in part, spatially represented."

"We use spatial manipulations of mental representations all the time as we move through the physical world. As a result, we have readily available cognitive resources to deploy in our attempts to understand what we see. This may extend to our understanding of others' mental states," Katharine N. Thakkar, a psychology graduate student at Vanderbilt and the report's lead author, said. "Separate lines of neuroimaging research have noted involvement of the same brain area, the parietal cortex, during tasks involving visuo-spatial processes and empathy."

To test their that empathy and spatial processes are linked, the researchers designed an experiment in which subjects had to imagine themselves in the position of another person and make a judgment about where this other person's arm was pointing. The task required the subject to mentally transform their body position to that of the other person.

"We expected that the efficiency with which people could imagine these transformations would be associated with empathy," Thakkar said. "Because we were interested in linking spatial ability with empathy, we also included a very simple task of spatial attention called the line bisection task. This test involves looking at a horizontal line and marking the midpoint. Although this task is very simple, it appears to be a powerful way to assess subtle biases in spatial attention."

The researchers compared performance on the test with how empathetic the subjects reported themselves to be. They found that higher self-reported empathy was associated with paying more attention to the right side of space. Previous research has found that the left side of the face is more emotionally expressive than the right side. Since the left side of the face would be on the right side of the observer, it is possible that attending more to the expressive side of people's faces would allow one to better understand and respond to their mental state. These findings could also point to a role of the left hemisphere in empathy.

The researchers also found that in the female subjects only, the more empathetic people rated themselves, the longer they took to imagine themselves in the position of the person on the screen. Previous work has shown that women generally report more empathy than men and perform worse on tests of visuo-spatial abilities.

"Although it is somewhat counterintuitive that taking more time to imagine another's physical perspective was associated with more reported , people who were slower at the task might have been engaging more resources to imagine another's mental state, or may be using a slower and less automatic strategy on the task," Park said.

More information: The full article is available at: http://tinyurl.com/lw6qmv.

Source: Vanderbilt University (news : web)

Explore further: Objectification in romantic relationships related to sexual pressure and coercion

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

I feel your pain: Neural mechanisms of empathy

Jan 28, 2009

Is it possible to share a pain that you observe in another but have never actually experienced yourself? A new study uses a sophisticated brain-imaging technique to try and answer this question. The research, published by ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Smellyhat
not rated yet Jun 24, 2009
I guess the person who wrote the headline sort of failed to notice that THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS INVALIDATED THE ORIGINAL HYPOTHESIS.



And then the writer of the press release failed to notice that, when the researchers found that high self-reported empathy correlated to a leftwards bias on a line bisection test, this meant that THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ONCE AGAIN INVALIDATED THE ORIGINAL HYPOTHESIS.



My prejudices against the sort of speculative digression that the main article subsequently engages in - your hypothesis failed when tested, why should we expect anything different of your subsequent speculations - this is a really, really badly written press release. Slow Clap for Vanderbilt.
ontheinternets
not rated yet Jun 24, 2009
smellyhat:
".. the researchers found that high self-reported empathy correlated to a leftwards bias on a line bisection test"
I think you meant 'rightwards bias' (perhaps associated with viewing the left side of the face).
It's basically true that their hypothesis was invalidated. It's interesting however that the results hint at a negative correlation (which is in fact a positive correlation of another sort). So their initial guess was flawed (the possibility of this is what some would say makes it real research), but their process may be leading toward something useful.
Smellyhat
not rated yet Jun 24, 2009
@ontheinternets:

Yes, I agree that the experimental results will prove useful somewhere somehow, and there may have been decent science with respect to the original hypothesis. What does cause me some discomfort is the tendency to engage in compensatory speculation when faced with the invalidity of a hypothesis. I feel that this reflects an engagement with the personal, social ranking implications of experimental failure that will distort the entire experimental procedure, from design to analysis.

You're right, I got the leftward hypothesis and the rightward result switched around. Clearly not doing a good job of putting myself in their shoes.