基于心理生理学视角的共情研究:方法与特点
Empathy: Methodologies and characteristics from a psychophysiological perspective
查看参考文献108篇
|
文摘
|
共情使个体能够理解并分享他人的感受,对人际交往有重要意义.近年来,基于量表、行为范式、生理信号等多个层面的共情研究方法有了长足进展,为研究不同维度的共情(如情绪共情、认知共情)的机制提供了多方面的信息.然而,由于“共情”缺乏统一定义,研究者根据各自理解开发了多样化的研究方法,这阻碍了对现有共情研究结果的比较和整合.本文基于情绪共情和认知共情两个维度对量表、行为范式、生理信号3个层面的常用共情研究方法进行了分类总结.首先,本文围绕共情概念、测量维度等方面简要介绍若干影响力较大的共情量表,如情绪倾向量表、霍根共情量表、人际反应指针量表等.其次,本文总结并比较针对不同共情维度的常用实验材料及行为范式的特点.再次,本文系统介绍如何在共情研究中利用面部肌电、脑电、脑磁和磁共振成像等方法提取共情相关的生理信号并分析其特点.最后,本文综合对比不同层面共情研究方法的特点,并建议研究人员根据研究需要谨慎选择研究方法.此外,针对当前共情研究存在的可比性问题和生态效度问题,建议对不同研究结果进行比较和整合时特别注意共情概念是否一致;未来研究需开发更具生态效度的行为范式,重点探究共情的动态加工过程. |
|
其他语种文摘
|
Empathy is an essential skill in our social lives, allowing us to understand and share others' feelings. In the last decade, empathy has been a hot topic in cognitive neuroscience for its important role in social interaction. To date, there are a variety of definitions of the term “empathy”, such as “a reaction to the observed experiences of another” and “the ability to experience and understand what others feel without confusion between oneself and others”. Based on different definitions of empathy, different methodologies have been developed and adopted in the field of empathy research. Valid empathy questionnaires are developed to provide ones' subjective evaluation about their empathy ability (i.e., trait empathy); behavioral paradigms are designed to measure individuals' empathy levels under a specific context (i.e., state empathy); physiological techniques and brain imaging techniques are useful in detecting objective physiological signals related to empathy. However, some findings on empathy are mixed and inconsistent, which might be due to the different definitions and methodologies adopted by each study. To deepen our understanding of empathy and its psychological mechanisms, it is necessary to integrate different methodologies and interpret results from different aspects. To this end, this review first summarized how empathy is typically measured and quantified at different measurement levels with an emphasis on emotional empathy and cognitive empathy, given that existing studies on empathy mainly focus on the two categories and their combination. Specifically, methodologies in empathy research were introduced as followed: (1) Widely-used empathy questionnaires, including the detailed definitions and measurement dimensions; (2) classic experimental materials and behavioral paradigms for measuring emotional empathy and/or cognitive empathy; (3) empathy-related physiological signals detected by facial electromyography, electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Next, we discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each methodology and pointed out the difficulties in compiling findings from studies using different methodologies. For example, different empathy questionnaires applied to the same group may yield contradictory results and the quality of experimental stimulus in the same kind of empathy paradigms potentially influences participants' brain activities. More importantly, the physiological signals (e.g. event-related potential components) recorded in empathy experiments are not “specific” but only “related” to empathy. Then, we suggested that researchers should carefully select appropriate methodologies according to their research needs. For instance, EEG is suitable for exploring empathic processing in the time domain, while functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is conducive to pinpoint the specific functions (e.g. self-other discrimination) of empathy-related brain regions. Finally, we proposed that the conceptual framework of empathy should be unified and more naturalistic paradigms should be developed to reveal the interactions among different empathic subprocesses in the future. In conclusion, this review highlights the importance of comparing and combining different methodologies to reveal the underlying mechanisms of empathy, which yields new insights into social interaction. |
|
来源
|
科学通报
,2019,64(22):2292-2304 【核心库】
|
|
DOI
|
10.1360/N972019-00276
|
|
关键词
|
共情
;
情绪共情
;
认知共情
;
量表
;
行为范式
;
生理信号
|
|
地址
|
1.
中国科学院心理研究所, 中国科学院心理健康重点实验室, 北京, 100101
2.
中国科学院大学心理学系, 北京, 100049
3.
辽宁师范大学脑与认知神经科学研究中心, 大连, 116029
4.
首都医科大学医学人文学院医学心理学学系, 北京, 100069
|
|
语种
|
中文 |
|
文献类型
|
研究性论文 |
|
ISSN
|
0023-074X |
|
学科
|
社会科学总论;基础医学 |
|
基金
|
国家自然科学基金
;
中国科学院“科研信息化应用工程”
;
中国科学院心理研究所科研启动项目
;
中国科学院心理健康重点实验室经费
|
|
文献收藏号
|
CSCD:6574549
|
参考文献 共
108
共6页
|
|
1.
Chen J. Empathy for distress in humans and rodents.
Neurosci Bull,2017,34:216-236
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|
2.
de Waal F B M. Mammalian empathy: Behavioural manifestations and neural basis.
Nat Rev Neurosci,2017,18:498-509
|
被引
21
次
|
|
|
|
|
3.
Zaki J. The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and promise.
Nat Neurosci,2012,15:675-680
|
被引
9
次
|
|
|
|
|
4.
陈晶. 共情概念的演变.
中国临床心理学杂志,2007,6:664-667
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|
5.
刘聪慧. 共情的相关理论评述及动态模型探新.
心理科学进展,2009,17:964-972
|
被引
17
次
|
|
|
|
|
6.
颜志强. 共情与同情:词源、概念和测量.
心理与行为研究,2018,16:433-440
|
被引
9
次
|
|
|
|
|
7.
肖福芳. 论Empathy的翻译及其内涵.
心理学探新,2010,30:18-20
|
被引
5
次
|
|
|
|
|
8.
Mehrabian A. A measure of emotional empathy.
J Pers,1972,40:525-543
|
被引
15
次
|
|
|
|
|
9.
Mehrabian A. Emotional empathy and associated individual differences.
Curr Psychol,1988,7:221-240
|
被引
2
次
|
|
|
|
|
10.
Mehrabian A. Relations among personality scales of aggression, violence, and empathy: Validational evidence bearing on the risk of eruptive violence scale.
Aggr Behav,1997,23:433-445
|
被引
2
次
|
|
|
|
|
11.
Alloway T P. Investigating the reliability and validity of the multidimensional emotional empathy scale.
Measurement,2016,90:438-442
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|
12.
Doherty R W. The emotional contagion scale: A measure of individual differences.
J Nonv Behav,1997,21:131-154
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|
13.
Hogan R. Development of an empathy scale.
J Consult Clin Psychol,1969,33:307-316
|
被引
13
次
|
|
|
|
|
14.
Froman R D. Rethinking the use of the Hogan empathy scale: A critical psychometric analysis.
Am J Occup Ther,2001,55:566-572
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|
15.
Baron-Cohen S. The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences.
J Autism Dev Disord,2004,34:163-175
|
被引
29
次
|
|
|
|
|
16.
Hojat M. The Jefferson scale of physician empathy: Development and preliminary psychometric data.
Educ Psychol Measur,2001,61:349-365
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|
17.
Hojat M. Exploration and confirmation of the latent variable structure of the Jefferson scale of empathy.
Int J Med Educ,2014,5:73-81
|
被引
2
次
|
|
|
|
|
18.
Hojat M.
Empathy in Health Professions Education and Patient Care,2016
|
被引
2
次
|
|
|
|
|
19.
Hojat M. What matters more about the interpersonal reactivity index and the Jefferson scale of empathy? Their underlying constructs or their relationships with pertinent measures of clinical competence and patient outcomes?.
Acad Med,2017,92:743-745
|
被引
1
次
|
|
|
|
|
20.
Davis M H. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
J Pers Soc Psychol,1983,44:113-126
|
被引
64
次
|
|
|
|
|
了解气象卫星更多信息，请访问