1 引言
共情(empathy)是我们与他人的情绪状态产生共鸣的一般能力(Singer & Klimecki, 2014), 但是不同研究对共情的理解仍存在差异。传统观点认为共情是不随意志控制的情绪体验过程。例如, 知觉-行动模型(Perception-Action Model)表明观察或想象他人处于某种的情绪状态会自动激活观察者对该状态的表征, 进而激活躯体的自主反应(Preston & de Waal, 2002)。然而, 如果共情是一个自动化、不可控的心理过程, 主体的动机、目标和价值观将难以影响共情(Cameron et al., 2020)。这不仅弱化了人们的共情自控力, 也与当前实证研究的结果不符。de Vignemont和Singer (2006)质疑共情的自动化假说, 认为共情并非只是对他人情绪线索的“镜面反射” (mirror reflection), 人们对情境的评估也会调节共情(陈武英, 刘连启,2016)。因此, 为更好地适应现实需求, 研究者的重心从共情的结构和功能向塑造和调节共情发展(de Waal & Preston, 2017)。本文主要论述了共情中自上而下的过程, 梳理了近年来基于目标和动机的角度考察共情的研究, 探讨了共情中目标价值的潜在表征形式。此外, 介绍了目标导向的共情中的两类动机: 趋近/回避动机, 以及共情与人际间情绪调节的关系, 为自上而下地调节共情提供参考。
共情的结构通常包括情感与认知两个方面(Barrett, 2012)。人们的情感过程实际上是基于自身需求的主观体验, 而需求反映了认知(例如, 目标和动机) (Lazarus, 1982)。由于情绪与认知之间相互作用, 人们能更好地适应社会生活(Kray et al., 2020)。因此, 有充分的理由假设主体的动机、目标和价值观等会显著影响共情。但是, 以往研究通常将共情理解成一种指向他人情绪的生理本能而忽略共情中自上而下的认知过程(Heyes, 2018)。区分共情的情感和认知结构对研究个体差异具有重要价值, 尤其在对社会功能障碍的群体的临床诊断中。研究者在自闭症患者和精神分裂症患者上研究共情时, 发现一种认知和情感的分离效应(Blair, 2008)。例如, 精分患者认知共情完好, 但是情感共情受损。自闭症患者被检测出拥有良好的情感共情能力, 却在理解他人情绪和表达自己的情绪方面存在缺陷(Santiesteban et al., 2020)。以共情的认知和情感分离效应为基础, 理论层面上共情引发的行为过程也被研究者纳入共情的关键结构(Zaki, 2020)。越来越多的研究者认可共情由三个不同但又相互关联的过程组成(自下而上的情感过程, 自上而下的认知过程, 以及行为过程): 1)情感共情(affective empathy/experience sharing), 共情者的状态与他人的状态相匹配的程度; 2)认知共情(cognitive empathy/mentalization/emotion identification), 识别他人情感状态的心智化能力; 3)共情关怀(empathic concern), 改善他人状态的内部动力(Weisz & Zaki, 2018)。
一直以来, 关于共情的话题大体上包括两种声音: 增加与减少共情, 而这两种声音都体现了生活中人们需要调节共情(Bloom, 2017)。近年来, 研究者主张“共情是一个选择”, 将共情理解成一个基于动机的动态决策过程的产物(Hughes & Zaki,2015)。例如, 共情的“早期评估和晚期评估模型” (Early Appraisal and Late Appraisal Models)指出人们基于价值整合情境信息, 有意识或无意识地选择共情的内隐和外显表现形式(de Vignemont & Singer,2006)。一项ERP研究表明, 前额-中央区域的N110作为早期疼痛共情反应成分是独立于任务需求的, 但受到情境刺激的调节。相反, 后顶叶区域的P3作为晚期的疼痛共情反应成分受任务需求调节, 但独立于情境刺激(Fan & Han, 2008)。从感知到评估的过程体现了疼痛共情过程中两个独立却相互作用的过程(自下而上与自上而下的认知过程)。另有神经影像的证据表明感知和评估共情存在两种有区别的、精确的表征区域: 评估他人的情绪状态, 即评估共情(evaluative empathy)的核心脑区包括背内侧前额回/前内侧扣带皮层(dorsal medial prefrontal gyrus/anterior medial cingulate cortex), 而前脑岛(anterior insula)则与被动观察图片或视频片段中他人的情绪状态, 即感知共情(perceptual empathy)有关(Kogler et al., 2020)。从感性和理性的角度出发, 共情不仅拥有感性的内在特征, 也存在理性的自上而下的认知调节过程。基于前人研究, Heyes (2018)提出了共情的双系统模型, 该模型既包括了早期观点中共情的自动化过程(系统Ⅰ), 也涵盖了共情的评估与控制的机制(系统Ⅱ)。共情的双系统模型为从自上而下的角度考察共情的可调节性奠定基础。
然而, 目前仍缺少理论框架下对共情调节机制的探究。探究自上而下的心理过程对共情的影响是理解人们如何调节共情的突破口。此外, 了解如何自上而下地调节共情对原不具共情相关生理机制的实体(例如, 人工智能)上实现共情具有积极的指导作用(Cameron et al., 2020)。
2 共情是一个“选择”: 目标的价值表征
2.1 目标的价值表征: 高、低层次目标
许多社会行为的心理过程被认为是直觉的和自动发生的(Levine et al., 2018), 但是Zaki等人(2018)提出共情是一个“选择”的观点, 而“选择”通常被认为是有意识的活动。因此共情是一个“选择”似乎违背了共情自动化理论, 究竟共情作为一种“选择”是否需要意识参与?控制论的观点指出高、低层次目标间的竞争并非一定需要意识参与(Cameron et al.,2020)。直觉上, 加工当前环境中的竞争目标需要意识参与, 尤其当目标之间的竞争更激烈的时候。而主观价值又是人们评估目标的重要量度, 因此人们需要更努力加工其价值信息。但是, 有时大脑对竞争目标的评估是快速、自动且没有充分意识的。实际上, 早有研究者指出基于价值的选择可以是自动的, 也可以是经过深思熟虑的(Inzlicht, Legault, et al., 2014)。如果无意识也可以加工的竞争目标, 这将启发未来研究探索传统观点中自动化共情过程(系统Ⅰ)是否存在对竞争目标的价值评估。
虽然, 研究者假设人们以主观价值为标准评估不同的目标。但是, 人脑仍是一个“黑箱子”, 其究竟以怎样的模式加工多个目标的价值还有待探究。在目标导向的行为中, 人们会“三思而后行” (think twice), 即个体在行动之前会对选项进行前瞻性评估(Hayden & Moreno-Bote,2018)。一项空间导航的研究表明, 在空间选择点上啮齿动物的海马会一个接一个地“重播”记忆中不同目标的轨迹, 而被恢复频次更高的目标轨迹更能预测近期的行为(Pfeiffer & Foster,2013)。该研究指出动物在思考中, 目标轨迹的神经表征存在顺序恢复的模式。人类在思考行动的过程中, 是否也呈现相同的序列表征模式呢?已有研究表明, 人们对确定性决策(deterministic decision)的结果表征模式是顺序(sequence)比较的模式, 而不是整合的模式(Kahnt et al., 2011; Mcnamee et al., 2013)。从计算的角度来看, 顺序表征能够逐一筛选更多的选项, 并且避免了同时加权所有选项的价值导致的计算偏差(O’Doherty et al., 2017)。然而, 生活中目标导向的行动-结果(action-outcome)的转变也可能是概率性的, 人们需要检索多个备选行为并计算各个行为结果的预期价值(Bach et al.,2017)。Castegnetti等人(2020)发现在目标导向的概率性决策(probabilistic decision)中也存在一种顺序结构的行为结果表征模式, 并且这种结果的表征也可以预测后续行动。其中, 右侧背外侧前额叶皮层(right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex)延伸到眶额皮层(orbitofrontal cortex)区域表征消极结果时激活更强。视觉皮层和小脑之间的区域则呈现出相反的模式, 即表征积极结果的激活强度高于表征消极结果的激活强度。生活中, 共情也是一种不确定性决策, 概率性的结果表征模式启示研究者关注个体如何表征目标导向的共情的结果。一方面, 人们的目标可能是防止身心疲劳等低层次的结果, 因而避免对他人共情。另一方面, 人们追求高层次目标, 希望获得社会声誉等积极结果, 因而更可能与他人共情。因此, 一个重要问题是共情触发前两个截然相反的目标表征如何影响个体最终的共情表现形式。
2.2 目标的价值表征: 长、短期目标
时间维度对于人们做出的绝大多数选择有重要影响, 等待回报的时间影响选择的价值表征(Soman et al., 2005)。无论是道德或社会联结等目标都是一个更为长远的收益, 而当下负性状态的改变(避免疲劳和努力)的目标更偏向于短期收益范畴(Zaki, 2014)。根据跨期决策的理论, 一个长远且价值大(larger-later)的收益与一个即刻但价值小(smaller-sooner)的收益之间的竞争关系会产生不同的决策结果(梁竹苑, 刘欢, 2011)。如果将共情视为具有时间属性的决策过程, 时间通过影响共情中目标的价值表征从而影响个体共情的表现形式。例如, 将维持内群体合作关系作为长远的奖励, 而避免过度的认知努力作为短期的奖励(O’Connell et al., 2013)。人们虽然对内群体存在共情偏好(更重视长远的奖励), 但是长期处于共情状态下人们也会产生共情疲劳(更重视短期的奖励)。Levy等人(2016)的研究表明疼痛共情的内群体偏好反映了个体可以自上而下地调节自动反应, 而这可能体现出共情中存在对象特异的价值权衡过程。早期研究表明人们可以自上而下地调节共情引起的不同体验的注意力。Ainslie和Monterosso (2002)发现延迟折扣研究中广泛应用的双曲线折扣模型(Hyperbolic Discounting Model)可以用来解释厌恶的共情体验与愉悦的共情体验是之间竞争注意力的机制。未来研究者可以探索共情中基于目标的价值权衡如何影响注意力偏好的机制。
2.3 目标的价值表征: 虚构的社会意义维度
人们对选项的加工影响最终的选择, 尤其是对选项的表征。探究不同情境中人们对选项的表征方式, 对研究共情的构建机制具有重要意义。人们的决策不一定基于给定的表征空间, 虚构的表征维度也可能起到关键作用(Rao et al., 2014)。从表征维度而言, 人们有时会基于“价” (value)或基于“值” (worth)进行决策(Zheng et al.,2019)。所谓“价”更接近于客观的、有明确定量的价值, 而“值”更偏向于某一内隐维度上主观评估的价值。只考虑客观的代价无法解释为何人们做出高成本的善举, 但从“值”的角度来看, 亲社会者可能虚构了社会名誉和社会角色维度, 并且根据该维度上的“值”做出最终选择。因此, 在对他人共情时, 人们可能存在一个虚构维度的倾向, 在虚维度上人们决策时更有可能考虑高层次的长远目标(道德、责任与义务和自我概念等) (李纾,2016)。人们本质上根据主观价值评估不同的目标(Berkman et al., 2017), 而主观价值是各种度量标准的集成(“价”和“值”的统一) (Hutcherson et al.,2015)。有研究者根据漂移扩散模型(Drift Diffusion Model, DDM)的理论尝试解释共情过程中主观价值的整合, Cameron等人(2020)主张共情调节过程中存在针对不同目标的价值累积过程, 价值积累过程的差异可能反映在反应时及其有关参数上(如, 漂移率等)。例如, 共情目标是自己的孩子而不是陌生人的则会有更快的漂移率。
共情和亲社会行为的关系紧密(Lockwood et al., 2016)。共情关怀(改善他人状态的意愿或行为)作为一种亲社会表现, 可能涉及亲社会行为中潜在的价值权衡过程。共情中的价值权衡存在对象特异性, 表现在人们对自我-他人和内群体-外群体的行为存在显著差异。内群体被认为是靠近“我”的概念, 因此人们更容易对内群体产生共情关怀(Sierksma et al.,2015)。Lockwood等人(2017)研究发现的亲社会冷漠(prosocial apathy)者的计算机制, 人们对他人做出亲社会行为时, 主观价值受到努力的折扣影响更大, 即人们为自己争取回报付出努力大于为他人的利益做出的努力。社会行为都需要一定的代价, 无论是金钱、时间、体力和思考等过程, 亲社会行为的折扣机制对理解社会中“袖手旁观”与“心有余而力不足”等现象有重要意义。人们的助人意愿取决于行动的成本, 尤其受到努力成本的影响(Olivola & Shafir,2013)。越来越多的证据表明大脑对成本和收益的权衡指导分配资源的行为(如, 金钱分配), 其中一些脑区如前扣带回(anterior cingulate gyrus)和膝下前扣带回(subgenual anterior cingulate cortex)在加工有关成本和收益的信息时有重要作用(Gangopadhyay et al., 2020)。Cameron (2018)年强调成本和收益的权衡应该被作为社会互动的一部分来研究, 但是成本和收益的权衡的神经表征很少在共情研究中得到关注。
人们为何会产生共情, 甚至产生有代价的利他行为, 社会价值起到了关键作用。Wang等人(2020)的研究发现, 共情关怀可减少助人者主观疼痛感以及加工厌恶体验的前脑岛的激活。利他行为影响疼痛感的潜在机制在于内侧前额叶皮质(medial prefrontal cortex)的社会意义功能作为中介影响了加工疼痛感的神经激活, 这表明利他性的共情关怀是一个社会价值的增值过程。一个关键问题是调节主观社会价值的表征是否具有可操作性。前人研究证明催产素可以通过调节杏仁核的社会价值表征功能来促进亲社会性(Liu et al., 2019)。共情不但受到结果的物质价值的影响, 而且抽象的社会价值也起到关键作用。整合的主观价值影响趋进(利他)或回避(冷漠)动机的形成, 最终表现出利他或亲社会冷漠(Decety & Yoder, 2016)。
综上, 目标的价值表征与价值权衡可能潜在地调节共情。考虑到人们存在虚构的社会意义维度的倾向, 如何增加人们对共情的社会价值的认知有助于提高个体的共情诱发的亲社会行动。但是, 目前尚未有直接证据验证共情的目标表征与价值权衡过程。未来有必要结合神经影像, 验证共情中潜在的计算机制。
3 共情的趋避动机
3.1 共情趋近动机
共情的趋近动机被认为是人们感人所感之后产生共情关怀的内驱力。以往研究表明, 奖赏处理和积极情感相关的脑区与共情关怀密切关联, 具体包括腹侧纹状体(ventral striatum)、伏隔核(nucleus accumbens)、中脑被盖区(ventral tegmental area), 以及内侧眶额皮质(medial orbitalfrontal cortex) (Singer & Klimecki, 2014)。但是, 奖赏系统如何参与调节共情的趋近动机仍有待探究。
生活中, 不同社会身份(social identity)存在特定的行为模式, 这不仅反映了社会需求, 也与自身奖励-动机系统的调整有关。一项研究发现, 病人对治疗的满意程度与医生奖励系统相关的内侧前额皮质(medial prefrontal cortex)激活呈显著的正相关。此外, 病人的满意程度也与医生自评的共情关怀(empathic concern)水平正相关(Jensen et al., 2020)。这从侧面指出了奖赏系统参与涉及共情的社会活动。除此之外, 群体认同(group identification)不仅作为一种社会动机有利于互惠行为的形成, 提升自尊和归属感等, 并且也是一种共情的趋近动机。大量证据表明人们对他人共情时存在显著的内群体偏好(Eres & Molenberghs, 2013; Sierksma et al., 2015), 对内群体的趋近动机远大于回避动机。这可能目标价值权衡有关, 因为与内群体成员的社会联结是一个更为长远的目标, 其价值远大于短期的身心疲劳。此外, 研究发现社会联结感的增强会降低杏仁核活动, 这表明社会联结有利于个体积极情绪的提高以及消极情绪的降低(Inagaki, 2018)。虽然内群体的相似性增加了对组内共情的可能性, 但是通过训练和强化, 人们也能够对外群体产生替代性情绪体验。Hein等人(2016)研究指出在多次交互中, 人们共情的范围会发生改变。意料之外的外群体成员的帮助(作为一种预期误差)能增加人们对外群体的共情趋近动机, 表现为看到外群体的痛苦时厌恶体验相关的前脑岛的激活增强, 体现了一种共情可塑的可能性。人们处于弱势的时候也会产生共情关怀的趋近动机, 而弱势从两个方面影响共情关怀。一方面, 当自身处于弱势时, 人们可能会增加对他人实施共情关怀的程度。一项现场研究表明, 随着居住地灾情严重程度的增加(从非受灾、轻度受灾、中度受灾、到重度受灾), 个体的居民分给陌生人的钱数也随之增加(Rao et al., 2011)。另一方面, 当他人处于弱势或受害者地位时, 具有可评估性的刺激诱发的积极情绪能改变人们共情关怀的偏好。Genevsky等人(2013)发现, 看受益者的照片比看受益者的黑色剪影轮廓引发的积极情绪更能促使人们给予更多的金钱援助。这表明外界刺激的属性能显著调节人们共情关怀的趋近动机。
综上, 不同情境下奖赏系统和情绪系统可能作用于促进/抑制人们的共情能力。然而, 如何利用共情的可塑性, 并通过训练与强化引起共情偏好和程度的改变, 以及神经生理层面如何编码和解码这样的变化等问题尚未解决。
3.2 共情回避动机
越来越多的研究者指出共情是一个代价昂贵的过程, 共情的产生需要相当可观认知成本。从效率角度, 这会导致人们系统性地避免共情(Cameron et al., 2019)。实际上, 适当地回避共情对于有些职业具有积极意义。减少共情是一种自我保护机制, 有助于减少其职业倦怠倾向。例如, 医疗工作者在手术过程中需要脱离对病人的疼痛共情(Zaki, 2020)。此外, Hojat (2016)指出共情过度可能导致专家的不恰当的决策, 甚至造成更高的伤害。对病人有强烈共情的医生可能会尝试一些高风险的医疗干预。咨询师长期接触他人的痛苦, 这对自身心理健康也会有一定程度的伤害。Schumann等人(2014)表明改变遇到共情对象的时间可能调节参与共情的意愿。这可能启发相关从业者严格规定工作时间和频率, 尤其在共情已经造成了自身的不适感的情况, 适应性地减少工作时间。
研究表明回避共情可能与执行功能相关, 例如执行系统影响认知共情中重要的心智化能力(Wu et al., 2020), 个体可能会控制自己减少从他人角度考虑问题从而避免共情。一项元分析结果表明, 执行功能与认知共情的相关性大于其与情感共情的相关性, 并且执行功能中只有抑制控制(inhibitory control)与认知共情和情感共情密切相关(Yan et al., 2020)。抑制控制与目标选择有关, 优先目标转换模型(Shifting Priorities Model of Self-control)指出在一个时间点上的自我控制情况会影响在随后的时间点上对目标的选择(Inzlicht, Schmeichel et al., 2014)。
综上, 共情趋避动机表明人们在一定程度上能够调节共情。共情的可调节性强调了个体的主观能动性, 这将增加一种社会责任。在与他人交往时, 人们需要克服共情的局限性(如, 内群体偏好使人容易有失公平), 才能促进积极的社会互动与增强的社会联结(Weisz & Zaki, 2018)。
4 共情与人际间的情绪调节
共情调节与个体情绪调节能力息息相关, 它们都要求个体能理解、预测和调节自己和他人的情绪(Zaki, 2020)。人们对情绪调节的需求不局限于提高愉快体验或缓解消极体验, 本质上情绪是服务于特定的目的(Millgram et al., 2019; Tamir et al., 2020)。当目的是理解他人时, 人们的情绪需要与他人同步。相反的, 有时为了保护自己的健康情绪状态, 人们会避免或远离目标, 甚至避免接触他人的负面情绪以保证自己积极的情绪状态(Tamir & Ford, 2012)。在自我-他人共情交互中存在两类竞争性的目的, 长远的角度人们想要增加他人幸福, 但是当下也希望让人避免痛苦。在戒酒、戒毒与恐惧消退等过程中, 短期而言戒断过程是一个痛苦的过程, 但是恢复身体健康具有长远的积极价值。接受治疗的人能够在恐惧暴露疗法中改善心理健康问题(Beidel et al., 2019; Carl et al., 2019), 而成瘾者也能在戒断后重新恢复健康的身体状态(Sordo et al., 2017)。因此, 人们理论上可以根据目的有效地调整认知从而调节共情, 改变自己的认知能够缓解共情的负面影响(Tamir et al., 2019)。
Zaki (2020)指出个体的情感预测(forecasting)能力和自我控制(self-control)能力对于共情和人际情绪调节至关重要。情绪调节需要情绪预测, 即人们通过预测未来事件将会产生何种情绪对自身当前的情绪状态进行选择(Bulley et al. 2016)。例如, 当人们上夜班或为困难的考试而彻夜学习时, 选择承受短暂的消极情绪(焦虑等)可能获得潜在的积极结果。这样的情绪选择类似于延迟决策中短期和长期奖赏的价值权衡。此外, 长期处于引发共情的环境中的专业人士(如, 外科医生)会通过调整道德层面的认知理解来降低他们的共情反应(Decety et al., 2010)。例如, 通过忽视、非人化的想象等方式降低不适感(Bandura, 2016)。Decety等人(2010)研究发现, 医生组与控制组比较, 在呈现针刺影片时共情相关脑区没有被激活, 而情绪调节有关的脑区显著地被激活。日常生活中, 为了更好地被周围环境所接受, 人们会考虑到他人对自己的看法(观点采择), 并以此调整自己的情绪表达(例如, 适度克制激烈的情绪反应) (Eldesouky & English, 2019)。这些都表明人们可以通过认知共情, 控制自身的认知和行为, 达到影响他人情绪和调节自我情绪的目的。研究表明情绪处理(腹侧前额叶皮层)、奖赏系统(杏仁核、腹侧纹状体等)、记忆(海马体)和执行功能(前扣带回、背外侧前额叶皮层等)等脑区都会在共情主体的情绪调节中发挥特殊作用(Cohen & Arbel, 2020)。
5 总结与展望
我们如何与他人产生情感共鸣, 可能存在自上而下的调节过程。这样的框架允许一种理性的共情观, 并且强调了共情的可塑性(黄翯青, 苏彦捷, 2010)。基于目标和动机的角度研究共情, 有助于理解共情的内部构建机制与外部表现形式。建议未来研究考虑以自上而下视角考察共情的可调节性, 尤其是目标的表征方式, 以及目标导向的共情中成本和收益权衡的过程。此外, Hayes提出的双系统模型也启示了一个新的研究方向, 即如何整合自下而上的共情自动化过程与自上而下的共情控制系统。了解共情中自动化与审慎的系统的关系对于日后指导共情调节有重大意义。
5.1 计算建模的模拟
大量证据表明对他人不同的情绪产生的共情(例如, 对他人奖励或疼痛的感受)激活了重叠但又特异的脑区。由于现有研究技术在时空分辨率上的局限性, 研究者难以从以往神经证据得出共情的“启动” (触发)、“加、减速” (增强或减弱)和“刹车” (停止)的现象, 尤其是非外显的情感共情过程。但是, 随着计算神经科学的发展, 研究者能够模拟共情关联的神经信号, 并可以结合实验数据验证模型的效力与可泛化性, 最终达到预测共情关联的神经活动与行为。
5.2 共情可塑性的发展观
因为共情是复杂多变的, 它可以导致一些负面结果, 如偏见、目光短浅的判断, 甚至激发暴力等。Bloom (2017)提出人们需要理性地控制共情, 如何更好地控制和利用共情力是个体、社会甚至国家等不同层面的重要课题。共情的可塑性研究表明同情心训练(compassion training)不仅能促进亲社会行为, 增强积极的情感和韧性, 有助于青少年更好地应对压力情况。此外, 从发展的角度研究共情, 寻找成长过程中认知共情与情感共情发展的关键时期有重要意义。这不仅启发教育从业者制定相关社会技能的教学课程和宣传, 也能够指导最佳指导与训练的时间的安排。特别地, 从发展的角度探索儿童共情偏见的发展, 这可能与认知上的自我中心偏见(egocentric bias)存在一定的关联性, 并且不同特质的儿童共情的模式也值得探索。
5.3 共情的可调节性与情绪调节
Cameron (2018)指出理解人们何时、为何以及如何在情绪管理中采取某些目标十分重要。同理, 理解人们何时、为何以及如何在共情中表征某些目标的价值也尤其重要, 因为目标影响人们最终的共情表现形式(Zaki, 2020)。首先, 有些目标是否更有可能激活特定的共情方式?改变目标的选择是否影响共情模式?可否通过影响人们对目标的物质与社会价值的理解影响人们的共情方式?以及如何增加/减少共情相关的目标价值等都是未来共情调节研究值得考虑的方向。其次, 情绪管理中目标和策略相互影响。使用某些情绪调节策略可能会增加追求某个情绪目标的可能性, 因为当前的策略比其他策略更容易实现某一追求的目标。反过来, 对某些目标的追求可能会触发使用特定的情绪调节策略, 因为策略与目标存在一定的适配性。因此, 人们共情的目标影响调节共情的策略。一方面, 如果人们相信共情能够带来如社会联结等积极结果, 他们更可能希望改善自身共情能力。另一方面, 如果人们认为共情会产生不愉快结果, 他们会更多地回避共情。
总而言之, 人们可以通过一定的策略达到影响他人情绪和调节自我情绪的目的。然而, 较少研究考察情绪调节中常见的策略, 如认知重评(cognitive reappraisal)、表达抑制(expressive suppression)、分心(distraction)和沉思(rumination)是否可以迁移到共情的研究上。首先, 情绪管理的策略是否在共情上有效?例如, 自上而下地从认知层面重新评估共情的意义。通过改变对严重性、需求和责任的认知调整自身共情水平和方式。其次, 策略是否普遍地有效, 或是具有情境依赖性等问题都有待挖掘。
5.4 基于共情主体与客体的共情调节
对于共情的主体而言, 如果共情不仅由他人或者情境决定, 而是也受到自己的选择和控制, 则个体需要对自己共情带来的结果肩负起一定的责任。对于共情的客体而言, 如何对待他人的共情也是值得思考的问题。如果从单一的主体或客体角度考察共情的潜在机制, 最终得出干预措施缺乏生态效度。从实用主义出发, 人们产生情感与触发行为的动机不仅因为它们带来愉快或不愉快体验, 而可能是因为它们在特定的环境中是有用的。鉴于共情的情境依赖性, 应用层面需要考虑如何创造/激发合适的共情的情境。更进一步, 未来需要关注如何引导人们将共情视作一种社会生活的手段, 积极地构建共情, 并最终有效地调整情绪和认知。
参考文献
Hyperbolic discounting lets empathy be a motivated process
DOI:10.1017/S0140525X02220014 URL [本文引用: 1]
Whole-brain neural dynamics of probabilistic reward prediction
DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2943-16.2017 URL [本文引用: 1]
Trauma management therapy with virtual-reality augmented exposure therapy for combat-related PTSD: A randomized controlled trial
DOI:10.1016/j.janxdis.2017.08.005 URL [本文引用: 1]
Self-control as value-based choice
DOI:10.1177/0963721417704394
PMID:29335665
[本文引用: 1]
Self-control is often conceived as a battle between "hot" impulsive processes and "cold" deliberative ones. Heeding the angel on one shoulder leads to success; following the demon on the other leads to failure. Self-control like a duality. What if that sensation is misleading, and, despite how they feel, self-control decisions are just like any other choice? We argue that self-control is a form of wherein options are assigned a subjective value and a decision is made through a dynamic integration process. We articulate how a value-based choice model of self-control can capture its phenomenology and account for relevant behavioral and neuroscientific data. This conceptualization of self-control links divergent scientific approaches, allows for more robust and precise hypothesis testing, and suggests novel pathways to improve self-control.
Fine cuts of empathy and the amygdala: Dissociable deficits in psychopathy and autism
DOI:10.1080/17470210701508855 URL [本文引用: 1]
Empathy, Schmempathy: Response to Zaki
DOI:S1364-6613(16)30202-9 PMID:28025006 [本文引用: 2]
Prospection and the present moment: The role of episodic foresight in intertemporal choices between immediate and delayed rewards
DOI:10.1037/gpr0000061 URL [本文引用: 1]
Motivating empathy: Three methodological recommendations for mapping empathy
The ends of empathy: Constructing empathy from value-based choice
Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs
DOI:10.1037/xge0000595 URL [本文引用: 1]
Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety and related disorders: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
DOI:10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.08.003 URL [本文引用: 1]
Representation of probabilistic outcomes during risky decision-making
DOI:10.1038/s41467-020-16202-y
PMID:32415145
[本文引用: 1]
Goal-directed behaviour requires prospectively retrieving and evaluating multiple possible action outcomes. While a plethora of studies suggested sequential retrieval for deterministic choice outcomes, it remains unclear whether this is also the case when integrating multiple probabilistic outcomes of the same action. We address this question by capitalising on magnetoencephalography (MEG) in humans who made choices in a risky foraging task. We train classifiers to distinguish MEG field patterns during presentation of two probabilistic outcomes (reward, loss), and then apply these to decode such patterns during deliberation. First, decoded outcome representations have a temporal structure, suggesting alternating retrieval of the outcomes. Moreover, the probability that one or the other outcome is being represented depends on loss magnitude, but not on loss probability, and it predicts the chosen action. In summary, we demonstrate decodable outcome representations during probabilistic decision-making, which are sequentially structured, depend on task features, and predict subsequent action.
On the benefits and costs of extrinsic emotion regulation to the provider: Toward a neurobehavioral model
DOI:S0010-9452(20)30212-4
PMID:32603915
[本文引用: 2]
Emotion regulation often takes place within interpersonal relationships. Prior research has focused mainly on the impact of extrinsic emotion regulation (EER) on the recipient. Yet EER may also have emotional and physical consequences for the provider. Understanding who benefits from helping others regulate their emotions and under what conditions is crucial in understanding the mechanisms that reinforce well-being and social ties. This conceptual review integrates existing literature into an interim working model of the benefits and costs of EER for the provider and of the underlying neural mechanisms. Inspired by a recent framework on the factors that underlie intrinsic emotion regulation, we suggest that the influence of EER on the provider depends on interactions among individual differences in salient psychological characteristics, situational factors and type of the emotion regulation strategy used. We further propose three pathways through which EER may influence the provider-stress regulation, reward and empathy-and connect each pathway to a distinct pattern of neural activation.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Physicians down- regulate their pain empathy response: An event-related brain potential study
DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.025
PMID:20080194
[本文引用: 2]
Watching or imagining other people experiencing pain activates the central nervous system's pain matrix in the observer. Without emotion regulation skills, repeated exposure to the suffering of others in healthcare professionals may be associated with the adverse consequences of personal distress, burnout and compassion fatigue, which are detrimental to their wellbeing. Here, we recorded event-related potentials (ERP) from physicians and matched controls as they were presented with visual stimuli depicting body parts pricked by a needle (pain) or touched by a Q-tip (no-pain). The results showed early N110 differentiation between pain and no-pain over the frontal area as well as late P3 over the centro-parietal regions were observed in the control participants. In contrast, no such early and late ERP responses were detected in the physicians. Our results indicate that emotion regulation in physicians has very early effects, inhibiting the bottom-up processing of the perception of pain in others. It is suggested that physicians' down-regulation of the pain response dampens their negative arousal in response to the pain of others and thus may have many beneficial consequences including freeing up cognitive resources necessary for being of assistance.2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Empathy and motivation for justice: Cognitive empathy and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict sensitivity to injustice for others
DOI:10.1080/17470919.2015.1029593
PMID:25768232
[本文引用: 1]
Why do people tend to care for upholding principles of justice? This study examined the association between individual differences in the affective, motivational and cognitive components of empathy, sensitivity to justice, and psychopathy in participants (N 265) who were also asked to rate the permissibility of everyday moral situations that pit personal benefit against moral standards of justice. Counter to common sense, emotional empathy was not associated with sensitivity to injustice for others. Rather, individual differences in cognitive empathy and empathic concern predicted sensitivity to justice for others, as well as the endorsement of moral rules. Psychopathy coldheartedness scores were inversely associated with motivation for justice. Moreover, hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis revealed that self-focused and other-focused orientations toward justice had opposing influences on the permissibility of moral judgments. High scores on psychopathy were associated with less moral condemnation of immoral behavior. Together, these results contribute to a better understanding of the information processing mechanisms underlying justice motivation, and may guide interventions designed to foster justice and moral behavior. In order to promote justice motivation, it may be more effective to encourage perspective taking and reasoning than emphasizing emotional sharing with the misfortune of others.
The empathic brain: How, when and why?
DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.008 URL [本文引用: 2]
Mammalian empathy: Behavioural manifestations and neural basis
DOI:10.1038/nrn.2017.72 URL [本文引用: 1]
Regulating for a reason: Emotion regulation goals are linked to spontaneous strategy use
DOI:10.1111/jopy.12447
PMID:30450549
[本文引用: 1]
We investigated how individual differences in emotion regulation goals predict emotion regulation strategy use in daily life.Across three studies, we assessed two common types of emotion regulation goals (hedonic, social) and strategies spanning the entire process model of emotion regulation. We conducted two studies using global measures with undergraduates (N = 394; 18-25 years; 69% female; 56% European American) and community members (N = 302; 19-74 years; 50% female; 75% European American), and a nine-day daily diary study with another community sample (N = 272; 23-85 years; 50% female; 84% European American).Globally and in daily life, pro-hedonic goals were positively associated with all antecedent-focused strategies (situation selection, situation modification, distraction, and reappraisal), pro-social goals were positively linked to reappraisal, and impression management goals positively predicted suppression. Contra-hedonic goals were negatively associated with reappraisal and positively associated with suppression in some studies.The reasons why people regulate their emotions are predictive of the strategies they use in daily life. These links may be functional, such that people typically use strategies that are suitable for their goals. These findings demonstrate the value of an individual difference approach and highlight the motivational component of emotion regulation.© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
The influence of group membership on the neural correlates involved in empathy
Temporal dynamic of neural mechanisms involved in empathy for pain: an event-related brain potential study
DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.023 URL [本文引用: 1]
Prefrontal-amygdala circuits in social decision- making
DOI:10.1038/s41593-020-00769-2 URL [本文引用: 1]
Neural underpinnings of the identifiable victim effect: Affect shifts preferences for giving
DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2348-13.2013 URL [本文引用: 1]
A neuronal theory of sequential economic choice
How learning shapes the empathic brain
DOI:10.1073/pnas.1514539112 URL [本文引用: 1]
Empathy is not in our genes
DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.11.001 URL [本文引用: 2]
The neuroscience of motivated cognition
DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.006
PMID:25640642
[本文引用: 1]
Goals and needs shape individuals' thinking, a phenomenon known as motivated cognition. We highlight research from social psychology and cognitive neuroscience that provides insight into the structure of motivated cognition. In addition to demonstrating its ubiquity, we suggest that motivated cognition is often effortless and pervades information processing. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A neurocomputational model of altruistic choice and its implications
DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.06.031
PMID:26182424
[本文引用: 1]
We propose a neurocomputational model of altruistic choice and test it using behavioral and fMRI data from a task in which subjects make choices between real monetary prizes for themselves and another. We show that a multi-attribute drift-diffusion model, in which choice results from accumulation of a relative value signal that linearly weights payoffs for self and other, captures key patterns of choice, reaction time, and neural response in ventral striatum, temporoparietal junction, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. The model generates several novel insights into the nature of altruism. It explains when and why generous choices are slower or faster than selfish choices, and why they produce greater response in TPJ and vmPFC, without invoking competition between automatic and deliberative processes or reward value for generosity. It also predicts that when one's own payoffs are valued more than others', some generous acts may reflect mistakes rather than genuinely pro-social preferences.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Neural mechanisms of the link between giving social support and health
Exploring the mechanisms of self-control improvement
DOI:10.1177/0963721414534256 URL [本文引用: 1]
Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited
DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009
PMID:24439530
[本文引用: 1]
Self-control refers to the mental processes that allow people to override thoughts and emotions, thus enabling behavior to vary adaptively from moment to moment. Dominating contemporary research on this topic is the viewpoint that self-control relies upon a limited resource, such that engaging in acts of restraint depletes this inner capacity and undermines subsequent attempts at control (i.e., ego depletion). Noting theoretical and empirical problems with this view, here we advance a competing model that develops a non-resource-based account of self-control. We suggest that apparent regulatory failures reflect the motivated switching of task priorities as people strive to strike an optimal balance between engaging cognitive labor to pursue 'have-to' goals versus preferring cognitive leisure in the pursuit of 'want-to' goals. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reward and empathy in the treating clinician: The neural correlates of successful doctor-patient interactions
DOI:10.1038/s41398-020-01016-9 URL [本文引用: 1]
Decoding the formation of reward Predictions across learning
DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3412-11.2011 URL [本文引用: 1]
Do I feel or do I know? Neuroimaging meta-analyses on the multiple facets of empathy
DOI:S0010-9452(20)30190-8
PMID:32562973
[本文引用: 1]
Empathy is a multidimensional construct including affective and cognitive components while maintaining the distinction between one-self and others. Our meta-analyses focused on shared and distinct networks underlying cognitive (taking somebody else's perspective in emotional/painful situations) and affective (self-referentially feeling somebody else's emotions/pain) empathy for various states including painful and emotional situations. Furthermore, a comparison with direct pain experience was carried out. For cognitive empathy, consistent activation in the anterior dorsal medial frontal gyrus (dmPFG) and the supramarginal gyrus (SMG) occurred. For affective empathy, convergent activation of the posterior dmPFG and the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) was found. Consistent activation of the anterior insula (AI), the anterior dmPFG and the SMG was observed for empathy for pain, while convergent recruitment of the temporo-parietal junction, precuneus, posterior dmPFG, and the IFG was revealed in the meta-analysis across empathy for emotion experiments. The AI and the dmPFG/mid-cingulate cortex (MCC) showed overlapping as well as distinct neural activation for pain processing and empathy for pain. Taken together, we were able to show difference in the meta-analytic networks across cognitive and affective empathy as well as for pain and empathy processing. Based on the current results, distinct functions along the midline structures of the brain during empathy processing are apparent. Our data are lending further support for a multidimensional concept of empathy.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The interplay between cognitive control and emotional processing in children and adolescents
Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition
DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.37.9.1019 URL [本文引用: 1]
Signaling emotion and reason in cooperation
DOI:10.1037/xge0000399 URL [本文引用: 1]
Adolescents growing up amidst intractable conflict attenuate brain response to pain of outgroup
DOI:10.1073/pnas.1612903113 URL [本文引用: 1]
Oxytocin modulates social value representations in the amygdala
DOI:10.1038/s41593-019-0351-1 URL [本文引用: 1]
Neurocomputational mechanisms of prosocial learning and links to empathy
DOI:10.1073/pnas.1603198113 URL [本文引用: 1]
Prosocial apathy for helping others when effort is required
DOI:10.1038/s41562-016-0001 URL [本文引用: 1]
Category- dependent and category-independent goal-value codes in human ventromedial prefrontal cortex
DOI:10.1038/nn.3337 URL [本文引用: 1]
Do the ends dictate the means in emotion regulation?
DOI:10.1037/xge0000477 URL [本文引用: 2]
The role of empathy in choosing rewards from another's perspective
Learning, reward, and decision making
DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044216 URL [本文引用: 1]
The martyrdom effect: When pain and effort increase prosocial contributions
DOI:10.1002/bdm.v26.1 URL [本文引用: 1]
Hippocampal place-cell sequences depict future paths to remembered goals
DOI:10.1038/nature12112 URL [本文引用: 1]
Empathy: It’s ultimate and proximate bases
DOI:10.1017/S0140525X02000018 URL [本文引用: 1]
Disadvantage and prosocial behavior: The effects of the Wenchuan earthquake
DOI:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.07.002 URL [本文引用: 1]
Probing the neural basis of superstition
DOI:10.1007/s10548-013-0332-8
PMID:24288074
[本文引用: 1]
Despite much evidence questioning its validity, superstitious belief continues to be rooted in the human mind. We used functional MRI to directly compare participants' neural responses to monetary attractiveness with their responses to the value of an auspicious date. We found that the right middle/superior frontal gyrus showed greater deactivation whenever an auspicious-based choice was made and that the contrast between the auspicious-based and economics-based choices was negatively correlated with the participants' rated wedding date-related superstitious belief, suggesting that a specific brain region carries decision signals which contribute to making decisions based on superstition and may be able to account for individual differences in superstitious behavior. The present investigation helps to reveal how the brain handles superstition.
Individuals with autism share others’ emotions: Evidence from the continuous affective rating and empathic responses (CARER) task
DOI:10.1007/s10803-020-04535-y URL [本文引用: 1]
Addressing the empathy deficit: beliefs about the malleability of empathy predict effortful responses when empathy is challenging
In-group bias in children’s intention to help can be overpowered by inducing empathy
DOI:10.1111/bjdp.12065
PMID:25252035
[本文引用: 2]
An experimental vignette study was conducted among children (8-13 years) to examine whether inducing empathic understanding is an effective intervention to overpower peer group boundaries in children's helping. Children were induced or not induced to empathize with the recipient of help, who was or was not part of their (imagined) group of friends. Results showed that children intended to help in-group peers more compared to outgroup peers when empathic understanding was not induced. However, when empathy was induced, they intended to help friends and non-friends equally. Inducing empathic understanding was effective independent of the recipient's level of need, and children's advanced social perspective-taking ability. Encouraging children to imagine how a recipient of help feels might thus be a useful strategy to prevent peer group-based biases in children's helping behaviour. © 2014 The British Psychological Society.
Empathy and compassion
DOI:S0960-9822(14)00770-2
PMID:25247366
[本文引用: 2]
As humans we are a highly social species: in order to coordinate our joint actions and assure successful communication, we use language skills to explicitly convey information to each other, and social abilities such as empathy or perspective taking to infer another person's emotions and mental state. The human cognitive capacity to draw inferences about other peoples' beliefs, intentions and thoughts has been termed mentalizing, theory of mind or cognitive perspective taking. This capacity makes it possible, for instance, to understand that people may have views that differ from our own. Conversely, the capacity to share the feelings of others is called empathy. Empathy makes it possible to resonate with others' positive and negative feelings alike--we can thus feel happy when we vicariously share the joy of others and we can share the experience of suffering when we empathize with someone in pain. Importantly, in empathy one feels with someone, but one does not confuse oneself with the other; that is, one still knows that the emotion one resonates with is the emotion of another. If this self-other distinction is not present, we speak of emotion contagion, a precursor of empathy that is already present in babies.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The psychology of intertemporal discounting: Why are distant events valued differently from proximal ones?
DOI:10.1007/s11002-005-5897-x URL [本文引用: 1]
Mortality risk during and after opioid substitution treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Should people pursue feelings that feel good or feelings that do good? Emotional preferences and well-being
DOI:10.1037/a0027223 URL [本文引用: 1]
When there’s a will, there’s a way: Disentangling the effects of goals and means in emotion regulation
DOI:10.1037/pspp0000232
PMID:30614729
[本文引用: 2]
Emotion regulation involves activating an emotion goal (e.g., decrease negative emotions) and using an emotion regulation strategy (e.g., cognitive reappraisal) to pursue it. We propose that activating emotion goals and implementing means can independently affect emotion regulation. People are not always motivated to regulate emotions or to regulate them in a prohedonic manner. Therefore, activating prohedonic emotion goals is consequential. Furthermore, merely activating an emotion goal may trigger accessible means, leading to emotional changes. We tested these ideas by disentangling effects of pursuing prohedonic emotion goals and implementing cognitive reappraisal. First, we show that individuals perceive measures and manipulations of cognitive reappraisal as signaling the activation of specific emotion goals (i.e., decrease unpleasant or increase pleasant emotions) and the implementation of specific means (i.e., think differently about emotion-eliciting events). Second, we decomposed a classic measure of cognitive reappraisal to show that previously documented benefits of reappraisal might be because of the frequency of either pursuing prohedonic goals or using cognitive reappraisal. Third, in 2 empirical studies, we separately manipulated prohedonic goals (without specifying the means), cognitive reappraisal (without specifying the goal), and gave classic reappraisal instructions (specifying both the goal and the means). In both studies, activating prohedonic goals was as effective in decreasing negative emotions as was activating prohedonic goals with reappraisal instructions. Thus, activating emotion goals is essential, and sometimes even sufficient, for successful regulation. Finally, we demonstrate that the confound between goals and means is pervasive in the cognitive reappraisal literature, and offer recommendations for avoiding it. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Emotion regulation is motivated
DOI:10.1037/emo0000635 URL [本文引用: 1]
Altruistic behaviors relieve physical pain
DOI:10.1073/pnas.1911861117 URL [本文引用: 1]
Motivated empathy: A social neuroscience perspective
DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.05.005 URL [本文引用: 3]
Mentalizing during social interaction: A four component model
DOI:10.1016/j.cortex.2019.12.031 URL [本文引用: 1]
A meta-analysis of the relationship between empathy and executive function
DOI:10.1002/pchj.v9.1 URL [本文引用: 1]
Empathy: a motivated account
DOI:10.1037/a0037679 URL [本文引用: 2]
Integrating empathy and interpersonal emotion regulation
DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050830 URL [本文引用: 6]
Worth-based choice: Giving an offered smaller pear an even greater fictional value
