中国科学院心理健康重点实验室知识库

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.

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.

国家自然科学基金(31671141,31701000,31822025);; 中国科学院“科研信息化应用工程”(XXH13506-306)、中国科学院心理研究所科研启动项目(Y6CX021008)、中国科学院心理健康重点实验室经费(KLMH2018ZG02)资助