545130

research-article2014
PPSXXX10.1177/1745691614545130Decety, CowellFriends or Foes

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Friends or Foes: Is Empathy Necessary 2014, Vol. 9(5) 525­–537

© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
for Moral Behavior? sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1745691614545130
pps.sagepub.com

Jean Decety1,2 and Jason M. Cowell1

1
Department of Psychology, The University of Chicago, and 2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral
Neuroscience, The University of Chicago Medicine

Abstract
In the past decade, a flurry of empirical and theoretical research on morality and empathy has taken place, and
interest and usage in the media and the public arena have increased. At times, in both popular culture and academia,
morality and empathy are used interchangeably, and quite often the latter is considered to play a foundational role for
the former. In this article, we argue that although there is a relationship between morality and empathy, it is not as
straightforward as apparent at first glance. Moreover, it is critical to distinguish among the different facets of empathy
(emotional sharing, empathic concern, and perspective taking), as each uniquely influences moral cognition and
predicts differential outcomes in moral behavior. Empirical evidence and theories from evolutionary biology as well
as developmental, behavioral, and affective and social neuroscience are comprehensively integrated in support of this
argument. The wealth of findings illustrates a complex and equivocal relationship between morality and empathy. The
key to understanding such relations is to be more precise on the concepts being used and, perhaps, abandoning the
muddy concept of empathy.

Keywords
morality, empathy, emotional sharing, empathic concern, perspective taking, social and affective neuroscience,
developmental science, ventromedial prefrontal cortex

References to morality and empathy appear more and international society meeting, in which the focus was on
more often in the popular press, political campaigns, and the development of morality, by so much misunderstand-
in the study of a wide range of topics, including medical ing and confusion over the concept of empathy and its
care, psychopathy, justice, engagement with art, and so relations to moral cognition. Systematically, every time one
much more. Authors of popular books—such as The attendee would ask a question about, say the role of
Empathic Civilization (Rifkin, 2009) or The Age of Empathy empathy in a given moral judgment task, the respondent
(de Waal, 2010)—make grandiose claims about why would in turn reply, “what do you mean by empathy?”
morality and empathy are so important and need to be These ambiguities—combined with our current research
cultivated if we, as a species, want to survive. This year on the neurodevelopment of morality, empathy, and pro-
alone, in hundreds of publications, authors have used the social behavior—motivated the writing of this article.
term “empathy” in both human and animal research. Yet, if
one looks carefully at the content of these articles, it is far
Overview
from clear that the same phenomena was actually studied
(it can indeed range from yawning contagion in dogs, to Although there is a relationship between morality and
distress signaling in chickens, to patient-centered attitudes empathy, we argue in this article that these two constructs
in human medicine). Thus, with perhaps the exception of should not be used interchangeably and, further, that the
some scholars in affective neuroscience and develop­
mental psychology, the concept of empathy has become
Corresponding Author:
an umbrella term and, therefore, is a source of confusion Jean Decety, Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, 5848
to too many of our colleagues. As a further first-hand South University Ave., Chicago, IL 60637
experience, we were struck while attending a recent E-mail: [email protected]
526 Decety, Cowell

nature of the relationship is not straightforward. using the slippery concept of empathy and instead make
Simplifying the relationship between the two is a serious use of more precise constructs, such as emotional shar-
problem—given their respective evolutionary, cognitive, ing, empathic concern, and perspective taking.
and neurobiological mechanisms—and also leads to
misconceptions.
The Scope of Morality
Empathy plays an essential role in interpersonal rela-
tions, including early attachment between primary care- Morality has been theorized to encompass notions of jus-
giver and child, caring for the well-being of others, and tice, fairness, and rights as well as maxims regarding
facilitating cooperation among group members. The lack interpersonal relations (Killen & Rutland, 2011).
of empathy is a hallmark characteristic of psychopathy Alternatively, Haidt and Kesebir (2010) have contended
and, in these individuals, is associated with callous disre- that morality includes the full array of psychological
gard for the well-being of others, guiltlessness, and little mechanisms that are active in the moral lives of people
appreciation of moral wrongdoing. Moreover, research across cultures. Rather than stating the content of moral
with healthy participants and patients with neurological issues (e.g., justice and welfare), this definition specifies
damage indicates that utilitarian judgments are facilitated the function of moral systems as an interlocking set of
by a lack of empathic concern. values, virtues, norms, practices, and identities that work
In reality, empathy is not always a direct avenue to together to suppress or regulate selfishness and to make
moral behavior. Indeed, at times empathy can interfere cooperative social life possible. What seems clear is that,
with moral decision making by introducing partiality, for regardless of the definition, a central focus of morality is
instance, by favoring kin and in-group members. the judgment of the rightness or wrongness of acts or
However, empathy also provides the emotional fire and a behaviors that knowingly cause harm to people (see
push toward seeing a victim’s suffering end, irrespective Table 1 for different models of morality).
of his or her group membership and social hierarchies.
Empathy can prevent rationalization of moral violations. Evolution and development of
Studies in social psychology have indeed clearly shown
that morality and empathy are two independent motives,
morality
each with its own unique goal. In resource-allocation Since Darwin (1871), many scholars have argued that
situations in which these two motives conflict, empathy morality is an evolved aspect of human nature. Such a
can become a source of immoral behavior (Batson, Klein, claim is well supported when it comes to the role of
Highberger, & Shaw, 1995). emotion in moral cognition. It is indeed highly plausible
In this article, we illuminate the complex relation that moral emotions (e.g., guilt and shame) contribute to
between morality and empathy by drawing on theories fitness in shaping decisions and actions when living in
and empirical research in evolutionary biology, develop- complex social groups. In particular, certain emotional
mental psychology, and social neuroscience. We first responses may have led our ancestors to adopt a tit-for-
specify what the concepts of morality and empathy tat strategy (reciprocal altruism). Liking motivates the ini-
encompass. In clarifying these notions, we highlight the tiation of altruistic partnerships, anger and moral
ultimate and proximate causes of morality and empathy. indignation motivate withdrawal of help, and guilt dis-
Empathy has older evolutionary roots in parental care, suades from taking more than what one gives (Trivers,
affective communication, and social attachment; morality, 1985). Reinforcement of moral behaviors minimizes crim-
on the other hand, is more recent and relies on both inal behavior and social conflict ( Joyce, 2006), and moral
affective and cognitive processes. norms provide safeguards against possible well-being or
Because evolution has tailored the mammalian brain health infringements (Begossi, Hanazaki, & Ramos, 2004).
to be sensitive and responsive to the emotional states of Findings from research in moral psychology indicate
others, especially from one’s offspring and members of that moral cognition integrates affective and cognitive
one’s social group, empathy has some unfortunate fea- processing (Greene & Haidt, 2002). In addition, many
tures that can directly conflict with moral behavior, such moral judgments are surprisingly robust to demographic
as implicit group preferences. We next consider—using differences. People are sensitive to some of the same
evidence drawn from behavioral, developmental, and moral principles (e.g., the distinction between permissi-
functional neuroimaging studies—how empathy can bility of personal vs. impersonal harm) independent of
result in immoral judgment and behavior. We then argue gender, age, ethnicity, and religious views (Young &
that perspective taking is a strategy that can be success- Saxe, 2011). It is important to note that although this
fully used to reduce group partiality and to expand the objectivist view seems to be the prevalent contemporary
circle of empathic concern from the tribe to all humanity. theory, some scholars favor moral relativism. In particu-
Finally, we conclude that it may be better to refrain from lar, Prinz (2008) has argued that moral values are based
Friends or Foes 527

Table 1.  Different Models of Moral Psychology

Developmental perspectives:
— In an early theory, provided by Hoffman (1984), egoistic motives are regulated by a socialized affective disposition that is itself
intuitive, quick, and not readily accessible to consciousness.
— In other views of moral development, such as Kohlberg’s (1984) and Turiel’s (1983) theories, scholars have focused on moral
reasoning and have emphasized cognitive deliberation, decision making, and top-down control. In Kohlberg’s paradigm,
fairness, altruism, and caring depend on the intervention of explicit, consciously accessible cognitive moral structures to hold
in check unreflective egoistic inclinations.
— For Turiel (1997), the moral–conventional distinction is constructed by a child as a result of empathizing with the victim in
one type of transgression but not the other. Therefore, when a child sees violations of a moral nature, he or she learns a
prescriptive norm against it because he or she imagines the pain or distress that such an action would cause to him- or herself.
According to social domain theory, children construct different forms of social knowledge, including morality as well as other
types of social knowledge, through their social experiences with adults (parents, teachers, or other adults), peers, and siblings
(Smetana, 1995).
Affective and cognitive perspectives:
— In more recent theoretical perspectives, such as social-intuition (Haidt & Kesebir, 2010) or dual-systems (Greene & Haidt,
2002) models, researchers have attempted to infer basic mechanisms of moral judgment, assuming that they are unconscious
and rapid. In these models, affective responses and social emotions (shame, guilt, and empathy) play an essential role.

on emotional responses, which are inculcated by culture and affective systems and that they involve a network of
and are not hard wired through natural selection. regions comprising the posterior superior temporal sul-
Moreover, it would be misleading to see morality as a cus (pSTS), amygdala, insula, ventromedial prefrontal
direct product of evolution. Morality is also a social insti- cortex (vmPFC), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and
tution, and many moral codes redirect or even oppose medial prefrontal cortex (Buckholtz & Marois, 2012;
our evolved tendencies, such as in-group favoritism Fumagalli & Priori, 2012; Moll et  al., 2007; Shenhav &
(Stewart-Williams, 2010). Greene, 2014; Yoder & Decety, 2014a).
A growing body of developmental research demon- A large part of this neural network is also involved in
strates that the capacity to evaluate others on the basis of implicit moral evaluations, that is, when people automati-
their prosocial and antisocial actions operates within the cally make moral judgments without being required to
first year of life. It is sensitive to many of the same factors do so. For instance, when individuals are shown stimuli
that constrain adults’ social and moral judgments, includ- depicting intentional interpersonal harm versus acciden-
ing the role of mental states and context in distinguishing tal harm, heightened neuro-hemodynamic activity is
good and bad behavior (Hamlin, 2014). By their second detected (and increased effective connectivity) in regions
birthday, children manifest the explicit inclination to help underpinning emotional saliency (amygdala and insula)
and collaborate with others and begin to show explicit and understanding mental states (pSTS and medial pre-
attention to social norms (Robbins & Rochat, 2011). frontal cortex) as well as in areas critical for experiencing
Evolutionary theory and empirical research in develop- empathic concern and moral judgment (vmPFC/­
mental science provide strong support for claims that orbitofrontal cortex; Decety, Michalska, & Kinzler, 2012).
those human capacities for moral evaluation are rooted The timing of the neural processing underpinning these
in basic systems that evolved in the context of coopera- implicit moral computations associated with the percep-
tion necessary for communal living. tion of harm is extremely fast, as demonstrated by a fol-
low-up study in which high-density event-related
Neural mechanisms underpinning potentials (ERPs) were used (Decety & Cacioppo, 2012).
Current source density maxima in the right pSTS, as fast
moral cognition as 62 ms poststimulus, first distinguished intentional ver-
The information processing required for moral cognition sus accidental harm. Later responses in the amygdala
is complex. Many neural regions are involved, including (122 ms) and vmPFC (182 ms), respectively, were evoked
areas that are involved in other capacities, such as emo- by the perception of intentional (but not accidental)
tional saliency, theory of mind, and decision making (see harmful actions, indicative of fast information processing
Figure 1). Investigations into the neuroscience of moral- associated with these early stages of moral sensitivity.
ity have begun to shed light on the neural mechanisms It is important to note that the vmPFC is not necessary
underpinning moral cognition (Young & Dungan, 2012). for affective responses per se (it is not activated by wit-
Functional neuroimaging and lesion studies indicate that nessing accidental harm to others), but it is critical when
moral evaluations arise from the integration of cognitive affective responses are shaped by conceptual information
528 Decety, Cowell

Fig. 1.  Network of interconnected regions implicated in moral cognition labeled on the sagittal, horizontal, and coronal sections of an average
structural magnetic resonance imaging scan.

about specific outcomes (Roy, Shohamy, & Wager, 2012). damage to the vmPFC, unlike patients in whom similar
This region plays a critical role in contextually dependent lesions occurred during adulthood, endorse significantly
moral judgment, as demonstrated by functional neuroim- more self-serving judgments that broke moral rules or
aging studies (e.g., Zahn, de Oliveira-Souza, & Moll, inflicted harm to others (e.g., lying on one’s taxes declara-
2011). Furthermore, individual differences in empathic tion or killing an annoying boss). Furthermore, the earlier
concern have been shown to predict the magnitude of the vmPFC damage, especially before 5 years of age, the
response in vmPFC in some moral contexts but not in greater likelihood of self-­serving moral judgment (Taber-
others. Specifically, higher empathic concern was related Thomas et  al., 2014). In typically developing children,
to greater activity in vmPFC in moral evaluations in which there is increased functional coupling between the vmPFC
guilt was induced but not in moral evaluations in which and amygdala during the evaluation of moral stimuli, in
compassion was induced (Zahn, de Oliveira-Souza, particular interpersonal harm (Decety, Michalska, &
Bramati, Garrido, & Moll, 2009). In addition, anatomical Kinzler, 2012). This region seems critical for the acquisi-
lesion and functional dysfunctions of the vmPFC and its tion and maturation of a moral competency that goes
reciprocal connections with the amygdala lead to a lack beyond self-interest to consider the welfare of others.
of empathic concern, inappropriate social behavior, a Thus, the vmPFC seems fundamental for both the attain-
diminished sense of guilt and immoral behavior (Sobhani ment and growth of moral faculties.
& Bechara, 2011), and increases in utilitarian judgment What has become clear from social and clinical neuro-
(Koenigs et al., 2007). Patients with developmental-onset science research is that there is no unique center in the
Friends or Foes 529

brain for moral judgment. Rather, there are intercon- Emotional sharing
nected systems that are not domain specific but support
more domain-general processing, such as affective One primary component of empathy, emotional sharing
arousal, attention, intention understanding, and decision (sometimes referred to as empathic arousal or emotional
making (Decety & Howard, 2013). For instance, a func- contagion), plays a fundamental role in generating the
tional magnetic resonance imaging study showed that motivation to care and help another individual in distress
moral judgments of harm, dishonesty, and sexual disgust and is relatively independent of mindreading and per-
are instantiated in dissociable neural systems that are spective-taking capacities. Emotion sharing is often
engaged differentially depending on the type of trans- viewed as the simplest or a rudimentary form of empathy
gression being evaluated (Parkinson et  al., 2011). The and can be observed across a multitude of species from
only overlapping activation across all morally laden sce- birds to rodents and humans (Ben-Ami Bartal, Decety, &
narios in that study was that the dorsomedial prefrontal Mason, 2011; Edgar, Lowe, & Nicol, 2011). Empirical
cortex, a region not specifically involved in the decision work with animals and humans demonstrates kin and in-
of wrongness, rather robustly associated with self-­ group preferences in the detection and reaction to signs
referential processing, thinking about other people (i.e., of distress. For instance, rodents do not react indiscrimi-
theory of mind), and processing ambiguous information. nately to other conspecifics in distress. Female mice had
Taken together, investigations of the evolutionary, higher fear responses (freezing behavior) when exposed
developmental, and neural mechanisms of moral cogni- to the pain of a close relative than when exposed to the
tion yield a strong picture of a constructivist view of pain of a more distant relative ( Jeon et al., 2010). Another
morality—an interaction of domain general systems, investigation found that female mice approaching a dyad
including executive control/attentional, perspective-­ member in physical pain led to less writhing from the
taking, decision-making, and emotional-processing mouse in pain. These beneficial effects of social approach
networks. were seen only when the mouse was a cage mate of the
mouse in pain rather than a stranger (Langford et  al.,
2010). These results replicate previous findings in which
researchers reported reduced pain sensitivity in mice
Empathy and Its Components
when interacting with siblings but no such analgesic
Empathy is currently used to refer to more than a handful effect in mice when interacting with a stranger (D’Amato
of distinct phenomena (Batson, 2009). These numerous & Pavone, 1993). Genetic relatedness alone does not
definitions make it difficult to keep track of which process motivate helping, as demonstrated by a new study in
or mental state that the term empathy is being used which rats fostered from birth were combined with
to refer to in any given discussion (Coplan, 2011). another strain. Results showed that, as adults, fostered
Differentiating these conceptualizations is vital, as each rats helped strangers of the fostering strain but not rats of
refers to distinct psychological processes that vary in their their own strain (Ben-Ami Bartal, Rodgers, Bernardez
social, cognitive, and underlying neural mechanisms. Sarria, Decety, & Mason, 2014). Thus, strain familiarity,
Recently, work from developmental and affective and even to one’s own strain, is required for the expression of
social neuroscience in both animals and humans con- prosocial behavior in rodents. Similarly, early childhood
verge to consider empathy as a multidimensional con- experience with individuals of other racial groups reduces
struct comprising dissociable components that interact adults’ amygdala response to members of the out-group
and operate in parallel fashion, including affective, moti- (Cloutier, Li, & Correll, 2014).
vational, and cognitive components (Decety & Jackson, In naturalistic studies, young children with high
2004; Decety & Svetlova, 2012). These reflect evolved empathic disposition are more readily aroused vicari-
functions that allow mammalian species to thrive by ously by other’s sadness, pain, or distress, but, at the
detecting and responding to significant social events nec- same time, they possess greater capacities for emotion
essary for surviving, reproducing, and maintaining well- regulation such that their own negative arousal motivates
being (e.g., Decety, 2011; Decety, Norman, Berntson, & rather than overwhelms their desire to alleviate the oth-
Cacioppo, 2012). In this neuroevolutionary framework, er’s distress (Nichols, Svetlova, & Brownell, 2009). Even
the emotional component of empathy reflects the capac- basic physiological responses to stress (salivary cortisol)
ity to share or become affectively aroused by others’ have been shown to resonate between an individual and
emotions (in at least in valence, tone, and relatively observers (Buchanan, Bagley, Stansfield, & Preston,
intensity). The motivational component of empathy 2012). Despite the general acceptance that emotion con-
(empathic concern) corresponds to the urge of caring for tagion is automatic, empirical evidence from both animal
another’s welfare. Finally, cognitive empathy is similar to (from birds to rodents) and human research shows that
the construct of perspective taking. many variables affect its induction in an observer.
530 Decety, Cowell

Emotional contagion leads to the experience of emo- individuals, and lesion studies in neurological patients
tional similarity, the latter of which is associated with a (Shamay-Tsoory, 2009) demonstrates that caring for oth-
variety of interpersonal benefits, including less conflict ers employs a large array of systems neural mechanisms,
and greater cooperation among group members (Barsade, extending beyond the cortex, including the amygdala,
2002). Overall, the ability to be affected by, and share the brainstem, hypothalamus, insula, ACC, and orbitofrontal
emotional state of, another facilitates parental care and cortex (Preston, 2013). It also involves the autonomic
bonding among individuals from similar groups and is nervous system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, and
moderated by a priori attitudes to out-group members. endocrine and hormonal systems (particularly oxytocin
Research using electroencephalography and ERPs in and vasopressin) that regulate bodily states, emotion, and
children and adults viewing stimuli depicting conspecif- social sensitivity. These systems underlying attachment
ics in physical pain, as a way to examine this basic affec- appear to exploit the strong, established physical pain
tive resonance, has documented the elicitation of specific and reward systems, borrowing aversive signals associ-
ERP components, including an early automatic atten- ated with pain to indicate when relationships are threat-
tional salience (N2) and late positive potentials that are ened (Eisenberger, 2011).
associated with affective arousal and affective appraisal This motivation to care is both deeply rooted in our
of the stimuli, respectively (Cheng, Hung, & Decety, 2012; biology and is very flexible. People can feel empathic
Fan & Han, 2008). Numerous neuroimaging studies in concern for a wide range of targets when cues of vulner-
both children (Decety & Michalska, 2010) and adults ability and need are highly salient, including nonhumans
(Lamm, Decety, & Singer, 2011) have reliably demon- and, particularly in Western culture, pet animals such as
strated that when individuals are exposed to facial puppies (Batson, 2012). Neural regions involved in per-
expressions of pain, sadness, or emotional distress, or ceiving the distress of other humans are similarly recruited
even when they imagine others in pain, brain regions when witnessing the distress of domesticated animals
involved in the first-hand experience of pain (i.e., the (Franklin et al., 2013).
pain matrix or salience network) are activated. These
regions include the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), ante-
rior midcingulate cortex, anterior insula, supplementary
Perspective taking
motor area, amygdala, somatosensory cortex, and periaq- The third component of empathy, perspective taking,
ueductal gray area in the brainstem. Thus, observing refers to the ability to consciously put oneself into the
another individual in distress or in pain induces a visceral mind of another individual and imagine what that person
arousal in the perceiver by eliciting neural response in a is thinking or feeling. It has been linked to social compe-
salience network that relates to interoceptive-autonomic tence and social reasoning (Underwood & Moore, 1982)
processing (Seeley et al., 2007) and that triggers defen- and can be used as a strategy for reducing group biases.
sive and protective behaviors. It has been documented in a substantial body of behav-
ioral studies that affective perspective taking is a powerful
way to elicit empathy and concern for others (Batson,
Empathic concern 2012; van Lange, 2008) and to reduce prejudice and inter-
Another component of the construct of empathy is group bias. For instance, taking the perspective of an out-
empathic concern. All mammals depend on other con- group member leads to a decrease in the use of explicit
specifics for survival and reproduction, particularly and implicit stereotypes for that individual and to more
parental care, which is a necessary for infant survival and positive evaluations of that group as a whole (Galinsky &
development (Decety, Norman, et al., 2012). The level of Moskowitz, 2000). Something of this sort occurred among
care varies by species, but the underlying neural circuitry the rescuers of Jews during World War II in Europe. A
for responding to infants (especially signals of vulnerabil- careful analysis of the data collected by Oliner and Oliner
ity and need) is universally present and highly conserved (1988) suggests that involvement in rescue activity fre-
across species. Animal research demonstrates that being quently began with concern for a specific individual or
affected by others’ emotional states, an ability integral to individuals for whom compassion was felt—often indi-
maintaining the social relationships important for sur- viduals known previously. This initial involvement subse-
vival, is organized by basic neural, autonomic, and neu- quently led to further contact and rescue activity, and to a
roendocrine systems subserving attachment-related concern for justice, that extended well beyond the bounds
processes, which are implemented in the brainstem, pre- of the initial empathic concern. Assuming the perspective
optic area of the thalamus, basal ganglia, paralimbic of another (like being in a wheelchair) brings about
areas, as well as the autonomic nervous system (Panksepp, changes in the way we see the other, and these changes
1998). Converging evidence from animal behavior (Insel generalize to people similar to them, notably members of
& Young, 2001), neuroimaging studies in healthy the same social groups to which they belong (Castano,
Friends or Foes 531

2012). The long-lasting effects of such interventions have have some unfortunate features that can conflict with
been documented in some studies. For instance, Sri moral behavior. It is well established that the mere assign-
Lankan Singhalese participants expressed enhanced ment of individuals to arbitrary groups elicits evaluative
empathy toward a group of individuals that they had been preferences for in-group relative to out-group members,
in a long-term and violent conflict with (the Tamils) even and this impacts empathy. In one behavioral study, par-
a year after participating in a 4-day intergroup workshop ticipants were assigned to artificial groups and were
(Malhotra & Liyanage, 2005). required to perform pain intensity judgments of stimuli
Adopting the perspective of another person, in par- depicting bodily injuries from self-, in-group, and out-
ticular someone from another social group, is cognitively group perspectives. Participants rated the stimuli as more
demanding and, hence, requires additional attentional painful when they had to adopt the perspective of an
resources and working memory, thus taxing executive in-group member as compared with their own perspec-
function. Neuroscience research demonstrates that when tive, whereas the out-group perspective did not induce
individuals adopt the perspective of another, neural cir- different responses to the painful stimuli as compared
cuits common to the ones underlying first-person experi- with the self-perspective. Moreover, the ratings differ-
ences are activated as well (Decety, 2005; Jackson, ences between the painful and nonpainful pictures were
Brunet, Meltzoff, & Decety, 2006; Lamm, Meltzoff, & greater for in-group than for out-group members
Decety, 2010; Ruby & Decety, 2004). However, taking the (Montalan, Lelard, Godefroy, & Mouras, 2012).
perspective of another produces increased activation in Although empathic concern is one of the earliest social
regions of the prefrontal cortex that are implicated in emotional competencies that develops (Davidov, Zahn-
working memory and executive control. In a neuroimag- Waxler, Roth-Hanania, & Knafo, 2013), children do not
ing study, participants watched video clips featuring display empathy and concern toward all people equally.
patients undergoing painful medical treatment, and they Instead, they show bias toward individuals and members
were asked to either put themselves explicitly in the of groups with which they identify. For instance, 2-year-
shoes of the patient (imagine self) or to focus on the old children display more empathy-related behaviors
patient’s feelings and affective expressions (imagine toward their mother than toward an unfamiliar individ-
other). Explicitly projecting oneself into an aversive situ- ual. In line with the in-group hypothesis, 8-year-old chil-
ation led to higher personal distress, which was associ- dren were more likely to be emotionally reactive toward
ated with enhanced activation in the amygdala and their in-group members compared with members of the
ACC—whereas focusing on the emotional and behavioral out-group, and dispositional empathy (as well as social
reactions of another in distress was accompanied by anxiety) was positively correlated with group identifica-
higher empathic concern, lower personal distress, tion (Masten, Gillen-O’Neel, & Spears Brown, 2010).
increased activity in the executive attention network and Moreover, children (3–9 years of age) view social catego-
vmPFC, and reduced amygdala response (Lamm, Batson, ries as marking patterns of intrinsic interpersonal obliga-
& Decety, 2007). tions; that is, they view people as intrinsically obligated
Distinguishing among these three components of only to their own group members, and they consider
empathy is far from being only a theoretical debate. It within-group harm as wrong regardless of explicit rules;
has implications for research design and interpretation as however, they view the wrongness of between-groups
well. For instance, in a recent study, Mößle, Kliem, and harm as contingent on the presence of such rules (Rhodes
Rehbein (2014) examined the link between violent media & Chalik, 2013). These results regarding the nonobliga-
consumption and aggressive behavior in a very large tory nature of between-groups harm contradict the prev-
sample of children and reported that in boys (and not in alent notion from social domain theory that moral
girls) empathy mediated the relationship between media transgressions about harm are unalterable (and contextu-
consumption and aggressive behavior. To measure empa- ally independent) from as young as preschool age
thy, they lumped together items in which feelings of con- (Smetana, 1981).
cern for the other were assessed and also some aspects In a recent study, British Caucasian participants were
that we would categorize as reflecting personal distress. read a summary of the atrocities committed by Caucasian
It would have been useful to separate these two, as their British against the African slaves and were asked about
neural and cognitive mechanisms are quite distinct. A their guilt toward these actions and their categorization
similar reasoning can be useful in the study of morality. of the relationship between British and African nations.
Opposing a commonsense view that conceptualizing
nations as a single, shared humanity would predict
The Unfortunate Features of Empathy
greater remorse toward these actions, the individuals
As empathic concern and emotional sharing have evolved who viewed the British and African nations as two sepa-
in the context of parental care and group living, they rate races felt greater guilt over historic transgressions
532 Decety, Cowell

and had lesser expectations of forgiveness (Morton & empathic neural responses by racial group membership
Postmes, 2011). Moreover, in another study, people’s rela- are similar in different ethnic groups. In another study,
tive levels of economic well-being were found to shape Cikara, Botvinick, and Fiske (2011) demonstrated that the
their beliefs about what is right or wrong. In that study, failures of an in-group member are painful, whereas
upper class individuals were more likely to make calcu- those of a rival out-group member give pleasure—a feel-
lated, dispassionate moral judgments in dilemmas in ing that may motivate harming rivals.
which utilitarian choices were at odds with visceral moral All these representative behavioral, developmental,
intuitions (Cote, Piff, & Willer, 2013). In this way, the and functional neuroimaging studies clearly demonstrate
lower concern of upper class individuals ironically led that distinct components of empathy are modulated by
them to make moral decisions that were more likely to both bottom-up and top-down processes, such as those
maximize the greatest good for the greatest number. In involved in group membership, and this can affect proso-
short, straightforward predictions between empathic con- cial and moral behaviors.
cern and morality are not possible and appear to be gov-
erned by contextual influences. Relationships Between Empathy and
Further evidence from studies with adults suggests
that although empathic concern does not necessarily
Moral Judgments
change notions of fairness (e.g., what is the just action in The precise ways in which empathy contributes to moral
a certain situation), it does change the decision that an judgment remain debated, but in addition to influencing
individual will make. In one such study (Batson et  al., moral evaluation, it might also play an important devel-
1995), college students who were required to assign a opmental role, leading to the aversion to violent actions
good and bad task to two individuals overwhelmingly without necessarily empathizing with the victims of such
endorsed random assignment (i.e., a coin flip) as the actions (Miller, Hannikainen, & Cushman, 2014). One
most fair means for deciding who would be assigned paradigm often used in psychological and some neuro-
with the bad task. However, when asked to consider the science studies of moral judgment is a thought experi-
feelings of a worker who had recently suffered hardship, ment borrowed from philosophy—the Trolley Dilemma
students readily offered the good task to the worker (e.g., Foot, 1967; Thomson, 1976). Participants are told
rather than using random assignment. about an out of control trolley headed down a track to
In recent investigations from social and affective neu- which six persons are tied; there is an alternate track to
roscience, it has been documented that the neural net- which one individual is tied. Participants are then given
work implicated in empathy for the pain of others is an option of diverting the trolley: They can pull a lever,
either strengthened or weakened by interpersonal vari- and the trolley will be diverted to the alternate track, kill-
ables, implicit attitudes, and group preferences. Activity ing the one individual and saving the group. This deci-
in the pain neural network is significantly enhanced sion is relatively easy to make, and the majority of
when individuals view or imagine their loved ones in participants will choose to divert the trolley. However,
pain compared with strangers (Cheng, Chen, Lin, Chou, another option is presented, rather than pulling a lever,
& Decety, 2010). Empathic arousal is moderated by a they have to either let the six die or they can push a large
priori implicit attitudes toward conspecifics. For example, man in front of the trolley, again, sacrificing the one to
study participants were significantly more sensitive to the save the group. This decision, for the majority of partici-
pain of individuals who had contracted AIDS as the result pants, is not comfortable; in fact, most participants refuse
of a blood transfusion as compared with individuals who to push the man. This classic thought problem, compar-
had contracted AIDS as the result of their illicit drug ing impersonal and personal moral decision making,
addiction (sharing needles), as evidenced by higher pain referred to as utilitarian judgment, has led to a great deal
sensitivity ratings and greater hemodynamic activity in of inquiry about the nature of individuals who will push
the ACC, insula, and periaqueductal gray area, although the large man in front of the trolley.
the intensity of pain on the facial expressions was strictly Are individuals who make utilitarian judgments in per-
the same across all videos (Decety, Echols, & Correll, sonal situations more rational and calculating, or are they
2009). In another study, Xu, Zuo, Wang, and Han (2009) simply colder and less averse to harming others? Support
found evidence for a modulation of empathic neural for a link between empathy and moral reasoning is given
responses by racial group membership. Notably, the by studies in which low levels of dispositional empathic
response in the ACC to perception of others in pain concern are demonstrated to predict utilitarian moral
decreased remarkably when participants viewed faces of judgment in some situations (e.g., Gleichgerrcht & Young,
racial out-group members relative to racial in-group 2013). In a recent functional neuroimaging study, Wiech
members. This effect was comparable in Caucasian and et al. (2013) examined the neural basis of such indiffer-
Chinese participants and suggests that modulations of ence to harming while participants were engaged in
Friends or Foes 533

moral judgment of dilemmas. A tendency toward coun- the vmPFC in moral decision making and empathic con-
terintuitive impersonal utilitarian judgment was associ- cern as well as the importance of this region in process-
ated both with psychoticism (or psychopathy), a trait ing aversive emotions that arise from perceiving or
linked with a lack of empathic concern and antisocial imagining harmful intentions. Such information is pro-
tendencies, and with “need for cognition,” a trait reflect- cessed extremely rapidly, as demonstrated by high-­
ing preference for effortful cognition. Only psychoticism density electroencephalography/ERP recordings in
was also negatively correlated with activation in the individuals viewing intentional interpersonal harm
vmPFC during counterintuitive utilitarian judgments. (Decety & Cacioppo, 2012; Yoder & Decety, 2014b), and
These findings suggest that when individuals reach highly is factored in when making moral judgments.
counterintuitive utilitarian conclusions, this does not nec-
essarily reflect greater engagement in explicit moral Extending Empathic Concern Outside
deliberation. It may rather reveal a lack of empathic con-
cern and diminished aversion to harming others. Lesions
the Tribe
of the orbitofrontal cortex (including the vmPFC) have Even the most advanced forms of empathy in humans are
been associated with increased utilitarian choices in built on more basic forms and remain connected to affec-
highly conflicting moral dilemmas, such as opting to sac- tive communication, social attachment, and parental
rifice one person’s life to save a number of other indi- care—the neurobiological mechanisms of which are
viduals, more often than in control participants (Koenigs highly conserved across mammalian species (Decety,
et al., 2007). 2011). Empathic concern evolved in the context of paren-
Additional support for a link between empathic con- tal care and group living, yielding a variety of group
cern and morality can be found in neuroimaging studies biases that can certainly affect people’s moral behavior.
in which individuals with psychopathy are studied. Both empathic concern and moral decision making
Individuals with psychopathy are characterized by a lack require involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex/vmPFC—
of empathic concern, guilt, and remorse, and they consis- a region that is reciprocally connected with ancient affec-
tently show abnormal anatomical connectivity and func- tive systems in brainstem, amygdala, and hypothalamus;
tional response in the vmPFC (Motzkin, Newman, Kiehl, that bridges conceptual and affective processes; and that
& Koenigs, 2011). For instance, when individuals with is necessary to guide moral behavior and decision mak-
psychopathy were shown pictures of physical pain and ing. This region, across species, is a critical hub for care-
were asked to imagine how another person would feel in giving behavior, particularly parenting through
these scenarios, they exhibited an atypical pattern of reward-based and affective associations (Parsons, Stark,
brain activation and effective connectivity between the Young, Stein, & Kringelbach, 2013). Thus, care-based
anterior insula and amygdala with the vmPFC (Decety, morality piggybacks on older evolutionary motivational
Chen, Harenski, & Kiehl, 2013; Decety, Skelly, & Kiehl, mechanisms associated with parental care. This explains
2013). The response in the amygdala and insula was why empathy is not a direct avenue to morality and can
inversely correlated with their scores on the Psychopathy at times be a source of immoral action by favoring
Checklist—Revised (Hare, 2003) Factor 1, which accounts self-interest.
for the interpersonal/affective deficits. Contrary to popu- In humans, as well as in nonhuman animals, empathic
lar opinion, individuals with psychopathy do seem to concern and prosocial behavior are modulated by the
make the cognitive distinction between moral wrongs degree of affiliation and are extended preferentially
and other types of wrongs. For instance, in a recent study, toward in-group members and less often toward unaffili-
Aharoni, Sinnott-Armstrong, and Kiehl (2012) used a ated others (Echols & Correll, 2012). Yet, humans can and
forensic population to examine the extent to which incar- often do act prosocially toward strangers and can extend
cerated offenders with varying degrees of psychopathy concern beyond kin or own social group. Humans have
could distinguish between moral and conventional trans- created meta-level symbolic social structures for uphold-
gressions relative to each other and to nonincarcerated ing moral principles to all humanity, such as human rights
healthy controls; they found that psychopathy as a whole and the International Criminal Court. In the course of his-
did not predict the ability to understand what is morally tory, people have enlarged the range of beings whose
wrong. However, the affective facet of psychopathy interests they value as they value their own, from direct
(Psychopathy Checklist—Revised Factor 1) predicted offspring, to relatives, to affiliates, and finally to strangers
reduced performance on the moral versus conventional (Singer, 1981). Thus, nurture is not confined to the depen-
transgression task, which supports the notion that emo- dent young of one’s own kin system but rather can be
tion contributes to moral cognition. expanded to current and future generations. Such a
In summary, neuroimaging experiments, lesion stud- capacity to help and care for unfamiliar individuals is
ies, and studies on psychopathy show the critical role of often viewed as complex behavior that depends on high
534 Decety, Cowell

cognitive capacities, social modeling, and cultural trans- executive function in cognitive and developmental sci-
mission (Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005). ences. Following a similar call (Miyake et al., 2000) for
It has been argued that moral progress involves dissociable processes in this concept of executive func-
expanding people’s concern from the family and the tribe tion, there is greater utility and accuracy in studying shift-
to humanity as a whole. Yet, it is difficult to empathize ing, inhibiting, and updating (working memory). Thus, if
with seven billion strangers or to feel toward a person everyone agrees that empathy covers three distinct (not
one never met with the degree of concern one feels for necessarily mutually exclusive) sets of processes, why
one’s own baby or a friend. One of the recent “inven- not drop the usage of this umbrella concept?
tions” that, according to Pinker (2011), contributed to
expanding empathy is the expansion of literacy during Declaration of Conflicting Interests
the humanitarian revolution in the 18th century. In the The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest
epistolary novel, the story unfolds in a character’s own with respect to their authorship or the publication of this
words, exposing the character’s thoughts and feelings in article.
real time rather than describing them from the distancing
perspective of a disembodied narrator. Preliminary Funding
research suggests that reading literary fiction temporarily The writing of this article was supported by grants from the
improves the capacity to identify and understand others’ John Templeton Foundation (The Science of Philanthropy
subjective affective and cognitive mental states (Kidd & Initiative and Wisdom Research) and from the National Institutes
Castano, 2013). Bal and Veltkamp (2013) investigated the of Health (1R01MH087525-01A2; MH084934-01A1) to Jean
influence of fictional narrative experience on empathy Decety.
over time, and their results indicate that self-reported
empathic skills significantly changed over the course of References
1  week for readers of fictional stories. Another line Aharoni, E., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Kiehl, K. A. (2012). Can
of research implies that arts intervention—training in psychopathic offenders discern moral wrongs? A new look
acting—­leads to growth in empathy and theory of mind at the moral/conventional distinction. Journal of Abnormal
(Goldstein & Winner, 2012). Thus, mounting evidence Psychology, 121, 484–497.
seems to indicate that reading, language, the arts, and the Bal, P. M., & Veltkamp, M. (2013). How does fiction reading
media provide rich cultural input that triggers internal influence empathy? An experimental investigation of the
simulation processes (Decety & Grèzes, 2006) and that role of emotional transportation. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e55341.
leads to the experience of emotions influencing both doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055341
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion
concern and caring for others.
and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 47, 644–675.
Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related
Is Empathy a Necessary Concept? but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The
social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, MA:
To wrap up on a provocative note, it may be advanta-
MIT press.
geous in the future for scholars interested in the science Batson, C. D. (2012). The empathy-altruism hypothesis: Issues
of morality to refrain from using the catch-all term of and implications. In J. Decety (Ed.), Empathy: From bench
empathy, which applies to a myriad of processes and to bedside (pp. 41–54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
phenomena and, as a result, yields confusion in both Batson, C. D., Klein, T. R., Highberger, L., & Shaw, L. L. (1995).
understanding and predictive ability. In both academic Immorality from empathy-induced altruism: When compas-
and applied domains—such medicine, ethics, law, and sion and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social
policy—empathy has become an enticing, but muddy, Psychology, 68, 1042–1054.
notion, potentially leading to misinterpretation. If ancient Begossi, A., Hanazaki, N., & Ramos, R. (2004). Food chain and the
Greek philosophy has taught us anything, it is that when reasons for fish food taboos among Amazonian and Atlantic
a concept is attributed with so many meanings, it is at forest fishers. Ecological Applications, 14, 1334–1343.
Ben-Ami Bartal, I., Decety, J., & Mason, P. (2011). Empathy and
risk for losing function. Emotional sharing (or affective
pro-social behavior in rats. Science, 334, 1427–1430.
arousal), empathic concern, and perspective taking are Ben-Ami Bartal, I., Rodgers, D. A., Bernardez Sarria, M. S.,
more precise in their scope and allow for generative the- Decety, J., & Mason, P. (2014). Prosocial behavior in rats is
ories about their relations with moral cognition. Each of modulated by social experience. eLife, 3, e1385. Retrieved
these emotional, motivational, and cognitive facets of from http://elifesciences.org/content/3/e01385
empathy has a different relationship with morality and is Buchanan, T. W., Bagley, S. L., Stansfield, R. B., & Preston, S. D.
swayed by both social context and interpersonal relation- (2012). The empathic, physiological resonance of stress.
ships. An analogy can be made with the umbrella term of Social Neuroscience, 7, 191–201.
Friends or Foes 535

Buckholtz, J. W., & Marois, R. (2012). The roots of modern Decety, J., & Howard, L. (2013). The role of affect in the neuro-
justice: Cognitive and neural foundations of social norms development of morality. Child Development Perspectives,
and their enforcement. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 655–661. 7, 49–54.
Castano, E. (2012). Antisocial behavior in individuals and Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture
groups: An empathy-focused approach. In K. Deaux & M. of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience
Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and Reviews, 3, 71–100.
social psychology (pp. 419–445). New York, NY: Oxford Decety, J., & Michalska, K. J. (2010). Neurodevelopmental changes
University Press. in the circuits underlying empathy and sympathy from child-
Cheng, Y., Chen, C. Y., Lin, C. P., Chou, K. H., & Decety, J. hood to adulthood. Developmental Science, 13, 886–899.
(2010). Love hurts: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 51, 923–929. Decety, J., Michalska, K. J., & Kinzler, K. D. (2012). The con-
Cheng, Y., Hung, A., & Decety, J. (2012). Dissociation between tribution of emotion and cognition to moral sensitivity: A
affective sharing and emotion understanding in juvenile neurodevelopmental study. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 209–220.
psychopaths. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 623– Decety, J., Norman, G. J., Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T.
636. (2012). A neurobehavioral evolutionary perspective on the
Cikara, M., Botvinick, M. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus mechanisms underlying empathy. Progress in Neurobiology,
them: Social identity shapes responses to intergroup com- 98, 38–48.
petition and harm. Psychological Science, 22, 306–313. Decety, J., Skelly, L. R., & Kiehl, K. A. (2013). Brain response to
Cloutier, J., Li, T., & Correll, J. (2014). The impact of childhood empathy-eliciting scenarios in incarcerated individuals with
experience on amygdala response to perceptually familiar psychopathy. JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 638–645.
black and white faces. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. Decety, J., & Svetlova, M. (2012). Putting together phylogenetic
Advance online publication. and ontogenetic perspectives on empathy. Developmental
Coplan, A. (2011). Understanding empathy. In A. Coplan & P. Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 1–24.
Goldie (Eds.), Empathy: Philosophical and psychological de Waal, F. (2010). The age of empathy. New York, NY: Crown.
perspectives (pp. 3–18). New York, NY: Oxford University Echols, S., & Correll, J. (2012). It’s more than skin deep:
Press. Empathy and helping behavior across social groups. In J.
Cote, S., Piff, P. K., & Willer, R. (2013). For whom do the ends Decety (Ed.), Empathy: From bench to bedside (pp. 55–71).
justify the means? Social class and utilitarian moral judg- Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, Edgar, J. L., Lowe, J. C., & Nicol, C. J. (2011). Avian maternal
490–503. response to chick distress. Proceedings of the Royal Society
D’Amato, F. R., & Pavone, F. (1993). Endogenous opioids: A B: Biological Sciences, 1721, 3129–3134.
proximate reward mechanism for kin selection? Behavioral Eisenberger, N. (2011). Why rejection hurts: What social neu-
and Neural Biology, 60, 79–83. roscience has revealed about the brain’s response to social
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation rejection. In J. Decety & J. T. Cacioppo (Eds.), The Oxford
to sex (1874th ed.). London, England: John Murray. handbook of social neuroscience (pp. 586–598). New York,
Davidov, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Roth-Hanania, R., & Knafo, A. NY: Oxford University Press.
(2013). Concern for others in the first year of life: Theory, Fan, Y., & Han, S. (2008). Temporal dynamic of neural mecha-
evidence, and avenues for research. Child Development nisms involved in empathy for pain: An event-related brain
Perspectives, 7, 126–131. potential study. Neuropsychologia, 46, 160–173.
Decety, J. (2005). Perspective taking as the royal avenue to Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the
empathy. In B. F. Malle & S. D. Hodges (Eds.), Other double effect in virtues and vices. Oxford Review, Number
minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and oth- 5. Retrieved from http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/
ers (pp. 135–149). New York, NY: Guilford. econ362/hallam/readings/footdoubleeffect.pdf
Decety, J. (2011). The neuroevolution of empathy. Annals of Franklin, R. G., Nelson, A. J., Baker, M., Beeney, J. E., Vescio,
the New York Academy of Sciences, 1231, 35–45. T. K., Lenz-Watson, A., & Adams, R. A. (2013). Neural
Decety, J., & Cacioppo, S. (2012). The speed of morality: A responses to perceiving suffering in humans and animals.
high-density electrical neuroimaging study. Journal of Social Neuroscience, 8, 217–227.
Neurophysiology, 108, 3068–3072. Fumagalli, M., & Priori, A. (2012). Functional and clinical neu-
Decety, J., Chen, C., Harenski, C. L., & Kiehl, K. A. (2013). roanatomy of morality. Brain, 135, 2006–2021.
An fMRI study of affective perspective taking in individu- Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking:
als with psychopathy: Imagining another in pain does Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility
not evoke empathy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social
Article 489. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00489 Psychology, 78, 708–724.
Decety, J., Echols, S. C., & Correll, J. (2009). The blame game: Gleichgerrcht, E., & Young, L. (2013). Low levels of empathic
The effect of responsibility and social stigma on empathy concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PLoS ONE, 8(4),
for pain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 985–997. e60418. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060418
Decety, J., & Grèzes, J. (2006). The power of simulation: Goldstein, T. R., & Winner, E. (2012). Enhancing empathy and
Imagining one’s own and other’s behavior. Brain Research, theory of mind. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13,
1079, 4–14. 19–37.
536 Decety, Cowell

Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral Malhotra, D., & Liyanage, S. (2005). Long-term effects of peace
judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 517–523. workshops in protracted conflicts. Journal of Conflict
Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & Resolution, 49, 908–924.
G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Masten, C. L., Gillen-O’Neel, C., & Spears Brown, C. (2010).
pp. 797–832). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Children’s intergroup empathic processing: The roles of
Hamlin, J. K. (2014). The origins of human morality: Complex novel ingroup identification, situational distress, and social
socio-moral evaluations by pre-verbal infants. In J. Decety anxiety. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106,
& Y. Christen (Eds.), New frontiers in social neuroscience 115–128.
(pp. 165–188). New York, NY: Springer. Miller, R. M., Hannikainen, I. A., & Cushman, F. A. (2014). Bad
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare psychopathy checklist: Revised. actions or bad outcomes? Differentiating affective contribu-
New York City, NY: Multi-Health Systems. tions to the moral condemnation of harm. Emotion, 14,
Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Empathy, its limitations, and its role in 573–587.
a comprehensive moral theory. In J. Gewirtz & W. Kurtines Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H.,
(Eds.), Morality, moral development, and moral behavior Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity
(pp. 283–302). New York, NY: Wiley. of executive functions and their contributions to complex
Insel, T. R., & Young, L. J. (2001). The neurobiology of attach- “frontal lobes” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive
ment. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 129–136. Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Jackson, P. L., Brunet, E., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2006). Mößle, T., Kliem, S., & Rehbein, F. (2014). Longitudinal effects
Empathy examined through the neural mechanisms of violent media usage on aggressive behavior—The sig-
involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain: nificance of empathy. Societies, 4, 105–124.
An event-related fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 44, 752– Moll, J., De Oliveira-Souza, R., Garrido, G. J., Bramati, I. E.,
761. Caparelli, E. M. A., Paiva, M. L. M. F., . . . Grafman, J.
Jeon, D., Kim, S., Chetana, D., Jo, D., Ruley, H. E., Rabah, D., (2007). The self as a moral agent: Linking the neural bases
. . . Shin, H. S. (2010). Observational fear learning involves of social agency and moral sensitivity. Social Neuroscience,
affective pain system and Ca1.2 CA channels in ACC. 2, 336–352.
Nature Neuroscience, 13, 482–488. Montalan, B., Lelard, T., Godefroy, O., & Mouras, H. (2012).
Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Behavioral investigation of the influence of social catego-
Press. rization on empathy for pain: A minimal group paradigm
Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction study. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 389. Retrieved from
improves theory of mind. Science, 342, 377–380. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474397/
Killen, M., & Rutland, A. (2011). Children and social exclusion: Morton, T. A., & Postmes, T. (2011). Moral duty or moral defer-
Morality, prejudice, and group identity. New York, NY: ence? The effects of perceiving shared humanity with the
Wiley-Blackwell. victims of ingroup perpetrated harm. European Journal of
Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Social Psychology, 41, 127–134.
Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. R. (2007). Damage to the pre- Motzkin, J. C., Newman, J. P., Kiehl, K. A., & Koenigs, M. (2011).
frontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, Reduced prefrontal connectivity in psychopathy. Journal of
446, 908–911. Neuroscience, 31, 17348–17357.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays in moral development: Vol. 2. The Nichols, S. R., Svetlova, M., & Brownell, C. A. (2009). The role
psychology of moral development. New York, NY: Harper of social understanding and empathic disposition in young
& Row. children’s responsiveness to distress in parents and peers.
Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural basis Cognition Brain Behavior, 13, 449–478.
of human empathy: Effects of perspective-taking and cogni- Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality:
tive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 42–58. Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York, NY: Free Press.
Lamm, C., Decety, J., & Singer, T. (2011). Meta-analytic evi- Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience. London, England:
dence for common and distinct neural networks associ- Oxford University Press.
ated with directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. Parkinson, C., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Koralus, P. E.,
NeuroImage, 54, 2492–2502. Mendelovici, A., McGeer, V., & Wheatley, T. (2011). Is
Lamm, C., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2010). How do we morality unified? Evidence that distinct neural systems
empathize with someone who is not like us? Journal of underlie moral judgments of harm, dishonesty, and disgust.
Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 362–376. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3162–3180.
Langford, D. J., Tuttle, A. H., Brown, K., Deschenes, S., Fischer, Parsons, C. E., Stark, E. A., Young, K. S., Stein, A., & Kringelbach,
D. B., Mutso, A., . . . Sternberg, W. F. (2010). Social approach M. L. (2013). Understanding the human parental brain: A
to pain in laboratory mice. Social Neuroscience, 5, 163–170. critical role of the orbitofrontal cortex. Social Neuroscience,
Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity 8, 525–543.
and emergency intervention: How social group member- Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence
ship and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping has declined. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
behavior. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 31, Preston, S. D. (2013). The origins of altruism in offspring care.
443–453. Psychological Bulletin, 4, 1–37.
Friends or Foes 537

Prinz, J. J. (2008). The emotional construction of morals. New Early prefrontal lesions impair the maturation of moral
York, NY: Oxford University Press. judgment. Brain, 137, 1254–1261.
Rhodes, M., & Chalik, L. (2013). Social categories as markers Thomson, J. J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the trolley prob-
of intrinsic interpersonal obligations. Psychological Science, lem. The Monist, 59, 204–217.
24, 999–1006. Trivers, R. L. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin
Rifkin, J. (2009). The empathic civilization: The race to global Cummings Press.
consciousness in a world in crisis. New York, NY: Penguin Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge:
Group. Morality and convention. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
Robbins, E., & Rochat, P. (2011). Emerging signs of strong University Press.
reciprocity in human ontogeny. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Turiel, E. (1997). Beyond particular and universal ways: Context
Article 353. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ for morality. New Directions for Child Development, 76,
pmc/articles/PMC3242362/ 87–105.
Roy, M., Shohamy, D., & Wager, T. D. (2012). Ventromedial Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and
prefrontal-subcortical systems and the generation of affec- altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 143–173.
tive meaning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 147–156. van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). Does empathy trigger only altruistic
Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2004). How would you feel versus how motivation: How about selflessness and justice? Emotion,
do you think she would feel? A neuroimaging study of per- 8, 766–774.
spective taking with social emotions. Journal of Cognitive Wiech, K., Kahane, G., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J.,
Neuroscience, 16, 988–999. & Tracey, I. (2013). Cold or calculating? Reduced activity
Seeley, W. W., Menon, V., Schatzberg, A. F., Keller, J., Glover, G. in the subgenual cingulate cortex reflects decreased emo-
H., Kenna, H., . . . Greicius, M. D. (2007). Dissociable intrin- tional aversion to harming in counterintuitive utilitarian
sic connectivity networks for salience processing and exec- judgment. Cognition, 126, 364–372.
utive control. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 2349–2356. Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X., & Han, S. (2009). Do you feel my
Shamay-Tsoory, S. (2009). Empathic processing: Its cognitive pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural
and affective dimensions and neuroanatomical basis. In responses. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 8525–8529.
J.  Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2014a). The good, the bad, and
empathy (pp. 215–232). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. the just: Justice sensitivity predicts neural response dur-
Shenhav, A., & Greene, J. D. (2014). Integrative moral judgment: ing moral evaluation of actions performed by others. The
Dissociating the roles of the amygdala and ventromedial Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 4161–4166.
prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 4741–4749. Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2014b). Spatiotemporal neural
Singer, P. (1981). The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology. dynamics of moral judgments: A high-density EEG/ERP
New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. study. Neuropsychologia, 60, 39–45.
Smetana, J. G. (1981). Preschool children’s conceptions of Young, L., & Dungan, J. (2012). Where in the brain is morality?
moral and social rules. Child Development, 52, 1333–1336. Everywhere and maybe nowhere. Social Neuroscience, 7,
Smetana, J. G. (1995). Morality in context: Abstractions, ambi- 1–10.
guities, and applications. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2011). Moral universals and individual
development (Vol. 10, pp. 83–130). London, England: differences. Emotion Review, 3, 323–324.
Jessica Kingsley. Zahn, R., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Bramati, I., Garrido, G., & Moll,
Sobhani, M., & Bechara, A. (2011). A somatic marker perspec- J. (2009). Subgenual cingulate activity reflects individual
tive of immoral and corrupt behavior. Social Neuroscience, differences in empathic concern. Neuroscience Letters, 457,
6, 640–652. 107–110.
Stewart-Williams, S. (2010). Darwin, God, and the meaning of Zahn, R., de Oliveira-Souza, R., & Moll, J. (2011). The neurosci-
life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ence of moral cognition and emotion. In J. Decety & J. T.
Taber-Thomas, B. C., Asp, E. W., Koenigs, M., Sutterer, M., Cacioppo (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social neurosci-
Anderson, S. W., & Tranel, D. (2014). Arrested development: ence (pp. 477–490).