Skip to main content
Log in

Modeling Variation in Empathic Sensitivity Using Go/No-Go Social Reinforcement Learning

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Affective Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent advances in computational behavioral modeling can help rigorously quantify differences in how individuals learn behaviors that affect both themselves and others. But social learning remains understudied in the context of understanding individual variation in social phenomena like aggression, which is defined by persistent engagement in behaviors that harm others. We adapted a go/no-go reinforcement learning task across social and non-social contexts such that monetary gains and losses explicitly impacted the subject, a study partner, or no one. We then quantified participants’ (n = 61) sensitivity to others’ rewards, sensitivity to others’ losses, and the Pavlovian influence of expected outcomes on approach and avoidance behavior. Results showed that subjects learned in response to punishments and rewards that affected their partner in a way that was computationally similar to how they learned for themselves, consistent with the possibility that social learning engages empathic processes. Further supporting this interpretation, an individualized model parameter that indexed sensitivity to others’ punishments was inversely associated with trait antisociality. Modeled sensitivity to others’ losses also mapped onto post-task motivation ratings, but was not associated with self-reported trait empathy. This work is the first to apply a social reinforcement learning task that spans affect and action requirement (go/no-go) to measure multiple facets of empathic sensitivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arnett, P. A. (1997). Autonomic responsivity in psychopaths: A critical review and theoretical proposal. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(8), 903–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00045-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardo, M. O., Cecílio-Fernandes, D., Costa, P., Quince, T. A., Costa, M. J., & Carvalho-Filho, M. A. (2018). Physicians’ self-assessed empathy levels do not correlate with patients’ assessments. PLoS ONE, 13(5), e0198488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1994)20:1<27::AID-AB2480200105>3.0.CO;2-Q

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, R. J. R. (2003). Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 182(1), 5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brethel-Haurwitz, K. M., Cardinale, E. M., Vekaria, K. M., Robertson, E. L., Walitt, B., VanMeter, J. W., & Marsh, A. A. (2018). Extraordinary altruists exhibit enhanced self–other overlap in neural responses to distress. Psychological Science, 29(10), 1631–1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckholtz, J. W., Treadway, M. T., Cowan, R. L., Woodward, N. D., Benning, S. D., Li, R., Ansari, M. S., Baldwin, R. M., Schwartzman, A. N., Shelby, E. S., Smith, C. E., Cole, D., Kessler, R. M., & Zald, D. H. (2010). Mesolimbic dopamine reward system hypersensitivity in individuals with psychopathic traits. Nature Neuroscience., 13, 419–421. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2510

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Buckholtz, J. W., Karmarkar, U., Ye, S., Brennan, G. M., & Baskin-Sommers, A. (2017). Blunted ambiguity aversion during cost-benefit decisions in antisocial individuals. Scientific Reports, 7, 2030. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02149-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Budhani, S., Richell, R. A., & Blair, R. J. R. (2006). Impaired reversal but intact acquisition: Probabilistic response reversal deficits in adult individuals with psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(3), 552–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, S. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Development and validation of the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 35(5), 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, S. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Evidence that the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior questionnaire (STAB) predicts momentary reports of acting-out behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 917–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, S. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Tackett, J. L. (2012). Should social aggression be considered “antisocial”? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-011-9267-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025002007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrysikou, E. G., & Thompson, W. J. (2016). Assessing cognitive and affective empathy through the interpersonal reactivity index: An argument against a two-factor model. Assessment, 23(6), 769–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. G., & Frank, M. J. (2018). Within-and across-trial dynamics of human EEG reveal cooperative interplay between reinforcement learning and working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(10), 2502–2507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czar, K. A., Dahlen, E. R., Bullock, E. E., & Nicholson, B. C. (2011). Psychopathic personality traits in relational aggression among young adults. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Berker, A. O., Tirole, M., Rutledge, R. B., Cross, G. F., Dolan, R. J., & Bestmann, S. (2016). Acute stress selectively impairs learning to act. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Brito, S. A., Viding, E., Kumari, V., Blackwood, N., & Hodgins, S. (2013). Cool and hot executive function impairments in violent offenders with antisocial personality disorder with and without psychopathy. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e65566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065566

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Decety, J. (2010). The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans. Developmental Neuroscience, 32(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1159/000317771

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior. A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 143–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes, W. K., & Skinner, B. F. (1941). Some quantitative properties of anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29(5), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fultz, A. A., & Bernieri, F. J. (2021). Observer descriptions of the empathic person: A look at the Davis IRI and Hogan empathy scales. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1–15.

  • Gandhi, A. U., Dawood, S., & Schroder, H. S. (2021). Empathy mind-set moderates the association between low empathy and social aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), NP1679–1697NP.

  • Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guitart-Masip, M., Fuentemilla, L., Bach, D. R., Huys, Q. J. M., Dayan, P., Dolan, R. J., & Duzel, E. (2011). Action dominates valence in anticipatory representations in the human striatum and dopaminergic midbrain. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(21), 7867–7875. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6376-10.2011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Guitart-Masip, M., Huys, Q. J. M., Fuentemilla, L., Dayan, P., Duzel, E., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). Go and no-go learning in reward and punishment: Interactions between affect and effect. NeuroImage, 62(1), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guitart-Masip, M., Duzel, E., Dolan, R., & Dayan, P. (2014). Action versus valence in decision making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(4), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009). Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal behavior, 33(3), 149–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershberger, W. A. (1986). An approach through the looking-glass. Animal Learning & Behavior, 14(4), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huys, Q. J., Pizzagalli, D. A., Bogdan, R., & Dayan, P. (2013). Mapping anhedonia onto reinforcement learning: A behavioural meta-analysis. Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders, 3(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 32(6), 540–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex. Psychological Review, 97(3), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lengersdorff, L., Wagner, I., Lockwood, P. L., & Lamm, C. (2020). When implicit prosociality trumps selfishness: The neural valuation system underpins more optimal choices when learning to avoid harm to others than to oneself. The Journal of Neuroscience, 40(38), 7286–7299. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0842-20.2020

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P. L., Apps, M. A. J., Valton, V., Viding, E., & Roiser, J. P. (2016). Neurocomputational mechanisms of prosocial learning and links to empathy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(35), 9763–9768. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603198113

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P. L., Apps, M. A. J., & Chang, S. W. C. (2020). Is there a ‘social’ brain? Implementations and algorithms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(10), P802–P813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorber, M. F. (2004). Psychophysiology of aggression, psychopathy, and conduct problems: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ly, V., von Borries, A. K. L., Brazil, I. A., Bulten, B. H., Cools, R., & Roelofs, K. (2016). Reduced transfer of affective value to instrumental behavior in violent offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(5), 657–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, A. A. (2016). Understanding amygdala responsiveness to fearful expressions through the lens of psychopathy and altruism. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 94(6), 513–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, A. A. (2019). The caring continuum: Evolved hormonal and proximal mechanisms explain prosocial and antisocial extremes. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(September 2018), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, A. A., Stoycos, S. A., Brethel-Haurwitz, K. M., Robinson, P., VanMeter, J. W., & Cardinale, E. M. (2014). Neural and cognitive characteristics of extraordinary altruists. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(42), 15036–15041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 324–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mkrtchian, A., Aylward, J., Dayan, P., Roiser, J. P., & Robinson, O. J. (2017). Modeling avoidance in mood and anxiety disorders using reinforcement learning. Biological Psychiatry, 82(7), 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.01.017

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moul, C., Robinson, O. J., & Livesey, E. J. (2021). Antisocial learning: Using learning window width to model callous-unemotional traits? Computational Psychiatry, 5(1).

  • Murphy, B. A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2019). Are self-report cognitive empathy ratings valid proxies for cognitive empathy ability? Negligible meta-analytic relations with behavioral task performance. Psychological Assessment, 31(8), 1062–1072. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, B. A., Costello, T. H., Watts, A. L., Cheong, Y. F., Berg, J. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2020). Strengths and weaknesses of two empathy measures: A comparison of the measurement precision, construct validity, and incremental validity of two multidimensional indices. Assessment, 27(2), 246–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, L., Shaw, D. S., Forbes, E. E., & Hyde, L. W. (2017). Reward-related neural correlates of antisocial behavior and callous–unemotional traits in young men. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 2(4), 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, L., Waller, R., & Hyde, L. W. (2018). A systematic review examining the link between psychopathic personality traits, antisocial behavior, and neural reactivity during reward and loss processing. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9(6), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oba, T., Katahira, K., & Ohira, H. (2019). The effect of reduced learning ability on avoidance in psychopathy: A computational approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piray, P., Dezfouli, A., Heskes, T., Frank, M. J., & Daw, N. D. (2019). Hierarchical Bayesian inference for concurrent model fitting and comparison for group studies. PLoS Computational Biology, 15(6), e1007043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R. A., & Solomon, R. L. (1967). Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychological Review, 74(3), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, B. L., Klump, K. L., & Burt, A. S. (2018). No sex differences in the origins of covariation between social and physical aggression. Psychological Medicine, 49(15), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291718003392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solarz, A. K. (1960). Latency of instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of eliciting verbal signs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spielberger, C. D. (1983). State-trait anxiety inventory for adults (STAI-AD). APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06496-000

  • Spielberger, C. D. (2010). State-trait anxiety inventory. In The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0943

  • Spielberger, C. D., & Sydeman, S. J. (1994). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. In M. E. Maurish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 292–321). Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Introduction to reinforcement learning. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Toyama, A., Katahira, K., & Ohira, H. (2019). Reinforcement learning with parsimonious computation and a forgetting process. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vachon, D. D., Lynam, D. R., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). The (non)relation between empathy and aggression: Surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 751–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vekaria, K. M., O’Connell, K., Rhoads, S. A., Brethel-Haurwitz, K. M., Cardinale, E. M., Robertson, E. L., Walitt, B., VanMeter, J. W., & Marsh, A. A. (2020). Activation in bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) corresponds to everyday helping. Cortex, 127, 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. F., Fowler, K. A., Sinclair, S., Schechter, J. C., Majestic, C., Pine, D. S., & Blair, R. J. R. (2014). Disrupted expected value signaling in youth with disruptive behavior disorders to environmental reinforcers. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(5), 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2013.12.023

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. F., Tyler, P. M., Erway, A. K., Botkin, M. L., Kolli, V., Meffert, H., Pope, K., & Blair, J. R. (2016). Dysfunctional representation of expected value is associated with reinforcement-based decision-making deficits in adolescents with conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(8), 938–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yechiam, E., Busemeyer, J. R., Stout, J. C., & Bechara, A. (2005). Using cognitive models to map relations between neuropsychological disorders and human decision-making deficits. Psychological Science, 16(12), 973–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Q., Valiente, C., & Eisenberg, N. (2003). Empathy and its measurement. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 269–284). American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Lydia Meena for help with data collection and Shawn Rhoads for helpful feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine O’Connell.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number TL1TR001431 to KO and by internal Georgetown University funding provided to AAM.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed in the current study are available in the Open Science Framework Repository, https://osf.io/u9fx3/.

Ethical Approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted approved by the Institutional Review Board at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects included in the study.

Code Availability

Code specific to this study is made available osf.io/u9fx3/. The emfit_toolbox code was provided by Q.J.M. Huys and is available at https://github.com/mpc-ucl/emfit.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Author Contribution

KO conceptualized study, programmed tasks, collected data, analyzed data, and wrote manuscript. MW, BP, and SC collected data. AAM conceptualized study, acquired funding, and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Jonathan Gratch

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(PDF 1259 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Connell, K., Walsh, M., Padgett, B. et al. Modeling Variation in Empathic Sensitivity Using Go/No-Go Social Reinforcement Learning. Affec Sci 3, 603–615 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-00119-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-00119-4

Keywords

Navigation