Out of Sight Out of Mind: Perceived Physical Distance Between the Observer and Someone in Pain Shapes Observer’s Neural Empathic Reactions

Abstract

Social and affective relations may shape empathy to others’ affective states. Previous studies also revealed that people tend to form very different mental representations of stimuli on the basis of their physical distance. In this regard, embodied cognition and embodied simulation propose that different physical distances between individuals activate different interpersonal processing modes, such that close physical distance tends to activate the interpersonal processing mode typical of socially and affectively close relationships. In Experiment 1, two groups of participants were administered a pain decision task involving upright and inverted face stimuli painfully or neutrally stimulated, and we monitored their neural empathic reactions by means of event-related potentials (ERPs) technique. Crucially, participants were presented with face stimuli of one of two possible sizes in order to manipulate retinal size and perceived physical distance, roughly corresponding to the close and far portions of social distance. ERPs modulations compatible with an empathic reaction were observed only for the group exposed to face stimuli appearing to be at a close social distance from the participants. This reaction was absent in the group exposed to smaller stimuli corresponding to face stimuli observed from a far social distance. In Experiment 2, one different group of participants was engaged in a match-to-sample task involving the two-size upright face stimuli of Experiment 1 to test whether the modulation of neural empathic reaction observed in Experiment 1 could be ascribable to differences in the ability to identify faces of the two different sizes. Results suggested that face stimuli of the two sizes could be equally identifiable. In line with the Construal Level and Embodied Simulation theoretical frameworks, we conclude that perceived physical distance may shape empathy as well as social and affective distance.

Psychotherapy During COVID-19: How the Clinical Practice of Italian Psychotherapists Changed During the Pandemic

“…Indeed, previous studies have reported the efficacy of this modality, explaining that it enables psychotherapists and patients in separate locations to see each other and interact in real time (i.e., "synchronously"; see Fletcher et al, 2018;Norwood et al, 2018, for reviews). This finding is also supported by experimental studies showing that the perceived distance between two interacting individuals modulates the empathic reaction between them (Schiano Lomoriello et al, 2018), which is a key ingredient of all psychotherapeutic interventions. 6 Finally, therapists' attitudes and beliefs about telepsychotherapy played a significant role in qualitatively shaping their experiences of online sessions.…”

Enhanced Neural Empathic Responses in Patients with Spino-Bulbar Muscular Atrophy: An Electrophysiological Study

“…Namely, painful faces, compared to neutral faces, have elicited the experience-sharing component of empathy, as reflected by the positive shift of only the relatively early P2 and N2–N3 components time-locked to face onsets. On the other hand, painful contexts elicited the mentalizing component of empathy compared to neutral contexts, as reflected by the positive shift of only the relatively later P3 component time-locked to face-onsets (see also other works from one of the authors and other groups in this field: [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]).…”

Victims, Vignettes, and Videos: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence That Emotional Impact Enhances the Derogation of Innocent Victims

“…Recent evidence further suggests that proximity modulates empathic processes. Lomoriello et al (2018) measured event-related potentials (ERPs) across fronto-parietal and centro-parietal regions in response to images of neutrally and painfully stimulated faces that appeared either spatially close or distant. Empathy-linked ERP responses across both regions were greater among participants exposed to faces that appeared close, versus those who saw relatively distant faces.…”