Empathy and Autobiographical Memory: Are They Linked?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autobiographical memory and empathy have been linked with social interaction variables as well as gender in independent bodies of literature. However a scarcity of research exists on the direct link between autobiographical memory and empathy. Exploring this link, in particular for memory of friendships and empathy, was the authors' main aim. A total of 107 Italian undergraduates participated. A memory fluency task was used to assess accessibility of memories spanning their entire life (preschool through university) and an empathy scale (Italian version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index) was employed to measure the participants' level and dimensions of empathy. For men, empathy scores were related to how many memories they could recall. Specifically, men with higher scores on the fantasy and empathic concern scales and those with lower scores on the personal distress scales recalled more memories of friends. However, affective quality of their memories was unrelated to empathy. In contrast, for women there was no relationship between number of memories and empathy, but the emotional tone of their memories was related to empathy: those with higher scores on the personal distress scale had proportionately fewer affectively positive memories. Results are discussed in terms of gender differences in both empathy and parental socialization patterns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".