The behavioural expression of empathy to others’ pain versus others’ sadness in young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about how children develop or express their empathy for another individual's pain. The current study compared the behavioural expression of empathy for pain with that for emotion, specifically sadness, in children. One hundred twenty children (60 boys, 60 girls) between the ages of 18 and 36 months (M=26.44 months; SD=5.17) were assessed for their empathy-related behavioural responses to simulations of an adult's pain and sadness, each presented separately. Children were more likely to be distressed by, but also more likely to be prosocially responsive to, another's sadness. Conversely, children were more likely to actively play during another's pain. Despite these differences, principal component analyses conducted separately for pain and sadness revealed conceptual similarities across simulation type. Components labelled as Empathic Concern and Personal Distress emerged for both simulations. Hierarchical regression analyses examining the influence of developmental (ie, age, sex) and interindividual (ie, temperament, social-emotional development, language abilities) variables of interest in children's empathy-related responses were conducted for each pain and sadness component. Age differences emerged only for pain. There were no sex differences for either simulation. Temperament showed some predictive value in how children would respond to sadness. Social-emotional variables showed some predictive value in how children would respond to pain and sadness. Language showed very little predictive value. These findings highlight both conceptual similarities across, and important differences between, children's expressions of empathy for pain and for sadness. Pain appears to be more easily ignored and results in fewer prosocial responses in children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".