The association between acute stress & empathy: A systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empathy is a fundamental component of our social-emotional experience. Over the last decade, there has been increased interest in understanding the effects of acute stress on empathy. We provide a first comprehensive-and systematic-overview identifying emerging patterns and gaps in this literature. Regarding affective empathy, there is abundant evidence for stress contagion-the 'spillover' of stress from a stressed target to an unstressed perceiver. We highlight contextual factors that can facilitate and/or undermine these effects. Fewer studies have investigated the effects of acute stress on affective empathy, revealing a nuanced picture, some evidence suggests acute stress can block contagion of other's emotions; but again contextual differences need to be considered. Regarding cognitive empathy, most studies find no conclusive effects for simplistic measures of emotion recognition; however, studies using more complex empathy tasks find that acute stress might affect cognitive empathy differentially for men and women. This review provides an important first step towards understanding how acute stress can impact social-togetherness, and aims to aid future research by highlighting (in)congruencies and outstanding questions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".