Objective Social Isolation Predicts Perspective-Taking and Empathic Concern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceived social isolation (PSI) predicts adverse health and behaviour problems better than objective social isolation (OSI). PSI is related to higher sensitivity to negative emotional states and emotional dysregulation. Some studies suggest that the more socially isolated people feel, the more sensitive they are to the suffering of others, yet the less empathic they are. However, no study has tested the association between social isolation and empathy while distinguishing their state and trait forms. This study examined how individuals with high- and low-PSI trait perceived and empathized with virtual agents displaying facial expressions. Sixty-six healthy young adults (38 women) were equally divided into high- or low-trait PSI subgroups. All participants reported their current state of PSI and then watched short videos of virtual agents showing facial expressions of physical pain or sadness. For each video, participants rated the perceived intensity of affective states and empathy felt (state empathy). They also completed questionnaires on trait empathy, OSI, moods, and depressive symptomatology. The results showed no effect of group (high- or low-trait PSI), facial expression (pain, sadness), or their interaction on state empathy and intensity mean ratings. However, regression analyses revealed that OSI specifically predicted perspective-taking and empathic concern aspects of trait empathy, whereas trait PSI predicted the personal distress aspect. These findings suggest that social skills may play a role in maintaining and developing relationships but are not linked to one's perception of their quality. This work highlights the importance of differentiating objective from perceived social isolation, given their distinct associations with specific social processes and skills, such as empathy. This distinction could further help develop more targeted interventions to alleviate social isolation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".