UKPMC Funders Group

Author Manuscript
Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.
Published in final edited form as:
Nature. 2006 January 26; 439(7075): 466–469. doi:10.1038/nature04271.
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived

fairness of others

Tania Singer, Ben Seymour, John P. O'Doherty, Klaas E. Stephan, Raymond J. Dolan, and
Chris D. Frith

Abstract
The neural processes underlying empathy are a subject of intense interest within the social
neurosciences1-3. However, very little is known about how brain empathic responses are modulated
by the affective link between individuals. We show here that empathic responses are modulated by
learned preferences, a result consistent with economic models of social preferences4-7. We engaged
male and female volunteers in an economic game, in which two confederates played fairly or unfairly,
and then measured brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging while these same
volunteers observed the confederates receiving pain. Both sexes exhibited empathy-related activation
in pain-related brain areas (fronto-insular and anterior cingulate cortices) towards fair players.
However, these empathy-related responses were significantly reduced in males when observing an
unfair person receiving pain. This effect was accompanied by increased activation in reward-related
areas, correlated with an expressed desire for revenge. We conclude that in men (at least) empathic
responses are shaped by valuation of other people's social behaviour, such that they empathize with
fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents, a finding that echoes
recent evidence for altruistic punishment.
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

Empathy enables us to share the emotion, pain and sensation of others. The perception–action
model of empathy states that the observation or imagination of another person in a particular
emotional state automatically activates a representation of that state in the observer1. Recent
imaging studies provide evidence for common activation elicited when experiencing
disgust8, touch9 or pain10-12 in oneself, and when perceiving the same feelings in others. For
example, studies on empathy for pain have found that the activation observed in anterior insula/
fronto-insular cortex (AI/FI) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) to pain in oneself is also
seen when observing pain in someone else10,12. These results suggest that our ability to
empathize relies on neuronal systems that underpin our own bodily and emotional states1,2,
10,13. However, it is unclear whether or how these responses are modulated by the social
relations between individuals.

To address this question, we measured brain responses when individuals empathized with the
pain of someone they liked or disliked. We used an economic game model to induce liking or
disliking of two confederate actors, previously unknown to our experimental subjects. The
confederates played fair or unfair strategies in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game (PDG)
with the subjects. As illustrated in Fig. 1a, in this game the subject was always ‘first mover’
and could either trust the other player by sending his/her money to him/her or mistrust him/
her by keeping it. The confederates were always ‘second mover’ and could choose between a
fair or an unfair response by returning high or low amounts of money (Supplementary

Author Contributions T.S. designed, implemented, analysed and wrote the paper. B.S., K.E.S. and J.P.O. helped with scanning. All
authors contributed to designing the study, discussing the data and preparing the manuscript.
 Singer et al. Page 2

Information). On the basis of previous findings14, we expected that subjects would come to
like fair players and dislike unfair players.

As Fig. 1b illustrates, subjects perceived the confederates as being fair and unfair according to
their game-playing strategy. Post-scan behavioural ratings confirmed that both male and female
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

subjects rated the fair player as being significantly more fair, more agreeable, more likeable
and more attractive than the unfair player (range of scale ρ2 to 22; P , 0.001; Supplementary
Table S1).

In the second part of the experiment we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
to investigate whether the liking or disliking acquired during the preceding game modulated
empathic responses for pain. One actor sat on each side of the scanner, enabling the scanned
volunteer to observe the hands of the fair and unfair player as well as his/her own hand. Painful
stimulation was applied through electrodes to the hands of all three participants. As shown in
Fig. 1c, cues (coloured arrows) were presented in random order indicating whether she/he (self
condition), the fair player (fair condition) or the unfair player (unfair condition) would get low
stimulation (no pain condition) or high stimulation (pain condition).

We predicted that pain-related empathic responses in AI/FI and ACC would be elicited when
observing a fair person in pain but that this activity would be reduced or absent when observing
pain in a person who had previously played unfairly. In view of recent economic models of
social preferences4-7 and altruistic punishment15-17 we further expected that the reduction of
empathy for an unfair person might be accompanied by an increase in activity in brain areas
known to have a key function in reward processing, such as ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens
and orbito-frontal cortex18-20. It has been shown that people reward others for cooperative
behaviour but punish violations of social fairness even at a personal cost15,16, an effect likely
to be mediated by neural mechanisms that provide intrinsic motivation (that is, satisfaction)
from punishing violators21.

The comparison of brain activity associated with painful and non-painful trials in the ‘self’
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

condition for men and women revealed an expected increase in the ‘pain network’, including
activity in AI and ACC (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3). Moreover, we observed pain-related
empathic responses in both genders in bilateral AI extending into FI and brainstem when seeing
an unfamiliar but likeable person in pain (Fig. 2a, b). The activation in ACC was significant
in women ([9, 18, 27]; P , 0.001 uncorrected, P , 0.05 whole-brain corrected) but was borderline
in men ([29, 39, 27]; P 1/4 0.001 uncorrected; Supplementary Tables 4 and 5; coordinates refer
to the peak of activations in MNI (Montreal Neurological Institute) space). Furthermore, we
extended previous findings10 by showing that men, as well as women, who scored higher on
standard empathy scales22 had higher empathy-related brain activity in ACC and AI/FI
(Supplementary Fig. 2).

To investigate whether empathic responses are modulated as a function of the perceived

fairness of others we identified, for men and women, peak voxels of activation in bilateral FI
observed when pain was applied to self and to fair players from the analysis described above
(see Fig. 2a, b). Figure 2c, d illustrates the average activation (parameter estimates) for painful–
non-painful stimulation in these voxels when subjects observed either fair or unfair players in
receipt of pain. This analysis revealed that less empathic activity was elicited by the knowledge
that an unfair player was in pain. However, there was also a marked difference between the
sexes. In women this reduction in activity was very small, whereas in men the knowledge that
an unfair player was in receipt of pain elicited no increase in empathic activity in FI. And
indeed, formal analysis revealed no significant difference for women when comparing painful
trials for fair versus unfair players in empathy-related pain regions. However, men showed
significantly enhanced activation in bilateral FI when observing fair compared with unfair

Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.

 Singer et al. Page 3

players in pain (Supplementary Tables 8 and 11). Consistent with this finding, supplementary
analysis showed that women but not men displayed significant activation in bilateral AI/FI and
ACC in all three conditions (Supplementary Tables 7 and 10).

We next sought evidence of increases in brain activity in regions associated with reward
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

processing (ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens and orbito-frontal cortex) when observing an

unfair player receiving painful stimulation. As shown in Fig. 3a, we observed increased
activation in left ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens for men, but not for women, in the
comparison of painful trials in the unfair and the fair condition (pain in unfair–pain in fair) as
well as in the interaction ((pain–no pain) unfair–(pain–no pain) fair). This latter comparison
also revealed increased activation in left orbito-frontal cortex (Supplementary Table 11). As
illustrated in Fig. 3b, the direct gender comparison for painful trials in the unfair and the fair
condition ((pain in unfair–pain in fair) men–(pain in unfair–pain in fair) women) revealed that
men showed significantly higher activation than women in left nucleus accumbens (in the same
peak as identified in the former analysis).

To explore the role of nucleus accumbens and orbito-frontal cortex further, we assessed
whether individual differences in an expressed desire for revenge covaried with brain activity
in these regions. We derived a ‘revenge’ composite score from post-experiment questionnaires
measuring a subjectively expressed desire for revenge (see Methods and Supplementary
Information). Figure 3c shows that men expressed a stronger desire for revenge than women
(t(30) 1/4 2.40, P , 0.05; Supplementary Fig. 3). As illustrated in Fig. 3d, regression analysis
confirmed that men, but not women, who expressed a stronger desire for revenge showed
greater activation in nucleus accumbens when they perceived an unfair player receiving painful
stimuli than when they perceived a fair player in pain (Supplementary Fig. 4).

Our data provide neurobiological evidence on how fairness in social interactions shapes the
nature of the affective link between people. Our findings indicate that cooperation nourishes
this link, but selfish behaviour that is detrimental to others effectively compromises this link
(at least with males), such that empathic responses in the brain are diminished or abolished.
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

These findings complement those of a previous imaging study that reported enhanced
activation in dorsal striatum (caudate nucleus) when individuals punished defectors (by
delivering ‘punishment points’) in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game21. In the present
study we observed activation correlated with revenge in ventral striatum. This difference in
evoked activity in dorsal and ventral regions of the striatum is likely to reflect the different
nature of the tasks used. In the previous study21 subjects were required to select an action to
administer punishment, whereas in the present study subjects passively observed a cue
indicating that a defector was receiving pain. These findings are consistent with the different
functions associated with distinct regions of the striatum: afferent projections to dorsal striatum
are thought to be crucial for learning correct actions so as to maximize reward, whereas
projections to ventral striatum, including nucleus accumbens, have a key function in reward
prediction and pavlovian learning18-20,23,24. The findings of enhanced activation in ventral
striatum to a signal indicating that a defector is receiving pain are in agreement with the
hypothesis that humans derive satisfaction simply from seeing justice administered15,21, even
if the instrument of punishment is out of their control.

Our results suggest a neural foundation for theories of social preferences. These theories4,7
suggest that people value the gains of others positively if they are perceived to behave fairly,
but value others' gains negatively if they behave unfairly. This pattern of preferences implies
that people like cooperating with fair opponents but also like punishing unfair opponents. Our
corresponding neurobiological observations were more prominent in men, although further
experiments are needed to confirm the gender specificity of the effect. It is possible that our

Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.

 Singer et al. Page 4

experimental design favoured men because the modality of punishment was related to physical
threat, as opposed to psychological or financial threat. Alternatively, these findings could
indicate a predominant role for males in the maintenance of justice and punishment of norm
violation in human societies.
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

METHODS
A full description of experimental design and methods is provided in Supplementary
Information, and an overview of the design is provided in Supplementary Fig. 1.

Subjects and confederates

Subjects (16 men and 16 women) gave informed consent and the study was approved by the
Joint Ethics Committee of the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (University
College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) and Institute of Neurology (University
College London). We employed four professional actors (two female and two male) as
confederates.

Induction of liking and disliking

Subjects played a sequential iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game, in which a first player can trust
a second player by sending 10 starting points (subsequently converted to money) to the other
player knowing that each point sent will be tripled25. The second player (confederate) then
reciprocates by sending an amount between 0 and 10 points back, which is also tripled. In each
game, two confederates, sitting in different rooms, were playing fairly or unfairly by
reciprocating large or small amounts of money.

Empathy for pain model

We used an electrical pain stimulus applied to the dorsum of the right hand10. Before the
experiment we determined individual current amplitudes for high and low intensity stimulation,
for the subject and both confederates (see Supplementary Table 1). The two confederates sat
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

either side of the subject (positioned in the scanner) allowing the subject, with the aid of mirrors,
to see all three hands. Each 12-s trial involved presentation of a visual cue, which was followed
after 6s by a small circle (for 2 s) indicating the beginning of electrical stimulation (Fig. 1c).
The cue indicated whether the subject (self), the fair player or the unfair player would get low
stimulation (no pain) or high stimulation (pain). Stimulation intensity was indicated by the
colour intensity of the cue. Each empathy for pain session consisted often trials of each of the
six conditions (pain and no-pain in the context of self, fair and unfair) and 20 null events.

Although the two confederates were always of the same sex, all four possible gender
combinations between the sex of the subject and the sex of the confederates were used equally
often throughout the study. The position (left or right) of the actor (fair or unfair) was
counterbalanced across subjects.

Post-scan questionnaires
After scanning, subjects completed a standard empathy scale22 and were asked to rate the
intensity of the low and high stimulation, their liking for the two confederates, and their desire
for revenge on the two confederates (see Fig. 1b, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary
Fig. 3).

Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.

 Singer et al. Page 5

Image acquisition and analysis

We used a 1.5-T Siemens Sonata MRI scanner to acquire gradient-echo, T*2-weighted echo-
planar images with blood-oxygenation-level-dependent contrast. An additional T1-weighted
structural image was acquired for each subject.
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

After correction for head movements and spatial normalization26, the images were analysed
with SPM2 (Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, London) using an event-related
model27. The experiment constituted a 2 £ 3 £ 2 factorial design with the first factor
representing ‘intensity of stimulation’ (pain versus no pain), the second factor ‘addressee’ (self,
fair and unfair) and the third factor ‘gender’ (male or female subject).

To create regressors of interest, each condition was modelled by convolving delta functions at
each trial onset (presentation of the anticipatory cue) and at each pain onset (presentation of
the circle) with a canonical haemodynamic response function. Contrast images were calculated
by applying linear contrasts to the parameter estimates for the regressor of each event. The
contrast images were then entered into one-sample t-tests, separately for female and male
subjects, to instantiate random-effects group analyses28,29.

To assess shared networks of pain-related activation in self, fair and unfair conditions, we
performed a conjunction analysis and an additional (more conservative) inclusive masking
procedure in which we masked the pain–no-pain contrast in the fair or unfair condition with
the pain–no-pain contrast in self.

Finally, we used a regression analysis to explore which brain regions showed, first, a correlation
between empathy-related activity (pain–no pain in fair) and individual empathic character traits
as assessed by post-scan empathy questionnaires, and second, a correlation between pain-
related activity in the unfair condition compared with the fair condition (that is, pain in unfair–
pain in fair) and individual tendencies to seek revenge as assessed by subjective rating scales.

On the basis of previous findings10-12 we expected two regions to be of particular importance

UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

for pain-related empathy: FI and ACC. In the analysis focusing on activity specific to
perceiving pain in unfair players in comparison with fair players we extended our regions of
interest to include areas known to be involved in reward processing including ventral striatum
(nucleus accumbens) and orbito-frontal cortex. We report results at P < 0.005 uncorrected for
multiple comparisons in the a priori regions of interest.

Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.

Acknowledgements
We thank P. Aston, S. Kiebel and E. Featherstone for their help. This work was supported by the German Academy
of Natural Sciences Leopoldina, Halle, from the Ministry of Education and Science, by the Medical Research Council
(UK), and by Wellcome Trust Programme Grants to R.J.D. and C.D.F.

References
1. Preston SD, de-Waal FBM. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behav. Brain Sci 2002;25:1–
72. [PubMed: 12625087]
2. Gallese V, Keysers C, Rizzolatti G. A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci
2004;8:396–403. [PubMed: 15350240]
3. Decety J, Jackson PL. The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav. Cogn. Neurosci. Rev
2004;3:71–100. [PubMed: 15537986]

Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.

 Singer et al. Page 6

4. Rabin M. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am. Econ. Rev 1993;83:1281–1302.
5. Levine DK. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Rev. Econ. Dynam 1998;1:593–622.
6. Camerer, CF. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton Univ. Press;
Princeton: 2003.
7. Fehr E, Schmidt KM. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ 1999;114:817–
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

868.
8. Wicker B, et al. Both of us disgusted in my insula: The common neural basis of seeing and feeling
disgust. Neuron 2003;40:655–664. [PubMed: 14642287]
9. Keysers C, et al. A touching sight: SII/PV activation during the observation and experience of touch.
Neuron 2004;42:335–346. [PubMed: 15091347]
10. Singer T, et al. Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science
2004;303:1157–1162. [PubMed: 14976305]
11. Jackson PL, Meltzoff AN, Decety J. How do we perceive the pain of others: A window into the neural
processes involved in empathy. Neuroimage 2005;3:771–779. [PubMed: 15652312]
12. Morrison I, Lloyd D, di Pellegrino G, Roberts N. Vicarious responses to pain in anterior cingulate
cortex: is empathy a multisensory issue? Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci 2004;4:270–278. [PubMed:
15460933]
13. Craig AD. Human feelings: why are some more aware than others? Trends Cogn. Sci 2004;8:239–
241. [PubMed: 15165543]
14. Singer T, Kiebel SJ, Winston JS, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. Brain responses to the acquired moral status
of faces. Neuron 2004;41:653–662. [PubMed: 14980212]
15. Fehr E, Gachter S. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 2002;415:137–140. [PubMed: 11805825]
16. Fehr E, Fischbacher U. The nature of human altruism. Nature 2003;425:785–791. [PubMed:
14574401]
17. Boyd R, Gintis H, Bowles S, Richerson PJ. The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 2003;100:3531–3535. [PubMed: 12631700]
18. Cardinal RN, Parkinson JA, Hall J, Everitt BJ. Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala,
ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev 2002;26:321–352. [PubMed:
12034134]
19. O'Doherty J, et al. Dissociable roles of ventral and dorsal striatum in instrumental conditioning.
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

Science 2004;304:452–454. [PubMed: 15087550]

20. Schultz W. Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nature Rev. Neurosci 2000;1:199–207. [PubMed:
11257908]
21. de Quervain DJ, et al. The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science 2004;305:1254–1258.
[PubMed: 15333831]
22. Davis MA. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat. Selected
Docs Psychol 1980;10:85.
23. Dayan P, Balleine BW. Reward, motivation, and reinforcement learning. Neuron 2002;36:285–298.
[PubMed: 12383782]
24. Montague PR, Hyman SE, Cohen JD. Computational roles for dopamine in behavioural control.
Nature 2004;431:760–767. [PubMed: 15483596]
25. Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K. Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games Econ. Behav
1995;10:122–142.
26. Friston KJ, et al. Spatial registration and normalization of images. Hum. Brain Mapp 1995;2:165–
189.
27. Josephs O, Turner R, Friston K. Event-related fMRI. Hum. Brain Mapp 1997;5:243–248.
28. Friston KJ, et al. Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach. Hum.
Brain Mapp 1995;2:189–210.
29. Penny, W.; Holmes, AP. Human Brain Function. Frackowiak, RSJ., et al., editors. Elsevier; San
Diego: 2004. p. 843-850.

Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.

 Singer et al. Page 7
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Experimental models I and II and behavioural ratings. a, Game tree of a sequential Prisoner's
Dilemma game used to induce liking and disliking of opponent players. First movers (subjects)
chose between keeping and sending money to the second mover. One of the confederates sent
fair (large) amounts of money back, the other unfair (small) amounts. b, Post-scan ratings
showing that both sexes rated the fair confederates as being more reasonable/fair, their
personality as being more agreeable/pleasant, as being more likeable and more attractive than
unfair players (scale ranging from 22 to ρ2). Pink bars, women subjects rating the fair player;
purple bars, women subjects rating the unfair player; cyan bars, men subjects rating the fair
player; blue bars, men subjects rating the unfair player. Error bars refer to s.e.m. c, Experimental

Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.

 Singer et al. Page 8

design of the ‘empathy for pain model’. Arrows of different colours indicate painful or non-
painful stimulation applied to the scanned subject (self), the fair or the unfair player.
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.

 Singer et al. Page 9
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Pain-sensitive activation networks to the sight of fair and unfair players in pain. a, b,
Conjunction analysis between the contrasts pain–no pain in the context of self and the fair
condition at P < 0.001 for women (pink, a) and men (blue, b). Increased pain-related activation
(asterisk indicates whole-brain corrected) for women in ACC* [9,18,27], left FI* [−42,15, −3],
right FI* [30,18, −18], left SII* [−60, −30,18], right SII* [63, −30,24] andbrainstem* [3, −18,
−18];formeninleftFI* [−33,33,3] right FI [42,33,3] and brainstem [3, −33, −30]. c, d, Average
activation (parameter estimates) in peak voxels of left and right FI (left and right panels,
respectively) for the painful–non painful trials in fair and unfair conditions for women (c) and
men (d).
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.

 Singer et al. Page 10
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript
UKPMC Funders Group Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Gender differences in brain activity in nucleus accumbens specific to the perception of an unfair
compared to fair player in pain. a, Increased activity (P < 0.005) in nucleus accumbens [−9,
15, − 9] for painful trials in the unfair–fair condition for men but not for women. b,Average
activation (parameter estimates) for women (pink) and men (blue) in left nucleus accumbens
[−9, 15, −9] when testing for gender differences. c, Men (blue) indicate stronger feelings of
desire for revenge than women (pink) (t(30) 1/4 2.40, P < 0.05) measured on a scale from −2
(‘not at all’) to ρ2 (‘very much’). d, Correlation (r 1/4 0.68, P < 0.05) of parameter estimates at
peak ofnucleus accumbens activation [−9,6, −3] for the (pain in unfair–pain in fair) contrast
in men with expressed desire for revenge in men. There was no correlation for women.

Nature. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 February 6.