Social Neuroscience

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/psns20

Event-related correlates of compassion for social

pain

Katie Rodriguez, Itzia Plascencia Ibarra, Anthony Musick, Jonathan Hoerr,

Daniela Napoli & Daniel R. Berry

To cite this article: Katie Rodriguez, Itzia Plascencia Ibarra, Anthony Musick, Jonathan Hoerr,
Daniela Napoli & Daniel R. Berry (2023) Event-related correlates of compassion for social pain,
Social Neuroscience, 18:2, 91-102, DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2023.2208878

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2023.2208878

Published online: 05 May 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 214

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=psns20
SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE
2023, VOL. 18, NO. 2, 91–102
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2023.2208878

RESEARCH PAPER

Event-related correlates of compassion for social pain

Katie Rodriguez, Itzia Plascencia Ibarra, Anthony Musick, Jonathan Hoerr, Daniela Napoli and Daniel R. Berry
The Department of Psychology, California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, California, United States of America

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Ostracism – being intentionally excluded – is painful, and when experienced vicariously, it elicits Received 23 August 2022
self-reported and neural responses correlated with compassion. This study examines event-related Revised 7 April 2023
potentials (ERPs) in response to vicarious ostracism in a computer-simulated ball-toss game, called Published online 05 May
2023
Cyberball. Participants observed three ostensible players at other universities play two rounds of
Cyberball; in the first round all players were included, but in the second round, one player was KEYWORDS
ostracized. After the game, participants reported their compassion and wrote e-mails to the Compassion; empathy;
ostracism victims and perpetrators, coded for prosociality and harm. Condition differences in event-related potential;
exclusion versus inclusion throws emerged in a frontal negative-going peak between 108 and ostracism; vicarious
230 ms, and in a posterior long-latency positive-going deflection between 548 and 900 ms. It is ostracism
believed that the former reflects the feedback error-related negativity component (fERN) and the
latter the late positive potential (LPP). The fERN was not associated with self-reported compassion
or helping behavior; however, the LPP was positively associated with empathic anger and helping
ostracism victims. Self-reported compassion was positively correlated with a frontal positive-going
peak between 190 and 304 ms, resembling the P3a. These findings highlight the importance of
studying motivational dimensions of compassion alongside its cognitive and affective dimensions.

Compassion is a hallmark of human social cognition
(Zaki, 2014), occurring frequently in everyday life
(Depow et al., 2021) and playing a key role in personal,
social, and collective well-being (Weisz & Cikara, 2021).
Defined as an emotional response characterized by feel­
ing concern for a person in need and a motivation to
ameliorate that affected person’s pain (Goetz et al., 2010;
Zaki, 2017), compassion is a known promoter of proso­
cial behaviors (e.g., Batson et al., 2015; Batson, 2011).
Social (neuro)science of compassion for social
pain
A growing body of neuroimaging research has examined
the neural correlates of compassion (see Fan et al., 2011;
Lamm et al., 2011 for reviews) and more recently, the
effects of compassion-oriented training on neuroscienti­
fic outcomes (e.g., Weng et al., 2013). Most of this
research averages fMRI-based blood oxygen level-
dependent (BOLD) responses captured during observa­
tions of others’ physical and emotional pain (Decety &
Meyer, 2008; Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2009; Zaki & Mitchell,
2013). Over the last decade, researchers have
highlighted the need to study empathy in response to
social pain, which people are more likely to encounter in
daily life as compared to physical and emotional pain
(e.g., Nezlek et al., 2012). In order to study compassion in
response to forms of social pain, researchers have devel­
oped experimental paradigms for vicarious ostracism –
witnessing another person being intentionally excluded
or ignored (e.g., Wesselmann et al., 2013).
Ostracism is subjectively painful, carrying with it sig­
nificant proximal and long-term emotional and psycho­
logical distress (e.g., Eisenberger, 2012; K. D. Williams,
2009; Leary et al., 2003). Research has shown that vicar­
ious ostracism can be experienced as if one is being
ostracized first-hand (Wirth et al., 2010). Consistent
with this, an fMRI study by Masten et al. (2011) has
revealed that BOLD responses to vicarious ostracism
are higher in the anterior insula (AI) and medial prefron­
tal cortex (mPFC). These findings are important, as they
converge with the neuroscientific research on empathy
showing that it is a multifaceted response to others’
pain. Specifically, the findings suggest that people
share the emotional dimensions of others’ pain (called
emotion sharing), as demonstrated across neuroimaging

CONTACT Daniel R. Berry drberry@csusm.edu Department of Psychology, California State University San Marcos, 333 Twin Oaks Valley Road, San
Marcos 92096, California
DRB, KR, and IPI, designed study concept. DRB and IPI designed Cyberball paradigm. DRB and KR wrote manuscript first draft. DRB provided infrastructure
support as senior author, completed EEG data curation and formal analysis. KR, IPI, AM, JH, & DN designed study protocol, collected data, curated self-report
/behavioral data, and contributed to manuscript editing.
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
92 K. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.
studies by increased BOLD responses in the anterior
cingulate cortex (ACC) and AI (Fan et al., 2011; Lamm
et al., 2011; Singer et al., 2004). Observing others’ pain
also increases neural responses in the mPFC, which sup­
ports the mental representation of others’ bodily states
(called mentalizing or perspective taking; Jackson et al.,
2006; Singer et al., 2009).
Interest in the correlates and antecedents of vicarious
ostracism has grown over the last decade. For example,
vicarious ostracism is modulated by familiarity with the
person being excluded (Beeney et al., 2011; Meyer et al.,
2013), evidenced by stronger BOLD responses in the
brain’s mentalizing and pain networks. Specifically,
Meyer et al. (2013) found heightened responses in the
shared pain network (AI & ACC) when witnessing a close
other being socially excluded, but witnessing a stranger
being excluded activated the mentalizing neural net­
work (mFPC and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vPFC).
State perspective taking (Wesselmann et al., 2009) and
trait empathy (e.g., Masten et al., 2010) predict higher
vicarious ostracism, distress, and empathy. Importantly,
vicarious ostracism predicts higher self-reported com­
passion and helping behaviors (Berry et al., 2018, 2023;
Masten et al., 2011; Tan et al., 2014). In the work by
Masten and colleagues (Masten et al., 2010, 2011),
increased responses in the AI and mPFC were correlated
with an overt helping behavior – writing comforting
e-mails to the ostracism victim.
As important as this research has been, it is limited
in four ways. First, averaging BOLD responses across
experimental blocks ignores the dynamic nature of
human social cognition that unfolds during social
interactions. Social cognitive psychological theories
suggest that compassion is a process that unfolds
rapidly (Eisenberg et al., 1988; Goetz et al., 2010). To
study the timing of compassion as a process, we use
high temporal resolution event-related potentials
(ERPs) in this research. Second, most neuroimaging
research has focused on the multifaceted construct
of empathy rather than compassion itself (but see
Ashar et al., 2017). Here, we test the convergent valid­
ity of ERPs in response to social pain with self-reported
compassion (cf., Batson et al., 1987). Third, real-world
behavioral consequences of neural measures of com­
passion (and other psychological processes) have been
less studied in neuroimaging research. In this research,
we take a “brain-as-predictor” approach (see Berkman
& Falk, 2013) by correlating ERP amplitudes with
a validated indicator of overt helping behavior in
a lab context (cf., Masten et al., 2011). Fourth, compas­
sion is primarily studied in response to physical and
emotional pain (see S. Han, 2018). Vicarious ostracism
paradigms are well-suited for addressing these latter
two points, as vicarious social pain is encountered
more frequently in everyday life and validated indica­
tors of helping behavior have been successfully incor­
porated into vicarious ostracism paradigms.
The present research
In this study, we modified the Cyberball paradigm
(K. S. Williams et al., 2012), a virtual ball-tossing game
canonically designed to study first-hand ostracism.
Rather than experiencing ostracism first-hand, however,
participants in this study witnessed another person
being ostracized (see Wesselmann et al., 2013 for review)
while continuous EEG was being recorded. Participants
watched three ostensible players at other universities
play two rounds of Cyberball (modified by Crowley
et al., 2010; Themanson et al., 2013). During the first
round, all players were included in the game, but during
the second round one of the players did not receive the
ball. ERPs were time-locked to throws made during
inclusion and exclusion phases. Thereafter, participants
reported their compassion (Batson et al., 1987),
empathic anger (Vitaglione & Barnett, 2003), and
empathic sadness (Batson & Shaw, 1991). These mea­
sures were used to examine the convergent validity of
ERP components with commonly used measures of com­
passion and attendant motivational forms of empathy.
Finally, participants were given an opportunity to help
the ostracism victim by writing an e-mail to them (cf.
Masten et al., 2011); e-mails were coded for prosociality
and harm (toward the perpetrators) and served as an
overt behavioral outcome.
To our knowledge, no research has been conducted
on ERP correlates of vicarious social pain; however,
a multitude of studies have examined ERPs within phy­
sical and emotional pain domains that could be useful to
derive hypotheses (see S. Han, 2018 for review). First,
previous research has speculated that an early negative
deflection in the ERP waveform morphology elicited by
ostracism events (Crowley et al., 2009) may reflect the
feedback error-related negativity (fERN) component of
the ERP (e.g., Hajcak et al., 2005; Holroyd & Coles, 2002).
The fERN is believed to engage feedback monitoring
when one’s expectations are violated. Consistent with
this, the ERP responses to faces depicting pain have
shown an early frontal negative peak between 80 ms
and 140 ms (Contreras-Huerta et al., 2014; Sheng &
Han, 2012). Given that vicarious ostracism can be experi­
enced like first-hand ostracism, we predicted exclusion
throws would represent an expectancy violation and
produce higher amplitude fERNs.
Second, attention-related components of the ERP, like
the P300 and late positive potential (LPP), may be related to

compassion, as attentional processes are important to
empathy and compassion (Zaki, 2014). The P300 is
a positive-going component (occurring between 300 and
500 ms post-stimulus) and is believed to represent deliber­
ate allocation of attention to task-relevant stimuli (Donchin,
1981; Polich, 2007). The P300 has been linked to noradre­
nergic output from the locus of coeruleus (e.g., Bouret &
Sara, 2005) and is theorized to be related to dimensions of
empathy (Corbetta et al., 2008). Like the P300, the LPP
reflects deliberate cognitive processing – that is, sustained
attention to emotionally significant events (Hajcak & Foti,
2020). In the Cyberball game, vicarious exclusion throws
may serve as emotionally significant events that engage
these attentional processes. As such, we predicted higher
amplitude P300 and LPP responses to exclusion throws. In
support of this, Fan and Han (2008) found that observing
physical pain (i.e., body parts in painful position) versus
non-painful stimuli resulted in a higher amplitude-positive
component between 140 ms and 200 ms over central elec­
trodes followed by a long positive-going component of
300 ms − 800 ms, maximum in parietal electrodes (also
see Sessa et al., 2014; X. Han et al., 2016). Interestingly, the
amplitude of the positive component between 140 ms and
200 ms was associated with self-reported unpleasantness
felt when observing the pain stimuli. Thus, we also specu­
lated that the P300 and LPP amplitudes might predict self-
reported empathy and overt helping behavior.
Method
Participants
Sample size was determined with an arbitrary stopping
criterion (N = 75). Eighty1 right-handed undergraduates
from a university in Southern California participated in
exchange for course credit. Seven indicated study suspi­
cions, and these cases were removed leaving 73 cases
for formal analysis. Participants were an average age of
M = 21.29 years with a SD = 5.62 years and were 80.8%
female and 19.2% male.
Procedure
Participants reported to a private laboratory room one-
at-a-time. An experimenter informed the participant that
the purpose of the study was to examine “how mental
imagery exercises can change social interactions over
the internet.” Thereafter, participants were oriented to
1
Initially, 25 participants were recruited, and data collection was terminated after several participants reported an experimenter error in our protocol.
Specifically, participants were incorrectly told that other Cyberball players were undergoing EEG recording at the same university, which conflicted with
information in the computer-based paradigm that stated participants were at different universities in California. Seventeen of 25 participants stated they did
not believe the other players were real, and so data collection was restarted from zero. The 80 participants herein were enrolled after correcting this error in
the protocol. These data are posted in a public repository and include all 105 participants (https://osf.io/jb9td/).
SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE 93
an EEG amplifier (Electrical Geodesics Inc. (EGI) System
405) and recording net (HCGSN 130 G: 32 channels),
explained how this equipment would non-invasively
record neural signals from their scalp and were given
an overview of the upcoming study tasks. Participants
sat in front of a 17-inch LCD monitor, which was posi­
tioned 36 inches in front of their face with a wall-
mounted articulated arm. This monitor was connected
to a computer in a separate room and controlled by the
participant via wireless keyboard, wireless mouse, and
an RB-740 Response Pad (Cedrus).
After provision of informed consent, participants
were fitted for an EEG recording net. Participants were
told they would observe an online ball-tossing game
during EEG recordings (modified by Crowley et al.,
2010; K. S. Williams et al., 2012) played ostensibly by
student participants at other universities in California.
Participants were informed that fake names would be
assigned to them and to the other three ostensible
players “to conceal their identities.” To increase the plau­
sibility that the other players participated in real-time,
the experimenter made a sham phone call to “another
lab” where other ostensible experimenters and players
were waiting to begin the game. The other labs allegedly
required “a few minutes to begin the ball-tossing game.”
So, the experimenter used that time to provide instruc­
tions to the participants about mental visualization in
online social interactions. Participants were given the
following instructions about mental visualization: “Do
you think it would be fun to interact with them? Are
they playing outside? What is it like outside? Are they
inside? What is it like inside?” Thereafter, EEG recordings
began, and participants completed the first round of
Cyberball observation – a six-minute block in which
throws and catches were equally distributed among
the three ostensible players (task described below).
After the observation round, the experimenter re-
entered the running room and told the participant that
a second, shorter round would soon begin, reminding
the participant to mentally visualize the ball-tossing
game and the players. This time, one player was
excluded from the game without explanation, receiving
less than 5% of the throws from the other two players.
The experimenter re-entered the room and oriented the
participant to an exit survey. Here, the participants first
completed questionnaires about their state compassion
(Batson et al., 1987), state empathic sadness (Batson &
Shaw, 1991), and state empathic anger (also called moral
94 K. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.
outrage; Vitaglione & Barnett, 2003). Thereafter, partici­
pants wrote an e-mail to each ostensible player using
a real e-mail (Gmail) account. To fit with the cover story,
participants were told that e-mail was a common form of
interaction over the internet, and that they could write
about anything they wanted. Responses to the victim
were coded for prosociality by hypothesis-naïve raters
(cf., Masten et al., 2011) and served as a measure of
helping and hurting behaviors. Finally, a post-
experimental inquiry asking about what participants
found suspicious during the study was completed.
Participants were then debriefed, thanked, and
dismissed.
Measures
State compassion
Using a seven-point Likert-type scale (“not at all” to
“extremely”), six adjectives tapped compassion (Batson
et al., 1981, 1987)—sympathetic, moved, compassionate,
tender, warm, and softhearted—and seven adjectives
assessed empathic sadness—sad, dejected, sorrowful,
low-spirited, downhearted, heavy-hearted, and feeling
low. Additionally, nine adjectives examined state
empathic anger, a vicarious emotion that occurs when
witnessing unfairness (Vitaglione & Barnett, 2003).
Empathic anger adjectives included: angry, irritated,
upset, annoyed, offended, outraged, mad, perturbed, and
frustrated.
Email helping and hurting
Four coders naïve to study hypotheses assessed help­
ing behavior toward the ostracism victim and perpe­
trators (cf., Masten et al., 2011) on a seven-point Likert-
type scale (“not at all” to “very much”) by answering
three questions: “Does it seem like they are trying to
comfort the person?”; “How supportive are they?”; and
“How much do they seem like they are trying to help the
person?” Item scores were averaged for each rater;
these mean scores were then averaged across raters.
To assess hurting behavior, e-mails were rated on the
following: “Does it seem like they are trying to shame
this person?”; “How cruel are they toward this person?”;
and How much do they seem like they are trying to hurt
this person?”
Awareness of ostracism and races of the other players
Four true/false questions regarding the ostracism (e.g.,
“All players participated in the game the same amount”)
were embedded among four filler questions germane to
the game (e.g., “One player took much longer to throw the
ball than others”). To further conceal the goals of this
measure, instructions indicated that, “Because each set of
players acts differently, we would like to know how the
events of the game unfolded.”
Modified cyberball paradigm
Vicarious ostracism is commonly studied through the
Cyberball Paradigm (e.g., K. S. Williams et al., 2012),
a computer-simulated ball tossing game designed to
exclude participants. Modeling our study after fMRI stu­
dies examining vicarious social exclusion (e.g., Masten
et al., 2011) and ERP research on first-person experience
of ostracism (e.g., Crowley et al., 2010; Themanson et al.,
2013), we modified this Cyberball Paradigm to elicit ERPs
to throw events. SuperLab version 6 (Cedrus) software
package controlled stimulus presentation. Indicated in
Panel “A” of Figure 1, participants were first led to
believe that other players were “logging into” the
game at other universities in California.
ERPs were derived from throws made during inclu­
sion and exclusion phases, as shown in Panel “B” of
Figure 1. The ball-tossing game began with the ball
appearing in one of the player’s gloves. To indicate
a throw event, the ball disappeared for 500
milliseconds(ms) and then reappeared in another
player’s glove for 1000 ms − 3000 ms; the duration of
the ball in the glove was randomized to appear as if
other players were deciding to whom they should
throw next. During the inclusion block (100 throws),
all players received the ball equally. Throw schedules
did not follow the same pattern throughout the inclu­
sion block to appear less predetermined. During the
exclusion block, 60 of the 63 throws occurred between
two of the players, and thus, one of the players was
ostracized. Unique trigger codes for throw types were
time-locked to the onset of the ball appearing in
a glove. This paradigm is publicly available (https://
osf.io/jb9td/).
EEG Data acquisition and processing
Continuous EEG was recorded with Net Station
Aquisition Software (EGI) using 32 Ag/AgCL electrodes
mounted in an electrode net (HCGSN 130). Electrodes
were based on the international 10–10 system with
a CPz ground and referenced to Cz. Signals were ampli­
fied (Geodesics, GES 405), filtered (60 Hz notch filter),
and digitized at 1000 Hz. Impedance was reduced
below 40 kΩ on all scalp electrodes prior to recording.
EEG data were pre-processed offline using custom
EEGlab (version 14.0) (Delorme & Makeig, 2004) scripts in
MATLAB (Mathworks). First, bad channels were detected,
removed, and then interpolated using algorithms native to

Figure 1. Cyberball sham login procedure (Panel A) and game flow (Panel B). Note. Triggers were time-locked to the onset of the ball
appearing in a glove.
EEGLab. Line artifacts (60 Hz electromagnetic noise) were
removed using the cleanline plugin (Mullen, 2012), and EEG
channels were re-referenced to a common average refer­
ence. Then, the Artifact Subspace Reconstruction algorithm
was applied to the data (Mullen et al., 2013). Trials were
epoched from −100 ms prior to the onset of the ball
appearing in the throw recipients’ glove and 900 ms after
stimulus onset. The average amplitude between −100 ms
and 0 ms was subtracted from the signal for baseline cor­
rection, and the data were low-pass filtered at 30 Hz. Trials
were removed using artifact detection algorithms provided
in EEG lab that detect nonstereotypical artifacts including
abnormal values (< −150 μV or >150 μV), distributions,
spectra, and linear trends. Independent component analy­
sis was performed on the epoched data, and artifactual
independent components (e.g., blinks, horizontal eye
movements) were detected and subtracted from the
epoched data using the Multiple Artifact Rejection
Algorithm (MARA; Winkler et al., 2011, 2014).
Sixty-six of the 100 throws occurring in the inclusion
block served as “inclusion” events and the 60 exclusion
throws during the exclusion block served as “exclusion”
events. The inclusion events were calculated from the 66
throws during the inclusion phase that did not go to the
player excluded in the next round. Thus, events were
2
Waveform morphologies were visually inspected at FP1, FP2, F3, F4, C3, C4, P3, P4, O1, O1, F7, F8, P7, P8, PO7, PO8, Fz, FCz, Cz, Pz, and Oz.
SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE 95
throws in which the same player was excluded, experimen­
tally isolating the phase in which the throws occurred (see
Crowley et al., 2010). For simplicity, we refer to these as
inclusion and exclusion throws, hereafter. Given our focus
on frontocentral and parietal maximum ERP components,
analyses were conducted at FCz and Pz.2 Windows were set
based on visually inspecting waveform morphologies, and
average amplitudes of event types were compared within
these windows.
Results
Waveform morphologies and analysis
Figure 2 (Panel “A”) shows the grand averaged ERPs that
occured in response to inclusion and exclusion throws.
Waveform morphologies are consistent with those pre­
viously recorded in studies concerning vicarious physical
pain (e.g., Fan & Han, 2008) and first-person experienced
ostracism (e.g., Crowley et al., 2010; Themanson et al.,
2013). All amplitudes are relatively larger in magnitude
at FCz compared to Pz. An early negative-going deflec­
tion was present at 108 ms − 230 ms. These responses
peaked around 105 ms and 180 ms at FCz and Pz, respec­
tively. Following this, a positive-going deflection
96 K. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

a) b)

c)
Inclusion – Exclusion Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Outcome Mean Rank Negative Ranks Mean Rank Positive Ranks Z p(2-sided) p(1-sided)
Frontal N 108 – 230 34.67 30 38.63 43 −1.71 .088 .044
Frontal P 190 – 304 37.53 38 36.43 35 0.42 .682 .341
Frontal P 548 – 900 35.70 43 38.87 30 1.01 .314 .157
Parietal N 108 – 230 35.23 35 38.63 38 −0.65 .522 .261
Parietal P 190 – 304 38.97 39 34.74 34 0.93 .355 .177
Parietal P 548 – 900 43.35 40 29.30 33 2.11 .035 .017

Figure 2. Grand average waveform morphologies (Panel A), averaged waveforms by throw type at FCz and Pz (Panel B), and
descriptive and nonparametric inferential statistics of average amplitudes by inclusion trial (N = 73) (Panel C). Note. Negative Ranks =
Inclusion < Exclusion; Positive Ranks = Inclusion > Exclusion; there were no ties in rankings across analyses.

occurred within the range of 190 ms − 304 ms (peak
around 260 ms). Finally, a long positive-going deflection
was observed between 548 ms and 900 ms.
Data were not normally distributed, showing high kur­
tosis and skewness scores (> |1.5|). Thus, Wilcoxon Signed
Rank Tests were used to compare exclusion to inclusion
throws in six separate analyses by window (N108–230,
P190–304, and P548–900) and channel (FCz and Pz).
Waveform morphologies are visually depicted in Panel “B”
of Figure 2, and test statistics and mean ranks are reported
in Panel “C.” Consistent with our first hypothesis, there
were more negative ranks for exclusion throws than inclu­
sion throws at FCz between 108 ms and 230 ms, perhaps
reflective of the fERN component (Holroyd & Coles, 2002).
There were more positive ranks for exclusion throws than
inclusion throws at Pz between 548 ms and 900 ms. This
positive-going deflection was similar in form to the late
positive potential (e.g., Hajcak & Foti, 2020), believed to
involve elaborative processing and sustained attention
(Hajcak, 2012). This finding is in support of our second
hypothesis that LPP amplitudes would be modulated by
exclusion salience. Mean difference effect sizes by throw
type were smaller than expected, which we attributed to
a confound in our research design. That is, inclusion and
exclusion blocks are not counterbalanced, and so subjects
may have habituated to the stimuli (e.g., Ferrari et al., 2020)
or become fatigued or bored during the task. Given the
relatively greater amplitude responses between 190 ms
and 304 ms at FCz compared to Pz, we reasoned that this
positive deflection resembled a P3a (Polich, 2007), perhaps
reflecting the attentional salience of exclusion events
(Donchin, 1981; Themanson et al., 2015).

Table 1. Pearson r(p) and Kendall’s Γb(p) rank order correlations between state empathy, helping behaviors and hurting
behaviors (N = 73).
Help Victim Hurt Perpetrator Compassion Sadness Anger
Mean 3.22 1.46 2.15 1.69 1.87
Standard Deviation 1.67 0.52 1.20 1.03 1.15
α(ICC) (.86) (.87) .77 .86 .81
Skewness 0.24 1.04 1.14 1.95 1.85
Kurtosis −1.12 0.25 0.68 3.16 3.07
Help Victim .51a(<.001) .18a(.127) .27(.002) .25(.003)
Hurt Perpetrator .09a(.441) .22(.014) .32(<.001)
Compassion .34(<.001) .18(.033)
Sadness .47(<.001)
Note. aPearson Product Moment Correlation; remaining coefficients are Kendall’s tb; bold = statistically significant.
 SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE 97

Event-related correlates of empathy and helping/
hurting
Table 1 shows intercorrelations among study outcomes.
In all analyses that follow, variables with skewness and/
or kurtosis scores greater than the absolute value of 1.5
were analyzed with Kendall’s Γb. Bivariate relations in
which both variables are normally distributed are ana­
lyzed with Pearson Product Moment Correlations.
Overall, scores of people helping the victim and hurting
the perpetrators were strongly positively correlated.
Compassion, empathic sadness, and empathic anger
were all modestly to strongly positively correlated.
Only empathic sadness and empathic anger were mod­
estly positively correlated with helping behavior and
hurting behavior. Inconsistent with previous research
(e.g., Berry et al., 2018), compassion is not correlated
with helping or hurting behavior.
Table 2 shows correlations between ERP amplitudes and
study outcomes. Bivariate relations are reported by event
type. Ranked exclusion throw amplitudes of the positive-
going peak between 190 ms and 304 ms at FCz were
weakly to moderately positively correlated with compas­
sion, empathic sadness, and empathic anger. The late posi­
tive-going deflection between 548 ms and 900 ms (at FCz)
showed a weak positive correlation with helping behavior
in response to exclusion throws, and a weak negative
correlation in response to inclusion throws. Ranked ampli­
tudes of this late positive component to exclusion were also
weakly associated with empathic sadness and empathic
anger. Interestingly, the ranked inclusion throw amplitudes
of the negative peaks between 108 ms and 230 ms were
weakly positively associated with helping behavior and
empathic sadness. As indicated in the supplemental file,
none of the study outcomes were correlated with ERP
amplitudes at Pz.
To examine the predictive validity of the three empathic
emotions in explaining variance in helping behavior and
ERP amplitudes, five multiple ordinary least-squares regres­
sion analyses were computed. As shown in Table 3,

Table 2. Pearson r(p) and Kendall’s Γb(p) rank order correlations between study outcomes and ERP component amplitudes at FCz (N = 73).
Exclusion Throws Inclusion Throws

Outcomes N 108–230 P 190–304 P 548–900 N 108–230 P 190–304 P 548–900

Help Victim .04(.637) .12(.143) .24a(.037) .20(.012) −.04(.617) −.25a(.034)
Hurt Perpetrator −.01(.884) .09(.293) .13a(.269) .09(.272) .12(.137) −.14a(.382)
Compassion .08(.346) .32(<.001) .22a(.060) .11(.175) .14(.082) −.05a(.634)
Sadness .06(.506) .21(.013) .18(.030) .21(.013) .09(.308) −.10(.241)
Anger −.01(.878) .17(.045) .19(.020) .04(.672) .16(.052) −.03(.711)
Mean −0.36 0.75 0.07 −0.24 0.62 −0.02
Standard Deviation 0.65 1.02 0.73 0.81 0.82 0.56
Skewness 0.75 −0.57 −0.42 −2.35 −0.46 −0.23
Kurtosis 6.17 4.74 0.83 10.88 3.55 0.83
Note. aPearson Product Moment Correlation; remaining coefficients are Kendall’s tb; bold = statistically significant.

Table 3. Simultaneous multiple OLS regression modes examining relations between state emotions, helping
behaviors, and ERP component amplitudes at FCz for exclusion throws (N = 73).
Parameter Estimates Model Summary
b(SE) t(p) β sr2 F(p) R2
Help Victim
Compassion −0.03(0.18) −0.15(.881) −.02 <.001 7.08(<.001) .24
Sadness −0.07(0.36) −0.18(.857) −.04 <.001
Anger 0.77(0.30) 2.56(.013) .53 .07
Hurt Perpetrators
Compassion −0.05(0.05) −0.98(.331) −.12 .01 8.54(<.001) .27
Sadness −0.05(0.11) −0.47(.642) −.10 .002
Anger 0.29(0.09) 3.18(.003) .62 .11
N 108–230
Compassion −0.00(0.07) −0.02(.984) −.00 <.001 2.14(.104) .09
Sadness 0.21(0.15) 1.36(.179) .33 .02
Anger −0.03(0.13) −0.20(.838) −.05 <.001
P 190–304
Compassion 0.24(0.11) 2.15(.035) .28 .05 6.48(.001) .22
Sadness 0.26(0.23) 1.18(.243) .27 .02
Anger −0.01(0.19) −0.04(.968) −.01 <.001
P 548–900
Compassion −0.10(0.08) −1.25(.216) −.17 .02 3.50(.020) .13
Sadness −0.06(0.17) −0.33(.744) −.08 .001
Anger 0.29(0.14) 2.09(.041) .46 .05
Note. Degrees of freedom for t-distributions is 69; degrees of freedom for F-distributions is dfregression = 3, dfresidual = 69.
98 K. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.
empathic anger was positively associated with helping and
hurting behavior, as well as amplitudes of the positive peak
between 548 ms and 900 ms. No empathic emotion was
associated with the negative peak between 108 ms and
230 ms, and compassion was positively associated with the
positive peak between 190 ms and 304 ms. Correlations
between the attention-related components (i.e., P300 and
LPP) and empathy and helping outcomes are in line with
our third hypothesis.
Finally, to decompose the effects of exclusion during
the timecourse of a social interaction, exclusion throws
were averaged into three blocks (first 20 throws, second
20 throws, third 20 throws) per Themanson et al. (2013).
Neither a linear nor quadratic time trend explains the
mean amplitude within any of the three analysis win­
dows (ps ≥ .271), indicating waveform amplitudes did
not vary across the exclusion block. As a result, time
variables were not considered.
Discussion
People encounter several opportunities to feel com­
passion and empathy in everyday life (Depow et al.,
2021) and are more likely to encounter others in
social pain contexts (Nezlek et al., 2012). This study
uses high temporal resolution ERPs to examine cog­
nitive and affective neural processes involved in com­
passion for social pain. We adapted the Cyberball
paradigm so that participants witnessed another per­
son being excluded (vicarious ostracism) during EEG
recording, with three hypotheses derived from pre­
vious literature. First, exclusion events would predict
higher amplitude fERN responses, reflective of feed­
back monitoring. Second, exclusion effects would be
associated with higher amplitude P300 and LPP
responses, as empathy and compassion involve selec­
tive and sustained attention to others in need. Third,
we hypothesized that self-reported measures of
empathy and overt helping would be positively cor­
related with P300 and LPP amplitudes.
There was a marginally significant rank amplitude
difference between 108 ms and 230 ms, such that
exclusion throws more frequently produced lower
amplitude responses to exclusion throws. Based on
the spatial-temporal waveform morphology, we rea­
soned that the component resembled the feedback
error-related negativity (fERN; e.g., Holroyd & Coles,
2002). A long latency-positive deflection was present
between 548 ms and 900 ms, and more frequently
had higher amplitudes for exclusion throws. This
later deflection is similar to the late positive potential
(LPP; e.g., Hajcak & Foti, 2020). This late positive
deflection was positively associated with self-
reported empathic anger and helping behavior –
written warmth and comfort offered to the ostracism
victim. A positive-going deflection was observed pri­
marily on frontal electrodes between 190 ms and 304
ms. Resembling the P3a component of the human
ERP (Polich, 2007), this response was correlated with
self-reported compassion. Along with its positive rela­
tionship with helping behavior and the late positive
potential, empathic anger was also associated with
e-mails written to hurt ostracism perpetrators. Self-
reported compassion was not associated with helping
or hurting behavior.
Are feedback salience and emotional pain
associated with compassion?
Rejection is harmful to its victims, carrying social and
material costs (e.g., loss of shared resources,
K. D. Williams, 2007). Thus, people are sensitive to
rejection salience and are quick to detect it.
Experiencing ostracism first-hand is associated with
enhanced BOLD responses in the ACC and AI
(Singer et al., 2004), the former associated with feed­
back monitoring and cognitive control (Bush et al.,
2000). The negative-going deflection between 108 ms
and 230 ms was maximum in the frontocentral chan­
nels (e.g., FCz) and reflective of the fERN component.
fERN amplitude can be increased by motivational
salience (i.e., monetary reward; Hajcak et al., 2005)
and is modulated by individual differences in anxiety
(Gehring et al., 2000; Weinberg & Hajcak, 2011). Given
the higher amplitudes of exclusion in this early nega­
tive response, it is possible that this response is asso­
ciated with the motivational relevance of vicarious
exclusion. However, the fERN is also modulated by
physical pain stimuli (Talmi et al., 2013), and Fan and
Han (2008) found that an ERP with a similar spatio­
temporal profile was associated with first-hand
unpleasantness in response to vicarious physical
pain stimuli. Consistent with Masten et al. (2011),
the spatial location of this component is consistent
with ACC and AI responses within the shared pain
network. Because this component is not associated
with any self-reported measure, it is difficult to dis­
ambiguate the psychological correlates of the early
component. Future research should consider manip­
ulating motivational salience and/or social pain via
monetary or other types of reward (see Van Beest &
Williams, 2006).
 SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE 99

Implications for a motivational framework of amplitude difference between exclusion and inclusion
compassion events could be due to habituation, fatigue, boredom,
etc. (e.g., Ferrari et al., 2020), we believe that beha­
Feeling compassion for others is cognitively, emotion­
vioral and self-report correlates with the LPP and P3a
ally, and sometimes materially costly (Cameron et al.,
responses to exclusion (but not inclusion) support the
2019). Thus, people are motivated to avoid feeling com­
construct validity of our manipulation. Future work
passion in many circumstances. Avoidance can take
should counterbalance the presentation of inclusion
many different forms including misattributing a target’s
and exclusion blocks. Related to this, self-reported
pain as less intense than it is, turning attention away
measures of compassion and similar emotions/motiva­
from the target’s pain, and/or avoiding these painful
tions may be contaminated by social desirability bias
situations altogether (Zaki, 2014). The positive associa­
(Cialdini et al., 1987). That said, the correlations
tion between self-reported compassion and the positive
between these self-reported measures and beha­
peak between 190 ms and 308 ms may lend insight into
vioral/neural indicators of compassion corroborate
the attentional salience of social pain (e.g., Themanson
the validity of these measures. Third, no formal
et al., 2015). Social interactions are dynamic, and atten­
power analysis was computed, which can increase
tion shifts in response to changing social goals. The
the possibility of false positives (Simmons et al.,
positive correlation observed in this study is consistent
2016). Fourth, the number of inclusion and exclusion
with previous research indicating that turning attention
throws is imbalanced, and so the respective average
away from others’ pain is a motivational avoidance strat­
waveforms could be differentially influenced by arti­
egy used to temper emotional exhaustion associated
facts, for example (Picton et al., 2003). Finally, measur­
with vicarious pain (Cameron et al., 2016) and one’s
ing compassion may have made participants aware of
own pain in such situations (Simpson et al., 1995).
the nature of the study. Thus, correlations between
Two additional findings are related to a motivational
these measures and help could mean that participants
consideration of compassion. First, empathic anger was
wrote e-mails in a way that they thought they were
associated with helping, hurting, and the LPP response.
supposed to (i.e., facilitation bias). Future research
Second, the LPP was positively correlated with helping
might consider implementing unobtrusive measures
behavior. Recent research has linked the LPP to the
of compassions such as interference latency in the
emotional significance of a stimulus (e.g., Hajcak & Foti,
emotional Stroop task (cf., Batson et al., 1988).
2020), and this component is believed to involve ela­
borative processing and sustained attention (Hajcak,
2012). Ostracism evokes a multitude of emotions (e.g., Conclusion
sadness, pain, anger; Chow et al., 2008), and emotions
To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine how
are conceptual abstractions based on one’s subjective
high temporal resolution ERPs correlate with vicarious
experience of visceral and mental states as well as the
ostracism. In summary, greater amplitude P3a responses
accompanying social context (e.g., Barrett et al., 2015).
were associated with higher self-reported compassion,
Perhaps, the fact that empathic anger was a promoter of
and higher amplitude LPP responses were associated
prosociality, rather than compassion (see Berry et al.,
with higher self-reported empathic anger and helping
2018), indicates that this social context was perceived
behavior. Our findings highlight the importance of moti­
as unfair. Unfairness is commonly associated with vicar­
vational forms of empathy/compassion (e.g., Zaki, 2017)
ious anger and moral outrage (e.g., Batson et al., 2007).
in social cognition and behavior.
Future research might consider frontal alpha asymmetry
to tap into the subjective experience of compassion (i.e.,
approach- vs. avoidance-motivational shifts in compas­ Disclosure statement
sion) (see Condon & Feldman Barrett, 2013; Goetz et al.,
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
2010), a neural oscillation elicited in response to first-
hand ostracism (Peterson et al., 2011).
Funding
The author(s) reported that there is no funding associated with
Limitations
the work featured in this article.
Our experimental design presents a confound, as par­
ticipants always witness inclusion prior to exclusion.
ORCID
This makes it difficult to disambiguate the experimen­
tal manipulation from order effects. While the lack of Daniel R. Berry http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0103-8003
100 K. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.
References
Ashar, Y. K., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Dimidjian, S., & Wager, T. D.
(2017). Empathic care and distress: Predictive brain markers
and dissociable brain systems. Neuron, 94(6), 1263–1273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.014
Barrett, L. F., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., & Barsalou, L. W. (2015).
The conceptual act theory: A roadmap. In L. F. Barrett &
J. A. Russell (Eds.), The psychological construction of emotion
(pp. 83–110). The Guilford Press.
Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University
Press.
Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K.
(1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic
motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40
(2), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.290
Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L.,
McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two
new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55
(1), 52–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.52
Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and
empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with
different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality,
55(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.
tb00426.x
Batson, C. D., Kennedy, C. L., Nord, L. A., Stocks, E. L.,
Fleming, D. Y. A., Marzette, C. M., Lishner, D. A., Hayes, R. E.,
Kolchinsky, L. M., & Zerger, T. (2007). Anger at unfairness: Is it
moral outrage? European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6),
1272–1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.434
Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., & Stocks, E. L. (2015). The empathy–
altruism hypothesis. In D. A. Shroeder & W. G. Graziano
(Eds.), The oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp.
259–281). Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward
a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2),
107–122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1
Beeney, J. E., Franklin, R. G., Jr., Levy, K. N., & Adams, R. B., Jr.
(2011). I feel your pain: Emotional closeness modulates
neural responses to empathically experienced rejection.
Social Neuroscience, 6(4), 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17470919.2011.557245
Berkman, E. T., & Falk, E. B. (2013). Beyond brain mapping:
Using neural measures to predict real-world outcomes.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 45–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412469394
Berry, D. R., Cairo, A. H., Goodman, R. J., Quaglia, J. T.,
Green, J. D., & Brown, K. W. (2018). Mindfulness increases
empathic and prosocial responses toward ostracized stran­
gers through empathic concern. Journal of Experimental
Psychology General, 147(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xge0000392
Berry, D. R., Wall, C., Cairo, A., Plonski, P. E., Boman, L. D.,
Rodriguez, K., & Brown, K. W. (2023). Brief mindfulness
instruction predicts anonymous prosocial helping of an
ostracized racial outgroup member Mindfulness 14 378–
394 . . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-02058-4
Bouret, S., & Sara, S. J. (2005). Network reset: A simplified over­
arching theory of locus coeruleus noradrenaline function.
Trends in Neurosciences, 28(11), 574–582. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tins.2005.09.002
Bush, G., Luu, P., & Posner, M. I. (2000). Cognitive and emotional
influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 4(6), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-
6613(00)01483-2
Cameron, C. D., Harris, L. T., & Payne, B. K. (2016). The emotional
cost of humanity: Anticipated exhaustion motivates dehu­
manization of stigmatized targets. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 7(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1948550615604453
Cameron, C. D., Hutcherson, C. A., Ferguson, A. M.,
Scheffer, J. A., Hadjiandreou, E., & Inzlicht, M. (2019).
Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy
because of its cognitive costs. Journal of Experimental
Psychology General, 148(6), 962–976. https://doi.org/10.
1037/xge0000595
Chow, R. M., Tiedens, L. Z., & Govan, C. L. (2008). Excluded
emotions: The role of anger in antisocial responses to
ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3),
896–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.09.004
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., &
Beaman, A. L. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly
or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(4), 749–758. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.52.4.749
Condon, P., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2013). Conceptualizing and
experiencing compassion. Emotion, 13(5), 817. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0033747
Contreras-Huerta, L. S., Hielscher, E., Sherwell, C. S., Rens, N., &
Cunnington, R. (2014). Intergroup relationships do not
reduce racial bias in empathic neural responses to pain.
Neuropsychologia, 64, 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2014.09.045
Corbetta, M., Patel, G., & Shulman, G. L. (2008). The reorienting
system of the human brain: From environment to theory of
mind. Neuron, 58(3), 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neu
ron.2008.04.017
Crowley, M. J., Wu, J., McCarty, E. R., David, D. H., Bailey, C. A., &
Mayes, L. C. (2009). Exclusion and micro-rejection:
Event-related potential response predicts mitigated
distress. Neuroreport, 20(17), 1518–1522. https://doi.org/10.
1097/WNR.0b013e328330377a
Crowley, M. J., Wu, J., Molfese, P. J., & Mayes, L. C. (2010). Social
exclusion in middle childhood: Rejection events, slow-wave
neural activity, and ostracism distress. Social Neuroscience, 5
(5–6), 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2010.
500169
Decety, J., & Meyer, M. (2008). From emotion resonance to
empathic understanding: A social developmental neu­
roscience account. Development and Psychopathology, 20(4),
1053–1080. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000503
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source
toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including
independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience
Methods, 134(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.
2003.10.009
Depow, G. J., Francis, Z., & Inzlicht, M. (2021). The experience of
empathy in everyday life. Psychological Science, 32(8),
1198–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621995202
Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise! . . . surprise? Psychophysiology, 18
(5), 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1981.
tb01815.x

Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The pain of social disconnection:
Examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical
and social pain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(6),
421–434. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3231
Eisenberg, N., Schaller, M., Fabes, R. A., Bustamante, D.,
Mathy, R. M., Shell, R., & Rhodes, K. (1988). Differentiation
of personal distress and sympathy in children and adults.
Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 766–775. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.766
Fan, Y., Duncan, N. W., de Greck, M., & Northoff, G. (2011). Is
there a core neural network in empathy? An fMRI based
quantitative meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral
Reviews, 35(3), 903–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neu
biorev.2010.10.009
Fan, Y., & Han, S. (2008). Temporal dynamic of neural mechan­
isms involved in empathy for pain: An event-related brain
potential study. Neuropsychologia, 46(1), 160–173. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.023
Ferrari, V., Mastria, S., & Codispoti, M. (2020). The interplay
between attention and long‐term memory in affective habi­
tuation. Psychophysiology, 57(6), e13572. https://doi.org/10.
1111/psyp.13572
Gehring, W. J., Himle, J., & Nisenson, L. G. (2000). Action-
monitoring dysfunction in obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Psychological Science, 11(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9280.00206
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion:
An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological
Bulletin, 136(3), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018807
Hajcak, G. (2012). What we’ve learned from mistakes: Insights
from error-related brain activity. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(2), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0963721412436809
Hajcak, G., & Foti, D. (2020). Significance?. . . Significance!
Empirical, methodological, and theoretical connections
between the late positive potential and P300 as neural
responses to stimulus significance: An integrative review.
Psychophysiology, 57(7), e13570. https://doi.org/10.1111/
psyp.13570
Hajcak, G., Nieuwenhuis, S., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Simons, R. F.
(2005). Error-preceding brain activity: Robustness, temporal
dynamics, and boundary conditions. Biological Psychology, 70
(2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.12.001
Han, S. (2018). Neurocognitive basis of racial ingroup bias in
empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(5), 400–421.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.013
Han, X., Luo, S., & Han, S. (2016). Embodied neural responses to
others’ suffering. Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1–4), 114–127.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1053440
Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. (2002). The neural basis of human
error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and
the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 109(4),
679–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.679
Jackson, P. L., Rainville, P., & Decety, J. (2006). To what extent
do we share the pain of others? Insight from the neural
bases of pain empathy. Pain, 125(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.pain.2006.09.013
Lamm, C., Decety, J., & Singer, T. (2011). Meta-analytic evidence
for common and distinct neural networks associated with
directly experienced pain and empathy for pain.
Neuroimage, 54(3), 2492–2502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neu
roimage.2010.10.014
SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE 101
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003).
Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school
shootings. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the
International Society for Research on Aggression, 29(3),
202–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10061
Masten, C. L., Eisenberger, N. I., Pfeifer, J. H., & Dapretto, M.
(2010). Witnessing peer rejection during early adolescence:
Neural correlates of empathy for experiences of social
exclusion. Social Neuroscience, 5(5–6), 496–507. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17470919.2010.490673
Masten, C. L., Morelli, S. A., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2011). An fMRI
investigation of empathy for “social pain” and subsequent
prosocial behavior. NeuroImage, 55(1), 381–388. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.060
Meyer, M. L., Masten, C. L., Ma, Y., Wang, C., Shi, Z.,
Eisenberger, N. I., & Han, S. (2013). Empathy for the social
suffering of friends and strangers recruits distinct patterns of
brain activation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
8(4), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss019
Meyer, M. L., Masten, C. L., Ma, Y., Wang, C., Shi, Z., Eisenberger,
N. I., & Han, S. (2013). Empathy for the social suffering of
friends and strangers recruits distinct patterns of brain acti­
vation. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 8(4), 446–
454. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss019
Mullen, T. (2012). CleanLine EEGLAB plugin. Neuroimaging
Informatics Tools and Neuroimaging Informatics Tools and
Resources Clearinghouse (NITRC).
Mullen, T., Kothe, C., Chi, Y. M., Ojeda, A., Kerth, T., Makeig, S.,
Jung, T. P., and Jung, T. P. (2013, July). Real-time modeling
and 3D visualization of source dynamics and connectivity
using wearable EEG. In 2013 35th annual international con­
ference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society
(EMBC) Osaka, Japan (pp. 2184–2187). IEEE.
Nezlek, J. B., Wesselmann, E. D., Wheeler, L., & Williams, K. D.
(2012). Ostracism in everyday life. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 16(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0028029
Peterson, C. K., Gravens, L. C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2011).
Asymmetric frontal cortical activity and negative affective
responses to ostracism. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 6(3), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/
nsq027
Picton, T. W., Bentin, S., Berg, P., Donchin, E., Hillyard, S. A.,
Johnson, R., Jr., Miller, G. A., Ritter, W., Ruchkin, D. S.,
Rugg, M. D., & Taylor, M. J. (2003). Guidelines for using
human event‐related potentials to study cognition:
Recording standards and publication criteria.
Psychophysiology, 37(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1469-8986.3720127
Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a
and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128–2148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019
Sessa, P., Meconi, F., Castelli, L., & Dell’acqua, R. (2014). Taking
one’s time in feeling other-race pain: An event-related
potential investigation on the time-course of cross-racial
empathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(4),
454–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst003
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two
systems for empathy: A double dissociation between emo­
tional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus
ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain: A Journal of Neurology,
132(3), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn279
102 K. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.
Sheng, F., & Han, S. (2012). Manipulations of cognitive strate­
gies and intergroup relationships reduce the racial bias in
empathic neural responses. NeuroImage, 61(4), 786–797.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.028
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2016). False-
positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collec­
tion and analysis allows presenting anything as significant.
In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in
clinical research (pp. 547–555). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-033
Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head
protects the heart: Empathic accuracy in dating
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69(4), 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.629
Singer, T., Critchley, H. D., & Preuschoff, K. (2009). A common
role of insula in feelings, empathy and uncertainty. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 13(8), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2009.05.001
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., &
Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective
but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661),
1157–1162. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093535
Talmi, D., Atkinson, R., & El Deredy, W. (2013). The
feedback-related negativity signals salience prediction
errors, not reward prediction errors. Journal of
Neuroscience, 33(19), 8264–8269. https://doi.org/10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.5695-12.2013
Tan, L. B., Lo, B. C., Macrae, C. N., & Nusbaum, H. (2014). Brief
mindfulness meditation improves mental state attribution
and empathizing. PloS One, 9(10), e110510. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0110510
Themanson, J. R., Khatcherian, S. M., Ball, A. B., & Rosen, P. J.
(2013). An event-related examination of neural activity during
social interactions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
8(6), 727–733. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss058
Themanson, J. R., Schreiber, J. A., Larsen, A. D., Dunn, K. R.,
Ball, A. B., & Khatcherian, S. M. (2015). The ongoing cognitive
processing of exclusionary social events: Evidence from
event-related potentials. Social Neuroscience, 10(1), 55–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2014.956899
Van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and
ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91(5), 918–928. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.91.5.918
Vitaglione, G. D., & Barnett, M. A. (2003). Assessing a new
dimension of empathy: Empathic anger as a predictor of
helping and punishing desires. Motivation and Emotion, 27
(4), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026231622102
Weinberg, A., & Hajcak, G. (2011). Electrocortical evidence for
vigilance‐avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder.
Psychophysiology, 48(6), 842–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1469-8986.2010.01149.x
Weisz, E., & Cikara, M. (2021). Strategic regulation of empathy.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tics.2020.12.002
Weng, H. Y., Fox, A. S., Shackman, A. J., Stodola, D. E.,
Caldwell, J. Z., Olson, M. C., Davidson, R. J. Davidson, R. J.
(2013). Compassion training alters altruism and neural
responses to suffering. Psychological Science, 24(7),
1171–1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612469537
Wesselmann, E. D., Bagg, D., & Williams, K. D. (2009). “I feel
your pain”: The effects of observing ostracism on the
ostracism detection system. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 45(6), 1308–1311. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jesp.2009.08.003
Wesselmann, E. D., Williams, K. D., & Hales, A. H. (2013).
Vicarious ostracism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7,
153. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00153
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism: The kiss of social death. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 236–247. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00004.x
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: Effects of being excluded and
ignored. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 275–314). Academic Press.
Williams, K. S., Yeager, D. S., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2012).
Cyberball (version 4.0) [Software]. Available from https://
cyberball.wikispaces.com.
Winkler, I., Brandl, S., Horn, F., Waldburger, E., Allefeld, C., &
Tangermann, M. (2014). Robust artifactual independent
component classification for BCI practitioners. Journal of
Neural Engineering, 11(3), 035013. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1741-2560/11/3/035013
Winkler, I., Haufe, S., & Tangermann, M. (2011). Automatic
classification of artifactual ICA-components for artifact
removal in EEG signals. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 7(1),
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-7-30
Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. (2010).
Eye gaze as relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to
feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personality
& Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 869–882. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0146167210370032
Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological
Bulletin, 140(6), 1608–1647. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0037679
Zaki, J. (2017). Moving beyond stereotypes of empathy. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 21(2), 59–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2016.12.004
Zaki, J., & Mitchell, J. P. (2013). Intuitive prosociality. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 466–470. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0963721413492764