OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Scientific reports
01 16, 2023;13 (1): 824.

Empathy moderates the relationship between cognitive load and prosocial behaviour.

Roger S Gamble, Julie D Henry, Eric J Vanman
Author Information
  1. Roger S Gamble: School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. roger.gamble@uq.net.au. ORCID
  2. Julie D Henry: School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. ORCID
  3. Eric J Vanman: School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. ORCID
PMID: 36646855 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-28098-x

Abstract

Cognitive load reduces both empathy and prosocial behaviour. However, studies demonstrating these effects have induced cognitive load in a temporally limited, artificial manner that fails to capture real-world cognitive load. Drawing from cognitive load theory, we investigated whether naturally occurring cognitive load from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic moderated the relationship between empathy and prosocial behaviour (operationalised as support for public health measures). This large study in an Australian sample (N = 600) identified negative relationships between pandemic fatigue, empathy for people vulnerable to COVID-19, and prosocial behaviour, and a positive relationship between empathy and prosocial behaviour. Additionally, we found that the negative effect of the pandemic on prosocial behaviour depended on empathy for vulnerable others, with pandemic fatigue's effects lowest for those with the highest empathy. These findings highlight the interrelationships of cognitive load and empathy, and the potential value of eliciting empathy to ease the impact of real-world cognitive load on prosocial behaviour.

References

  1. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 May;22(5):985-97 [PMID: 19425830]
  2. Cogn Emot. 2022 Feb;36(1):120-136 [PMID: 34132171]
  3. PLoS One. 2020 Oct 7;15(10):e0239795 [PMID: 33027281]
  4. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012 Jun;7(5):535-41 [PMID: 21737435]
  5. PLoS One. 2015 May 26;10(5):e0127680 [PMID: 26010489]
  6. Lancet. 2020 Jun 27;395(10242):1973-1987 [PMID: 32497510]
  7. J Cogn Neurosci. 2012 Jan;24(1):235-45 [PMID: 21878057]
  8. Risk Anal. 2014 Aug;34(8):1495-505 [PMID: 24354944]
  9. Inf Process Manag. 2021 Jan;58(1):102407 [PMID: 33041437]
  10. Health Commun. 2022 Jan 26;:1-10 [PMID: 35081848]
  11. Front Psychol. 2018 Oct 11;9:1824 [PMID: 30364280]
  12. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 Nov;12(6):1133-1137 [PMID: 29149576]
  13. Neurosci Lett. 2019 Feb 6;693:49-53 [PMID: 28668381]
  14. Behav Brain Sci. 2010 Jun;33(2-3):61-83; discussion 83-135 [PMID: 20550733]
  15. Biol Psychol. 1990 Oct;31(2):107-16 [PMID: 2103746]
  16. Int J Infect Dis. 2021 May;106:199-207 [PMID: 33771668]
  17. Psychol Bull. 2021 Mar;147(3):293-327 [PMID: 33151703]
  18. Nat Hum Behav. 2020 May;4(5):438 [PMID: 32221514]
  19. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:6870984 [PMID: 27725940]
  20. Pers Individ Dif. 2021 Feb 15;170:110420 [PMID: 33082614]
  21. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2017 Nov;8(8):934-942 [PMID: 29276575]
  22. Behav Brain Funct. 2011 May 23;7:17 [PMID: 21605411]
  23. Psychol Sci. 2020 Nov;31(11):1363-1373 [PMID: 32993455]
  24. Sci Rep. 2021 May 12;11(1):10153 [PMID: 33980946]
  25. Lancet. 2022 Apr 30;399(10336):e39-e40 [PMID: 32305074]
  26. PLoS One. 2022 Mar 16;17(3):e0265544 [PMID: 35294503]
  27. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2021 Sep-Oct;31(5):603-614 [PMID: 34220178]
  28. Sci Rep. 2021 Oct 12;11(1):20222 [PMID: 34642341]
  29. Psychol Assess. 2019 Aug;31(8):1062-1072 [PMID: 31120296]
  30. Neuron. 2009 Jan 29;61(2):203-12 [PMID: 19186163]
  31. Sci Rep. 2016 Jun 16;6:28247 [PMID: 27305959]
  32. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Nov 3;117(44):27277-27284 [PMID: 33046648]
  33. Soc Sci Med. 2022 Jan;293:114677 [PMID: 35101260]
  34. Emotion. 2022 Oct;22(7):1554-1571 [PMID: 33570970]
  35. PLoS One. 2014 May 08;9(5):e96555 [PMID: 24810604]
  36. Trends Cogn Sci. 2021 Mar;25(3):213-227 [PMID: 33386247]
  37. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 May;22(5):400-421 [PMID: 29563059]
  38. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 May 08;7:160 [PMID: 23658538]
  39. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Sep;5(9):1145-1160 [PMID: 34345009]
  40. Neuropsychologia. 2008 Jan 15;46(1):160-73 [PMID: 17825852]
  41. Inf Process Manag. 2021 Nov;58(6):102714 [PMID: 34539039]
  42. Science. 2021 May 20;: [PMID: 34016743]
  43. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2022 Sep 08;8(9):e34675 [PMID: 35785547]
  44. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Jul;5(7):947-953 [PMID: 33972767]
  45. Soc Sci Q. 2021 Sep;102(5):2106-2123 [PMID: 34908607]
  46. Health Psychol. 2022 Feb;41(2):85-93 [PMID: 34570535]
  47. Psychol Rep. 2019 Dec;122(6):2201-2219 [PMID: 30211661]
  48. Neuroscientist. 2011 Feb;17(1):18-24 [PMID: 21071616]
  49. Aust J Soc Issues. 2022 Sep;57(3):544-561 [PMID: 35942302]
  50. Neuroimage. 2007 May 15;36(1):256-67 [PMID: 17400480]
  51. J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Mar;36(3):746-752 [PMID: 33442818]
  52. Psychol Health. 2021 Dec 24;:1-19 [PMID: 34951559]
  53. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 [PMID: 17695343]
  54. Psychol Bull. 2014 Nov;140(6):1608-47 [PMID: 25347133]
  55. Soc Sci Med. 2022 May;301:114926 [PMID: 35344775]
  56. Infant Behav Dev. 2017 Aug;48(Pt B):147-156 [PMID: 28552590]
  57. Am Psychol. 2008 Oct;63(7):602-14 [PMID: 18855491]
  58. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2012;35:1-23 [PMID: 22715878]

MeSH Term

Humans
Empathy
Altruism
Social Behavior
Pandemics
COVID-19
Australia
Cognition
Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Article has an altmetric score of 7

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0loadempathyprosocialbehaviourcognitivepandemicrelationshipeffectsreal-worldCOVID-19negativevulnerableCognitivereducesHoweverstudiesdemonstratinginducedtemporallylimitedartificialmannerfailscaptureDrawingtheoryinvestigatedwhethernaturallyoccurringongoingmoderatedoperationalisedsupportpublichealthmeasureslargestudyAustraliansampleN = 600identifiedrelationshipsfatiguepeoplepositiveAdditionallyfoundeffectdependedothersfatigue'slowesthighestfindingshighlightinterrelationshipspotentialvalueelicitingeaseimpactEmpathymoderates

Similar Articles

Cited By