Dr. Decety's Presentation

I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Decety’s presentation on empathy. I was intrigued by many aspects of his lecture, however, I found one specific study to be particularly fascinating. This study measured the response to pain and how that response differed when pain was inflicted on different people: oneself, a loved one, a stranger, and an enemy. I found the results to be intriguing, as they were different from my personal predictions.

I predicted that the highest measure of response would be produced when a subject observed pain being inflicted on a loved one. I was surprised to find that subjects yielded the highest measure of response to pain inflicted on oneself. I predicted that this measure would be slightly less than the measure of response corresponding to a loved one. My inaccurate prediction can probably be attributed to the source from which I made my prediction from: the media. It is highly unlikely that the media would report a case in which someone chose to protect themselves before a loved one. The media is more likely to report heroic deeds. Not all people perform heroic acts, so it makes sense as to why the response to personal pain would be greater than the response to observed pain inflicted on a loved one.

This point about heroic acts prompts me to ask: How would people who have performed heroic deeds, by putting his or herself at risk for the well being of others, respond to the different stimuli presented in this experiment? For example, would war veterans respond differently to this test and have a lower response to stimuli of pain inflicted on oneself compared to the response generated by observing pain inflicted on loved ones or others? I am interested to see if the data from this experiment would draw different conclusions when a specific group of people, in this case heroes, are studied.

Another result of this study that surprised me was the response observed when people viewed pain inflicted on a stranger compared to the response observed when people viewed pain inflicted on an enemy. I predicted that this response would be about the same. I based this prediction on how I feel about my personal enemy. I do not care for this person, however I do not wish for pain to be inflicted on this person. I don’t necessarily have feelings of care for strangers, nor do I want strangers to experience pain. Not only was I surprised to find that there was a difference in response, but that the region of the brain responding to pain being inflicted on an enemy is the same region activated during pleasure. Although this conclusion was different from my personal predictions, I can understand why this would be the case. For example, in movies, it is common to root for the good guy and celebrate when the bad guy is defeated, whether it be through injury or death. Although I don’t feel that I would experience pleasure if I observed pain inflicted on my personal enemy, I wouldn’t be surprised if I produced similar results, as I am not aware of what areas of the brain are being activated when I think or feel.

When thinking about movies, my assumption that it is common to root for the good guy and experience pleasure when the bad guy is defeated, prompts me to ask another question: What kind of results could be observed if participants observed pain being inflicted on animals? In reference to the movie example, it is not uncommon to experience more negative feelings when an animal, such as a dog, dies than when a person in a movie dies. I would like to see how the results of observing pain inflicted on animals compare to the results of observing pain inflicted on oneself, a loved one, a stranger, and an enemy.

In conclusion, although I was surprised by some of the results of this study, I do not question their accuracy. I can understand why the different conditions yielded the results that they did.