We are All Empathetic Animals

Social neuroscientists have studied macaque monkeys to look for trends in social decision-making and behaviors. In one study, monkeys are allowed to choose to give their partners juice or an unpleasant airpuff to the eye (Ballesta and Duhamel, 2015).[1] Most choose to give their partners juice, even though making a more prosocial choice for their partner isn’t externally rewarded. Of course, “rewarded” is a loaded term: philosophy has long debated the motivation behind acts of service for others, endlessly questioning if altruism is rewarded by self-satisfaction thereby making it inherently selfish. What joy the “benevolent” monkeys may have derived in assigning their partners juice or “malevolent” monkeys may have derived in assigning their partners an airpuff can only be hypothesized. We do know that humans experience a "high" when we do good deeds for others--an endorphin rush--and this rush is increased significantly when there is an empathetic bond that accompanies the deed. An anonymous deed is like a sugar rush; a good deed where you get to engage the person as they enjoy the goodness you facilitated: that's some next level high you can't buy in stores.

Yet, across the majority of participants, most of the monkeys not only more often chose to give their partners juice, they then engaged in meaningful eye contact when the juice was delivered, connecting empathetically to their partners’ positive experiences. It is not only in the nature of primates to choose the prosocial behavior, but also to sustain eye contact as the juice is given: empathetically connecting throughout a positive experience. We are wired to connect and share in another’s joy, even when it is of no benefit to us but to bask in their delight. The physiological response our bodies have to the joy of others, especially if we caused that joy, is a biological hard-wiring connected to the propogation of the species. It is critical to how social animals work and live, and it is why it makes you feel so good when you see someone else enjoy something you did for them: your heart rate increases, your brain triggers a release of endorphins and oxytocin: little changes in their bodies like the dilation of their pupils, the movements of their forehead and corners of their mouths, changes in the pitch of their voice--all of this registers on a subconscious level to incite physiological changes in your body[2].

The study also gives greater insight into empathetic bonds. Researchers sounded a warning in advance of the delivery of the airpuff to the eye. “Benevolent monkeys” began rapidly blinking their eyes in anticipation of the puff their partner was about to receive when the warning was sounded. “Malevolent monkeys,” who more often assigned their partners airpuffs over juice, strained to not blink when they heard the warning sound for their partner’s pending airpuff, statistically under-responding to the stimuli (Ballesta and Duhamel, 2015). Although researchers did not identify what made the malevolent monkeys choose to more often give their partners airpuffs, they consistently looked away and fought the urge to blink with camaraderie. They buried their instinct for empathy and rejected the connection the juice granting monkeys adopted: blinking in empathetic anticipation with their partners, making eye contact to revel in the joy of their partners as they enjoyed the juice they had awarded them. And while there were no trends in gender in or other social markings to suggest a pattern to why some monkeys chose juice and some chose airpuffs, there was one monkey who chose juice for every partner every time, consistently made eye contact with every partner, and was the most consistently empathetic monkey in the whole study: M1. The most dominant, male monkey in the participant group. This aligns with similar research in social neuroscience that has conclusively shown that leaders in the primate world are generally the most empathetic and generous in their pack[3].

But these studies have not been limited to primates. Some of my favorites have been conducted with rats and chocolate. These rats have not only chosen to free their cagemates from a complex set of cages with no external reward, but also choose to free them first when the alternative is to go eat chocolate. The scientists literally set up a course where the rats can choose between freeing a cagemate or eating seven chocolate chips. In the majority of trials, the rats not only choose to free their cagemates, they choose to free them and then go with their newly freed cagemate to get the chocolate and split it with them (Bartal, Decety, and Mason, 2011)[4]. There are hundreds or more similar studies with rats doing all manner of other incredibly empathetic things—stopping electrical shocks from being administered to cagemates, providing other rats with extra food, redistributing Ensure across a group of rats: again and again, rats are sharing, freeing, and caring for other rats with no external rewards and an unusual host of competing incentives to distract them. These studies similarly suggest that on a biological level, it is in animals’ nature to be empathetic to others, prioritize connection with others, share the spoils, and even make caring for others a priority before a reward.

Theorists like Maslow and Alderfer address the importance of basic human needs as primary drivers in the grand scheme of motivation, and these seem critical as first considerations in the motivation to employ empathy. We would assume even the rats and monkeys enjoy a certain level of safety, warmth, and regular feeding that unfetter the choice to free their cagemates, offer them juice, share some chocolate. Once you move up the pyramid to Maslow’s belonging and love needs or Alderfer’s drive for relatedness, there is a social element that is addressed in the Expectancy-Value Theory of motivation or more thoroughly in Eccles’ Identity Theory of motivation (Eccles, 2009)[5]. It suggests that I am motivated to act because of who I perceive myself to be, or the values or beliefs I have about the social groups or identities I have. Those "benevolent monkeys" may not have conscious ideas that drive them to choose the juice; the rats may not be self-identifying as "the kind of the rat that shares." But once you get to humans, and all the choices we have to make, identity does seem to drive an awful lot of how we make decisions. My political party, religious affiliation, regional ties, my sorority, even my astrological sign: we are quick to ascribe a rationale for our willingness (or unwillingness) to extend our empathy to others to something in our identity. Are "my people" empathizers? Or do I empathize with you because of the college you went to/place you grew up/sign you were born under/number you were in line in your fraternity? What is the identity marker that compels me to listen to you more fully and suspend judgement, really connect with you emotionally, even if you share a disparate viewpoint or life experience? And at what point could your disparate view get far enough away from mine that this identity marker no longer suffices? If we are both from the same sorority, can I empathize with anything? Or would it have to be that we are actually line sisters? Literal sisters?

This means of explaining our empathy (or lack of empathy) seems to be where we depart from rats and the macaque. Although neuroscientists have not yet pinpointed what differentiates the “benevolent” and “malevolent” monkeys from one another, there is a trend in primate research that humans share in more subtle ways: the most empathetic primates in studies are often those that have the greatest positions of power or leadership in their communities: M1 was the most empathetic monkey in the Ballesta and Duhamel study, and he chose juice and made empathetic eye contact with everyone. And while we are seeing evidence that the most successful leaders in our society often possess greater emotional intelligence, and we have consistent examples throughout history of great leaders who have demonstrated tremendous empathy, the scale is too different to effectively compare human leadership to a study of a dozen monkeys in a lab. It is easy to identify human models of leadership and power flagrantly lacking in empathy, but then we return to the question of lacking empathy with whom? Perhaps some of the greatest human powers that appeared lacking in empathy have chosen to give proverbial juice over an eyepuff, they just didn't give it to the folks we would have thought. They did free cagemates and share the chocolate, they just chose different cagemates than the ones for which history, ethics, and morality might have advocated. Does that make them any less empathetic? Our charge, then, is to push them on empathy for a wider range of people, empathy when it may be most challenging.

As the concept of empathy is increasingly considered in professional spaces--as a strategy for inclusive and equitable cultures, as a means to amplify voices, as a way to better understand diverse perspectives in service of change--the question is not if we empathize. We do. We largely share the chocolate; we usually choose the juice--it's in our nature, and we are biologically hard-wired for it. We just might not be empathizing with who we need to. The question is why we choose to empathize and with whom. How do we engage people to empathize with those whom they may not share identities; how do we get people to empathize when the stakes and tensions are high and it feels most vulnerable; how do we create a culture where empathy across diverse identities in the most strenuous of moments is a sign of influence, power, and true leadership?

[1] Gray, D. T., & Barnes, C. A. (2019). Experiments in macaque monkeys provide critical insights into age-associated changes in cognitive and sensory function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(52), 26247-26254. 

[2] Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2015). Emotions, learning, and the brain: Exploring the educational implications of affective neuroscience (the Norton series on the social neuroscience of education). WW Norton & Company.

[3] De Waal, F. (2010). The age of empathy: Nature's lessons for a kinder society. Broadway Books.

[4] [4] Bartal, I. B. A., Decety, J., & Mason, P. (2011). Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science, 334(6061), 1427-1430.

[5] Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational psychologist, 44(2), 78-89.