Valuing the welfare of others is a fundamental aspect of empathy and prosocial behavior. How do people develop this valuation? Theories of associative learning suggest that people can associate social cues, such as smiles, with personal reward, thus feeling good when others thrive. Yet people often display generalized concern for others’ welfare, regardless of the specific cues present. We propose that Pavlovian conditioning allows people to associate reward directly with others’ abstract mental states, learning that another’s happiness predicts their own reward. In four online experiments with 1,500 U.S.-based adults recruited from CloudResearch, participants’ monetary outcomes were congruently or incongruently predicted by a target’s mental states. Participants who experienced congruent learning reported more empathic feelings toward the target in novel situations. The values attached to mental states further influenced participants’ prosocial choices. These results demonstrate how associative learning of abstract mental states can give rise to generalizable empathy and influence moral behavior.
AllisonC.AuyeungB.Baron-CohenS. (2012). Toward brief “red flags” for autism screening: The Short Autism Spectrum Quotient and the Short Quantitative Checklist in 1,000 cases and 3,000 controls. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(2), 202–212.
2.
AllmanM. J.DeLeonI. G.CataldoM. F.HollandP. C.JohnsonA. W. (2010). Learning processes affecting human decision making: An assessment of reinforcer-selective Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer following reinforcer devaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36(3), 402–408.
3.
AmodioD. M. (2019). Social cognition 2.0: An interactive memory systems account. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(1), 21–33.
4.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
5.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS.ChristensenR. H. B.SingmannH.DaiB.ScheiplF.GrothendieckG.GreenP.FoxJ.BauerA.KrivitskyP. N.TanakaE.JaganM.BolkerM. B. (2015). Package ‘lme4’ (Version 1.1-37) [Computer software]. CRAN. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf
6.
BergerS. M. (1962). Conditioning through vicarious instigation. Psychological Review, 69(5), 450–466.
7.
BolkerB. M.BrooksM. E.ClarkC. J.GeangeS. W.PoulsenJ. R.StevensM. H. H.WhiteJ. S. S. (2009). Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(3), 127–135.
8.
BruneauE. G.CikaraM.SaxeR. (2017). Parochial empathy predicts reduced altruism and the endorsement of passive harm. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 934–942.
9.
CacioppoJ. T.PriesterJ. R.BerntsonG. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: II. Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 5–17.
10.
CameronC. D.SchefferJ. A.HadjiandreouE.AndersonS. (2022). Motivated empathic choices. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 191–279.
CikaraM. (2018). Pleasure in response to outgroup pain as a motivator of intergroup aggression. In GrayK.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 193–200). Guilford Press.
13.
CikaraM. (2021). Causes and consequences of coalitional cognition. In GawronskiB. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 64, pp. 65–128). Academic Press.
14.
CikaraM.BruneauE.Van BavelJ. J.SaxeR. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110–125.
15.
Contreras-HuertaL. S.CollM. P.BirdG.YuH.ProsserA.LockwoodP. L.MurphyJ.CrockettM. J.AppsM. A. (2023). Neural representations of vicarious rewards are linked to interoception and prosocial behaviour. NeuroImage, 269, Article 119881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.119881
16.
CrockettM. J. (2013). Models of morality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 363–366.
17.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
18.
DunsmoorJ. E.MurphyG. L. (2015). Categories, concepts, and conditioning: How humans generalize fear. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(2), 73–77.
19.
EnglisB. G.VaughanK. B.LanzettaJ. T. (1982). Conditioning of counter-empathetic emotional responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(4), 375–391.
20.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
21.
FeldmanHallO.DunsmoorJ. E. (2019). Viewing adaptive social choice through the lens of associative learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 175–196.
22.
Ge˛siarzF.CrockettM. J. (2015). Goal-directed, habitual and Pavlovian prosocial behavior. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, Article 135. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00135
23.
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498.
24.
HackelL. M.KalksteinD. A. (2023). Social concepts simplify complex reinforcement learning. Psychological Science, 34(9), 968–983.
25.
HackelL. M.KalksteinD. A.Mende-SiedleckiP. (2024). Simplifying social learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(5), 428–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.004
26.
HeiderF.SimmelM. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259.
27.
HoffmanM. L. (1985). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. In IzardC. E.KaganJ.ZajoncR. B. (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior (pp. 103–131). Cambridge University Press.
28.
HoffmanM. L. (2008). Empathy and prosocial behavior. Handbook of Emotions, 3, 440–455.
29.
HuysQ. J.CoolsR.GölzerM.FriedelE.HeinzA.DolanR. J.DayanP. (2011). Disentangling the roles of approach, activation and valence in instrumental and Pavlovian responding. PLOS Computational Biology, 7(4), Article e1002028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002028
30.
JeffsS.DukaT. (2017). Predictive but not emotional value of Pavlovian stimuli leads to pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer. Behavioural Brain Research, 321, 214–222.
31.
KawakamiK.PhillsC. E.SteeleJ. R.DovidioJ. F. (2007). (Close) distance makes the heart grow fonder: Improving implicit racial attitudes and interracial interactions through approach behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 957–971.
32.
Kleiman-WeinerM.SaxeR.TenenbaumJ. B. (2017). Learning a commonsense moral theory. Cognition, 167, 107–123.
33.
KrajbichI.BartlingB.HareT.FehrE. (2015). Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference. Nature Communications, 6(1), Article 7455. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8455
LeshinskayaA.ChakroffA. (2023, December10–16). Value as semantics: Representations of human moral and hedonic value in large language models [Paper presentation]. 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2023), New Orleans, LA, United States.
36.
LeysC.LeyC.KleinO.BernardP.LicataL. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764–766.
37.
LindströmB.GolkarA.JangardS.ToblerP. N.OlssonA. (2019). Social threat learning transfers to decision making in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 116(10), 4732–4737.
38.
LockwoodP. L.HamonetM.ZhangS. H.RatnavelA.SalmonyF. U.HusainM.AppsM. A. (2017). Prosocial apathy for helping others when effort is required. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(7), Article 0131. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0131
39.
LovibondP. F. (1983). Facilitation of instrumental behavior by a Pavlovian appetitive conditioned stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9(3), 225–247.
40.
LovibondP. F.ShanksD. R. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: Empirical evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28(1), 3–26.
41.
MeerenH. K.Van HeijnsbergenC. C.De GelderB. (2005). Rapid perceptual integration of facial expression and emotional body language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102(45), 16518–16523.
42.
MobbsD.YuR.MeyerM.PassamontiL.SeymourB.CalderA. J.SchweizerS.FrithC. D.DalgleishT. (2009). A key role for similarity in vicarious reward. Science, 324(5929), 900.
43.
MorelliS. A.SacchetM. D.ZakiJ. (2015). Common and distinct neural correlates of personal and vicarious reward: A quantitative meta-analysis. NeuroImage, 112, 244–253.
44.
MoreyR. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.
45.
NookE. C.OngD. C.MorelliS. A.MitchellJ. P.ZakiJ. (2016). Prosocial conformity: Prosocial norms generalize across behavior and empathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(8), 1045–1062.
46.
OlssonA.NearingK. I.PhelpsE. A. (2007). Learning fears by observing others: The neural systems of social fear transmission. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(1), 3–11.
47.
PavlovI. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Oxford University Press.
48.
PayneK.LundbergK. (2014). The affect misattribution procedure: Ten years of evidence on reliability, validity, and mechanisms. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12), 672–686.
49.
PeirceJ.GrayJ. R.SimpsonS.MacAskillM.HöchenbergerR.SogoH.KastmanE.LindeløvJ. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 195–203.
50.
RescorlaR. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43(3), 151–160.
51.
RingwaldW. R.VizeC. E.WrightA. G. (2025). Do you feel what I feel? The relation between congruence of perceived affect and self-reported empathy in daily life social situations. Emotion. doi:10.1037/emo0001531
52.
SemmelmannK.WeigeltS. (2017). Online psychophysics: Reaction time effects in cognitive experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1241–1260.
53.
Shamay-TsooryS. G.HertzU. (2022). Adaptive empathy: a model for learning empathic responses in response to feedback. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 1008–1023.
54.
TracyJ. L.RobinsR. W. (2008). The automaticity of emotion recognition. Emotion, 8(1), 81–95.
55.
WagnerD. D.KelleyW. M.HeathertonT. F. (2011). Individual differences in the spontaneous recruitment of brain regions supporting mental state understanding when viewing natural social scenes. Cerebral Cortex, 21(12), 2788–2796.
56.
WaltherE.NagengastB.TrasselliC. (2005). Evaluative conditioning in social psychology: Facts and speculations. Cognition and Emotion, 19(2), 175–196.
57.
WeiszE.CikaraM. (2021). Strategic regulation of empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 213–227.
58.
YamadaM.LammC.DecetyJ. (2011). Pleasing frowns, disappointing smiles: An ERP investigation of counterempathy. Emotion, 11(6), 1336–1345.
59.
ZakiJ. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1608–1647.
60.
ZakiJ. (2018). Empathy is a moral force. In GrayK.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 49–58). Guilford Press.
61.
ZakiJ.MitchellJ. P. (2011). Equitable decision making is associated with neural markers of intrinsic value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108(49), 19761–19766.
62.
ZeileisA.KleiberC.JackmanS. (2008). Regression models for count data in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 27(8), 1–25.
63.
ZhouY.HanS.KangP.ToblerP. N.HeinG. (2024). The social transmission of empathy relies on observational reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 121(9), Article e2313073121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2313073121
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
