Attachment and inter-individual differences in empathy, compassion, and theory of mind abilities

Figures & data

Figure 1. EmpaToM Task: exemplary sequence. In each trial, participants view emotionally negative or neutral videos of a male or female actor sharing autobiographical experiences. The videos require either theory of mind (ToM) inference or factual reasoning. Participants then rate their own affect and compassion towards the video’s protagonist. Valence ratings for negative vs. neutral videos measure empathy, indicating how much participants share the protagonist’s negative emotions. Afterwards, participants answer content-based multiple-choice questions requiring ToM inference or factual reasoning, rating their confidence in their answers, assessing ToM abilities. Exemplary images in the figure are illustrative and not based on the original video stimuli due to license restrictions. Figure taken from (Reiter et al., 2017).

Table 1. Demographics and descriptive statistics including participant’s AAI attachment.

	Secure	Insecure	p	t (df)	χ^2 (df)
N	53 (64%)	30 (36%)
Women	33 (79%)	9 (21%)	<.01**		6.74 (1)
Age	25.87 ± 4.56	25.87 ± 4.47	.67	−0.43 (56)

Age is reported in years; ***p≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p≤.05.

Figure 2. Association of theory of mind abilities with attachment security. Linear models revealed that secure attachment correlated positively with theory of mind abilities (p=.01). Attachment security was assessed with the adult attachment interview (AAI; George, Kaplan, et al., 1985), theory of mind abilities with the EmpaToM, a behavioral computer-based paradigm (Kanske et al., 2015).

Table 2. Three linear models predicting categorial (secure vs insecure) AAI attachment.

	Empathy				Compassion				Theory of Mind
	b	Std. Error	t	p	b	Std. Error	t	p	b	Std. Error	t	p
Intercept	51.32	11.69	4.39	<.001***	54.42	9.02	6.03	<.001***	0.87	0.09	9.89	<.001***
Attachment (categorial)	−3.73	3.94	−0.95	.35	0.88	3.04	0.29	.77	−0.08	0.03	−2.63	.01*
Age	−0.59	0.41	−1.43	.16	0.22	0.32	0.69	.49	<0.01	<0.01	1.40	.17
Sex	−5.56	3.99	−1.43	.16	−2.25	3.01	−0.75	.46	0.05	0.03	1.62	.11

***p≤ .0003, **p ≤ .0033, *p≤.0167 after Bonferroni correction.

Table 3. Linear model associating theory of mind abilities with AAI subscales idealization mother and derogation mother.

	Theory of Mind
	b	Std. Error	t	p
Intercept	0.03	0.10	0.31	.76
Idealization Mother	−0.02	<0.01	−2.16	.03*
Derogation Mother	−0.07	0.03	−2.12	.04*
Age	<0.01	<0.01	1.12	.27
Sex	0.04	0.03	1.48	.14

***p≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p≤.05.

Figure 3. Association of compassion with subjective attachment avoidance. Linear models revealed that subjective attachment avoidance correlated negatively with compassion (p = .006). Attachment avoidance was assessed with the experience in close relationship questionnaire (ECR-R; Ehrenthal et al., 2009; Fraley et al., 2000), compassion with the EmpaToM, a behavioral computer-based paradigm (Kanske et al., 2015).

Table 4. Three linear models predicting subjective attachment anxiety and avoidance.

	Empathy				Compassion				Theory of Mind
	b	Std. Error	t	p	b	Std. Error	t	p	b	Std. Error	t	p
Intercept	35.83	8.19	4.38	<.001***	61.9	7.53	8.22	<.001***	<0.01	0.07	0.01	.99
Attachment Anxiety	3.08	1.80	1.71	.09	0.9	1.65	0.55	.59	0.01	0.02	0.48	.63
Attachment Avoidance	−2.44	2.18	−1.12	.26	−5.54	2.00	−2.78	.01*	<0.01	0.02	−0.17	.87
Age	−0.29	0.29	−1.01	.31	0.08	0.26	0.31	.76	<0.01	<0.01	−0.44	.66
Sex	0.51	2.44	0.21	.83	1.7	2.24	0.76	.45	0.06	0.02	2.86	<.01*

***p≤ .0003, **p ≤ .0033, *p≤.0167 after Bonferroni correction.

Reiter, A. M. F., Kanske, P., Eppinger, B., & Li, S. C. (2017). The aging of the social mind-differential effects on components of social understanding. Scientific Reports, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10669-4

 Google Scholar

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). The adult attachment interview protocol [ Unpublished Manuscript]. University of California at Berkeley.

 Google Scholar

Kanske, P., Böckler, A., Trautwein, F. M., & Singer, T. (2015). Dissecting the social brain: Introducing the EmpaToM to reveal distinct neural networks and brain–behavior relations for empathy and theory of mind. Neuroimage: Reports, 122, 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.082

 Google Scholar

Ehrenthal, J. C., Dinger, U., Schauenburg, H., Lamla, A., & Funken, B. (2009). Evaluation of the German version of the attachment questionnaire “experiences in close relationships - revised” (ECR-RD). PPmP Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1067425

 Google Scholar

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). The experiences in close relationship-revised (ECR-R) questionnaire. Jpsp. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898

 Google Scholar