The Adaptation of Empathy—

The Rise & Fall of Social Capital

Kirk Walker
230088763

UNBC Anthropology 312

Dr. Richard Lazenby
November 24, 2011
Introduction

The significance of empathy in the human story is a prominent one. The 1.77

million year old Homo erectus skull D3444, excavated from Dmanisi, Georgia, is

edentulous with the alveolar surfaces completely reabsorbed, alluding that he lived for

many years after the loss of his teeth (Lordkipanidze et al. 2006; Lordkipanidze et al.

2005). Two earlier mid-Pleistocene individuals (both Neanderthals) were also found with

tooth socket resorption and remodelling of the alveolar process (Lebel et al. 2001;

Tappen 1985). For many researchers, the importance lies in that these individuals are

hypothesized to be have been supported and cared for by others. At 1.77 million years

ago, the find in Dmanisi is considered by many to be one of the first signs of “truly

human” behaviour (Fischman 2005).

Consider the connection that has empathy to altruism, to the formation of strong

social bonds, to our current complex and extensive social organization. It is perhaps one

of the most significant behavioural evolutionary adaptations for humans. Empathy and

its primary progeny, altruism, reciprocity and morality are viewed as essential, innate

human qualities that are far more developed than what has been observed in other

species. Why is this so? What were selective forces or feedback mechanisms that derived

the human empathic response? And how does the adaptation of empathy relate to

modern society?

In this paper I will explore the concept of empathy and altruism as an adaptation

strategy, primarily through the perspectives drawn from research in neuroscience, and

primatology. This will culminate to support the thesis that empathy developed as an

essential component of social behaviour, which in humans, resulted in altruism and social

1
capital as buffer to environmental stressors. Levels of empathy are sensitive to

epigenetic, developmental and cultural factors. Today, this is working to reduce the

significance of social capital.

The volumes of literature on empathy and its variants span the social sciences,

psychological sciences and medical sciences. This paper, while based in the research on

complex neurobiology and biochemistry, will avoid detailed discussion of brain structure

and focus more on the over arching themes of empathy research.

The Origins of Empathy

Generally speaking, empathy is the ability to feel the same emotion as someone

else and have a sensitivity towards others that is derived by putting 'oneself in another's

person's shoes.' You experience empathy when you are affected by and share the

emotional state of someone else, be it distress, sadness or happiness. You can then

identify with the other person, by adopting his or her perspective.

The exact nature of empathy has been a subject of debate for some time. It is

often studied in terms of distress. Empathy is invoked when observing someone in

distress, which leads to action to mitigate or aid the distressed individual. This is

typically explained in terms of two binary motivations, reward and cost. The reward

motivation is the drive for potential rewards of helping, while the cost motivation is the

drive to avoid the costs of not helping. This reward-cost analysis is not necessarily in

terms of the tangible, but more often on the neurological level by enhancing mood

(Guéguen & De Gail 2003) or by inducing guilt for inaction (Cunningham et al. 1980).

Natural selection dictates that is the effects of behaviour—not that motivation behind it—

that works as the engine of evolution. The fundamental empathy mechanisms that work

2
to create these emotional responses have been studied on both in terms of theoretical

modelling and empirical evidence.

Most researchers agree on the existence of multiple overlapping phenomena in

empathy. Preston & De Waal (2002) proposed a model for empathy and altruistic

behaviour that uses an underlying perception-action mechanism. This mechanism

functions in that when the observer attends to the state of another, the observer's neural

representations of similar states are automatically and unconsciously activated. This

neurologically based mechanism is explained in terms of both proximate causes, the

immediate situation that triggers a response or behaviour, and ultimate causes, why the

behaviour evolved in the first place. De Waal (2008) cites examples in primates, where

social cooperation in form of tolerance pays dividends through food sharing. In this case

tolerance is the proximate cause that evolved to serve the ultimate cause of food sharing.

Empathy began from the notion of this ultimate cause. Evolutionary selective

pressures made it advantageous. The oldest kind of empathy is thought to be in motor

mimicry, based on emotional contagions and imitation. Animals demonstrate emotional

contagions in the response to distress to others. For example, when a bird gives an alarm

call, setting off a series of rapid responses among individuals to flee or hide. For humans

the often, inevitable response to another's laughing with a corresponding laugh or at least

a smile is an example of an emotional contagion. Humans, as well as other primates also

experience contagious yawning (Campbell & De Waal 2011).

Fundamental to the emotional contagion is the mimicry of action, or imitation

throughout a social group. Imitation is evident in newborn infants, who are predisposed

to mimic the facial expressions of others (Field et al. 1982). Imitation of others occurs

3
within a core of neural circuitry, composed of higher-order visual areas and by the fronto-

parietal mirror neuron system (Iacoboni 2009). Research on macaque monkeys revealed

that mirror neurons fire when the animal sees or hears an action that it is carried out on its

own (Rizzolatti & Craighero 2004; Rizzolatti et al. 1996). For example, if you see a

person react when taking sip of hot coffee because they burnt their tongue, your mirror

neurons would fire because, while you may not drink coffee, you have experienced the

sensation of burning your tongue with hot fluids. Empathy has evolved on this basis.

Highly empathic persons are more inclined to unconscious mimicry (Chartrand and

Bargh 1999). And what is more, magnetic resonance imaging studies have shown the

activation of the same brain regions, functionally connecting motor mimicry with

empathy (Carr et al. 2003; Singer 2006).

Preston & Hofelich (2011) use of personal representations of experience to

understand the other in the case of mirroring and contagions as 'self-other overlap' at the

neural level. The relationship of perception-action mechanisms Frans de Waal (2008) to

ever increasing levels of empathic behaviour can be seen in Figure 1. Sympathetic

concern for others has been observed in chimpanzees, where individuals have attempted

to save others from drowning in the water-filled moats in zoo enclosures, "heroic efforts

to save companions from drowning … were sometimes successful (Goodall quoted in De

Waal 2008:289).

In evolutionary theory, this type of sympathetic concern is related towards kin

selection, based on the premise that evolution is driven by not individual fitness, but

inclusive fitness (Penner et al. 2005). Beyond this, empathic perspective taking, evident

in target helping of non-related individuals, is the next tier of behaviour. This type of

4
behaviour has been seen in dolphins, whales, elephants, and most frequently in the great

apes (De Waal 2008). This is the basis of reciprocal altruism, and bound to evolutionary

theory by through the explanation of group selection. Group success is based on inter-

group cooperation and support, the basic level of social capital. Within group selection,

the more altruistic-oriented groups are more successful, deriving reproductive advantage

over more selfish groups (Penner et al. 2005).

Empathy works as an adaptation to increase evolutionary success in a social

context, within ever increasing levels of complexity. De Waal (2008) details three ways

at which altruism can be directed towards individuals, which mirrors the evolution of

empathy responses. First, and most basic is altruistic impulse, based on spontaneous

reaction to distress; second, learned altruism, where helping is conditioned from

reinforced positive outcomes; and third, intentional altruism, where help is based on the

prediction of the benefits that will result.

Figure 1.
The Russian doll
model of empathy,
where the perception-
action mechanism
based in mirror
neuron firing works
outward to ever
increasing levels of
empathic behaviour.
Source: Frans de
Waal 2008:288.

5
The Social Function of Empathy

Empathy’s primary function is in the formation and maintenance of lasting social

bonds by increasing the coordination and communication within groups, allows

understanding of others’ thoughts and intentions, and signals solidarity (Anderson and

Keltner 2002). The synchronicity of mirror neurons and the motor mimicry allows for a

rapid and automatic response to potential opportunities or threats that can be spread

across through a group. In humans, the accuracy in the recognition of another’s

perceptions, intentions and motivations occurs most readily when two individuals feel

similar emotions and perspectives through empathy (Keltner and Kring 1999).

Furthermore, empathy can be constructed as a more definitive test of an individual's

solidarity with each because it is more difficult to fabricate emotions than words (Ekman

in Anderson and Keltner 2002).

This speaks to the evolutionary advantage of the group for safety and cooperation,

evident in numerous species such as schooling fish, pack animals such as wolves and

colony keeping birds such as penguins. It is likely that levels of empathy are widely

distributed among animals. The relationships that are fostered through altruistic

behaviour within a group, in essence, make living less dangerous. Whether it is,

protection from predators, food sharing or reduction of stress with conciliation, these

relationships make up an individual's social capital.

Empathy's Relationship with Culture

Is altruistic behaviour is an innate adaptation or a culturally derived construct?

Clearly the processes that solidified empathy and altruistic behaviour are evolutionary in

nature. Yet much of our biology is affected by culture, largely in the maladaptation to

6
our modern diet and environment. Neurological processes such as empathy are also

susceptible, and evident in what Herbert Gintis refers to as gene culture co-evolution,

where the proximate causes of altruism are both genetic and cultural (2003). In this

theory, altruistic behaviour or norms "ride on the coat tails" on the tendency for internal

norms to be fitness enhancing. Cultural norms and institutions work to promote prosocial

behaviour such as altruism and empathy, while shunning anti-social norms.

Likewise, empathy is reinforced through cultural processes. In terms of

chimpanzees and more so in bonobos, cooperation within group activities such as

hunting, gathering and food processing/sharing, provides positive feedback on altruistic

behaviour. Furthermore, for humans, cultural practices also reinforce and support

empathy. Levelling-mechanisms during the hunt, observed with the !Kung San of the

Kalahari (Lee 1969), work to maintain social solidarity. Religion, in many aspects, also

works to reinforce social solidarity and even instil positive moral values that encouraged

empathy. These two examples, hunting and religion are both institutions that are

dominated by the patriarchy.

Still, women are often viewed as being more empathic. Is this a function of

cultural influencing gender, or is it a form of cognitive sexual dimorphism? Studies have

analyzed the role of testosterone in modifying empathy (van Honk et al. 2011; Hermans

et al. 2006) suggesting that biological sex may be a factor in the level of empathic

responses. Even so, the gendering of women emphasises sensitivity and nurturing, traits

that are oriented towards empathy.

Prosocial behaviour studies with pre-school children that are based on emotional

arousal in the distress of others show a complex interaction of gender and culture. In

7
some countries, such as Germany, girls are more empathic than boys, while in other

cultures there are no significant gender differences (Trommsdorff et al. 2007). There are

definite differences in empathy levels across cultures. As much as culture has reinforced

empathy, there are cultures that weak altruistic behaviour.

In the United States and most Western-culturally based countries, bottle-feeding

and independence training (infant-parent sleep separation, allowing infants to cry-out, et

cetera) is the status quo. Justification based in the cultural perception that independence

and individuality are celebrated characteristics. However, infants are in natural state of

dependency, and the stress induced during these practices not only create a more

independent child, but also a more shellfish one (Small 2011).

Empathic Decay

Ethnographic and epigenetic studies have shown that the early childhood

developmental environment has significant affects on altruistic and empathic behaviour.

Without breast-feeding and bodily touch, infants grow up to become more aggressive and

prone to anxiety disorders (Levin et al. 2010; Mead 2001 [1935]) they have rewired so in

order to adapt and function in an environment that lacks altruism.

This re-wiring involves multiple neurological pathways that either reinforce or

deconstruct empathy (Rushton 1987). In modern society, independence, individualism,

and aggression are some of the personality traits that result from epigenetic factors of

empathy ‘development.’ These traits erode the social relations. In turn the availability of

social capital, the collective resources that are derived from within our social group, also

declines.

8
 This does lead to the socio-philosophical question. Are the lower levels of

empathy in society today maladaptive, or is it really adaptive to the society we live in?

Perhaps it is both. Interestingly, some studies have linked some types of autism with

neurological mutations in areas of the brain that control empathy (Spencer et al. 2011;

Phillips et al. 2010). Understanding empathy in the context of the connectivity between

disease and maladaptation may provide some insight to how our society is shaping us, on

a physiological level.

Our two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos are remarkably

similar a multitude of ways, including morphology. However, they exhibit significant

differences in social behaviour and organization: chimpanzees are more aggressive, and

less cooperative than bonobos; bonobos are more conciliatory and associative among

sexes and generations than chimpanzees. Magnetic resonance imaging studies have

shown that bonobos have more gray matter in brain regions involved in perceiving

distress in both oneself and others (Rilling et al. 2011). By the same token, a larger

pathway in bonobos, that links the amygdala and ventral anterior cingulated cortex

supports observed empathic sensitivity (De Waal & Lanting 1997), as well sexual and

play behaviour to dissipate tension.

In contrast, a reduced size and function of the amygdala (Gordon et al. 2004) is

associated with psychopathy, a disorder marked by lack of empathy in humans. Evidence

has shown that testosterone impairs the function of this pathway (van Wingen et al.

2010). The regulatory relationship between testosterone and empathy has been well

documented in human research (van Honk et al. 2011) as well as in apes (Sannen et al.

2004; McIntyre et al. 2009).

9
 Organizational effects of prenatal androgens could contribute to empathic

response as well as development defects. Measures of empathy in children are inversely

correlated with prenatal testosterone levels (Chapman et al. 2006). It may very well be

that testosterone levels affect post-natal development; regulated by breast-feeding, touch,

and behaviour that stimulates mirror neuron activity in infancy.

In recent autism research, fetal programming by testosterone negatively affects

social intelligence (van Honk et al. 2011). Studies have negatively correlated fetal

testosterone with eye contact, social cognition and social intelligence in children

(Chapman et al. 2006). Moreover, fetal testosterone is associated with a ratio of the right

hand’s second to fourth finger (2D:4D ratio). Lower 2D:4D have been observed in

children with autism or Asperger, as well as their first-degree relatives (Manning et al.

2001).

The spectrum of autism disorders, generalized by varying levels of

communication and social interaction impairment has been on the rise (Williams et al.

2006). Speculated reasons for the rise in prevalence include: changes in study

methodology; a genuine rise in autism risk factors; increase in diagnostics; and increased

awareness among clinical professionals. Obviously, autism in not associated with post-

natal development, however, there may be a cultural-societal connection to the

prevalence of autism.

The Carrying Capacity of Social Capital

Not many of us sit down with a calculator and tabulate the amount of social

capital at our disposal. How could we? Social capital, often ill defined, can be

considered to be the combined actual and potential resources derived from social

10
networks and relationships. Socially, this is called support—in terms of goods (e.g. cup

of sugar from your neighbour) and service (e.g. ride to the doctor from your uncle). In

today's society, when one is exposed economic misfortune or generalized stress, most of

our technological developments and biological adaptations are seemingly impotent.

Social capital acts as an essential back-up strategy.

Population ecology provides an analogy for the level of social capital in society

today. The carrying capacity is generally defined as the maximum population of species

that the environment can sustain indefinitely. As our population has increased, it could

be argued that social capital has declined. The carrying capacity of social capital that the

world can maintain is a function of population. We likely surpassed it hundreds of years

ago.

Rise & Fall of Social Capital

Negative Reciprocity
Social Capital

Kin Selected Altruism

Empathy & Balanced Reciprocity

Directed Altruism
General Reciprocity Profit Motive,
Consumerism,
Reciprocal Altruism Corporate Oligarchy,
Urban Population

Human History

Figure 2. A graphic representation of the rise and fall of social capital throughout human history and the
existence of empathy in humans.

11
 There is no realistic method to quantify social capital, in any context, let alone

globally. However, I would argue that social capital, as a whole, has been reduced due to

the influence of technology, culture and population dynamics. Evolutionarily, empathy

can be seen as the impetus behind a series of reciprocity based mechanisms that

functioned to reduce environmental stress, increase survival rates and well-being. Figure

2 shows empathy's primary function, social capital as a continuum through human

history.

As empathy evolved, as explained by De Waal’s perception-action model, from

its emotional contagion beginnings to reciprocal altruism, social relationships would too

strengthen. With reciprocity, social capital increased with the structure of exchange.

Generalized reciprocity, as uninhibited giving or sharing, without the expectation of

anything in return continues to cement social relationships. Within egalitarian foraging

bands, this raises the level of social capital.

However, before the start of balanced reciprocity, where there is an expectation of

fair return at some undefined future date, social capital begins to decline. This is

associated with chiefdom level societies and inequality. Negative reciprocity, in state

level of organization, involves the least amount of trust between exchangers, the greatest

amount of social distance and the incentive of profit. With this, social cohesiveness

breaks down further. Finally, the corporate profit motive, marketing driven consumerist

behavior, and the increase in density in urban population centres forces social capital

down its current level.

12
Conclusion

In term of its essential phylogenetics, empathy has primordial origins in social

organisms. For humans, the empathic response has been a keystone not only in our social

behaviour and organization, but our success as a species on the planet. As a basis for

elementary communication, empathy in its proximate function may also be an essential

component for symbolic language. Mirror neurons work as the powerful engine of social

solidarity and understanding among individuals.

Taking another’s perspective has fostered cooperation and altruism—a foundation

of social capital. Approximately, 1.77 million years ago, our archaic ancestors in

Dmanisi, Georgia lived longer because of the empathy. The individual now represented

by skull D3444 was had access to social capital from within his group. Today, we use

social capital, not for our longevity, but for a ride to the mall.

Over the epochs of time, true egalitarianism has become an endangered—if not

extinct way of life—while the incentive of profit proliferates our behaviours. There are

big issues facing the planet such as over-population, over-consumption of resources, and

inequality. Among these, the wavering of empathy is of little concern. Yet empathy is

the pillar of social capital—and in context of the globalization of individualism, a

reduction in the size of family, and an urban anonymity among the millions—one must

wonder if empathy will become another ancestral vestige, placed upon the mantle of

human evolution with the vermiform appendix and the coccyx.

13
References Cited

Anderson, Camerson, and Dacher Keltner

2002 The role of empathy in the formation and maintenance of social bonds
[Peer commentary on the journal article “Empathy: Its ultimate and
proximate bases”]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25: 21-22.

Campbell, Matthew W., and Frans B. M. de Waal

2011 Ingroup-Outgroup Bias in Contagious Yawning by Chimpanzees Supports
Link to Empathy. PLoS ONE 6 (April 6): e18283.

Carr, L., M. Iacoboni, M.C. Dubeau, J.C. Mazziotta, and G.L. Lenzi
2003 Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: a relay from neural systems
for imitation to limbic areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 100, no. 9: 5497.

Chapman, Emma, Simon Baron-Cohen, Bonnie Auyeung, Rebecca Knickmeyer, Kevin

Taylor, and Gerald Hackett
2006 Fetal testosterone and empathy: Evidence from the Empathy Quotient
(EQ) and the “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test. Social Neuroscience 1
(June): 135-148.

Chartrand, T.L., and J.A. Bargh

1999 The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social
interaction. Journal of personality and social psychology 76, no. 6: 893.

Cunningham, Michael R., Jeff Steinberg, and Rita Grev

1980 Wanting to and having to help: Separate motivations for positive mood
and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
38, no. 2: 181-192.

Field, T. M., R. Woodson, and D. Cohen

1982 Descrimination and imitation of facial expression by neonates. Science
218: 179-181.

Fischman, J.
2005 Family Ties: Daminisi Find. National Geographic.

Gintis, Herbert
2003 The hitchhiker’s guide to altruism: Gene-culture coevolution, and the
internalization of norms. Journal of Theoretical Biology 220, no. 4: 407–
418.

Gordon, Heather L, Abigail A Baird, and Alison End

2004 Functional differences among those high and low on a trait measure of
psychopathy. Biological Psychiatry 56, no. 7 (October 1): 516-521.

14
Guéguen, N., and M.A. De Gail
2003 The effect of smiling on helping behavior: Smiling and good Samaritan
behavior. Communication Reports 16, no. 2: 133–140.

Hermans, E.J., P. Putman, and J. Van Honk

2006 Testosterone administration reduces empathetic behavior: A facial
mimicry study. Psychoneuroendocrinology 31, no. 7: 859–866.

van Honk, J., D.J. Schutter, P.A. Bos, A.W. Kruijt, E.G. Lentjes, and S. Baron-Cohen
2011 Testosterone administration impairs cognitive empathy in women
depending on second-to-fourth digit ratio. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 108, no. 8: 3448.

Iacoboni, M.
2009 Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual review of psychology 60:
653–670.

Keltner, D., and A.M. Kring

1999 Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Review of General
Psychology 2, no. 3: 320-342.

Lebel, Serge, Erik Trinkaus, Martine Faure, Philippe Fernandez, Claude Guérin, Daniel
Richter, Norbert Mercier, Helène Valladas, and Günther A. Wagner
2001 Comparative morphology and paleobiology of Middle Pleistocene human
remains from the Bau de l’Aubesier, Vaucluse, France. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 98, no. 20: 11097-11102.

Lee, R.
1969 Eating Christmas in the Kalahari. Conformity and conflict: Readings in
cultural anthropology: 27–34.

Levin, R., S. Edelman, I. Shalev, R.P. Ebstein, and U. Heresco-Levy

2010 The Role of Oxytocin in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Concepts and
Mechanisms. Brain Protection in Schizophrenia, Mood and Cognitive
Disorders: 611–635.

Lordkipanidze, D., A. Vekua, R. Ferring, G.P. Rightmire, J. Agusti, G. Kiladze, A.

Mouskhelishvili, et al.
2005 Anthropology: The earliest toothless hominin skull. Nature 434, no. 7034:
717–718.

Lordkipanidze, D., A. Vekua, R. Ferring, G.P. Rightmire, C.P.E. Zollikofer, M.S. Ponce
de León, J. Agusti, et al.
2006 A fourth hominin skull from Dmanisi, Georgia. The Anatomical Record
Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology
288, no. 11: 1146–1157.

15
Manning, J.T., S. Baron-Cohen, S. Wheelwright, and G. Sanders
2001 The 2nd to 4th digit ratio and autism. Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology 43, no. 3: 160–164.

McIntyre, Matthew H, Esther Herrmann, Victoria Wobber, Michel Halbwax, Crispin

Mohamba, Nick de Sousa, Rebeca Atencia, Debby Cox, and Brian Hare
2009 Bonobos have a more human-like second-to-fourth finger length ratio
(2D:4D) than chimpanzees: a hypothesized indication of lower prenatal
androgens. Journal of Human Evolution 56, no. 4 (April): 361-365.

Mead, M.
2001 [1935] Sex and temperament in three primitive societies. Harper Perennial.

Penner, L.A., J.F. Dovidio, J.A. Piliavin, and D.A. Schroeder

2005 Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56: 365–
392.

Phillips, T., E. Ferguson, and F. Rijsdijk

2010 A link between altruism and sexual selection: Genetic influence on
altruistic behaviour and mate preference towards it. British Journal of
Psychology 101, no. 4: 809–819.

Preston, S.D., and A.J. Hofelich

2011 The many faces of empathy: Parsing empathic phenomena through a
proximate, dynamic-systems view of representing the other in the self.
Emotion Review.

Preston, Stephanie D., and Frans B. M. de Waal

2002 Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
25.

Rilling, James K., Jan Scholz, Todd M. Preuss, Matthew F. Glasser, Bhargav K. Errangi,
and Timothy E. Behrens
2011 Differences between chimpanzees and bonobos in neural systems
supporting social cognition. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
(April 5).

Rizzolatti, G., and L. Craighero

2004 The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 27: 169–192.

Rizzolatti, G., L. Fadiga, V. Gallese, and L. Fogassi

1996 Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive brain
research 3, no. 2: 131–141.

Rushton, J.P.
1987 Evolution, altruism and genetic similarity theory. Mankind quarterly 27,
no. 4.

16
Sannen, Adinda, Linda Van Elsacker, Michael Heistermann, and Marcel Eens
2004 Urinary testosterone-metabolite levels and dominance rank in male and
female bonobos (Pan paniscus). Primates; Journal of Primatology 45, no.
2 (April): 89-96.

Singer, T.
2006 The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: review of
literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews 30, no. 6: 855–863.

Small, Meredith
2011 Our Babies, Ourselves: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We
Parent. Random House Digital, Inc., September 7.

Spencer, MD, RJ Holt, LR Chura, J. Suckling, AJ Calder, ET Bullmore, and S. Baron-

Cohen
2011 A novel functional brain imaging endophenotype of autism: the neural
eresponse to facial expression of emotion. Translational Psychiatry 1, no.
7: e19.

Tappen, N. C.
1985 The dentition of the “old man” of La Chapelle-aux-Saints and inferences
concerning Neandertal behavior. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 67, no. 1 (May): 43-50.

Trommsdorff, G., W. Friedlmeier, and B. Mayer

2007 Sympathy, distress, and prosocial behavior of preschool children in four
cultures. International Journal of Behavioral Development 31, no. 3: 284–
293.

De Waal, F.B.M.
2008 Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annu.
Rev. Psychol. 59: 279–300.

De Waal, Frans, and Frans Lanting

1997 Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Williams, J.G., J.P.T. Higgins, and C.E.G. Brayne

2006 Systematic review of prevalence studies of autism spectrum disorders.
Archives of Disease in Childhood 91, no. 1: 8.

van Wingen, Guido, Claudia Mattern, Robbert Jan Verkes, Jan Buitelaar, and Guillén
Fernández
2010 Testosterone reduces amygdala-orbitofrontal cortex coupling.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 35, no. 1 (January): 105-113.

17