• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

男性朋友与男性陌生人互动中的共情准确性。

Empathic accuracy in the interactions of male friends versus male strangers.

作者信息

Stinson L, Ickes W

机构信息

University of Texas, Arlington.

出版信息

J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992 May;62(5):787-97. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.62.5.787.

DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.62.5.787
PMID:1593418
Abstract

In unstructured interactions, male friends were found to be more accurate than male strangers in inferring each other's thoughts and feelings. Plausible reasons for this difference were that friends (a) interacted more and exchanged more information, (b) had more similar personalities and therefore more rapport with each other, and (c) had more detailed knowledge of each other's lives. Data confirmed that the friends did indeed interact more and were more similar in their sociability than the strangers; however, these differences did not account for the friends' greater empathic accuracy. Instead, this was primarily attributable to a difference in knowledge structures, namely, the friends' ability to accurately read their partners' thoughts and feelings about imagined events in another place or time.

摘要

在非结构化互动中,研究发现男性朋友在推断彼此的想法和感受方面比男性陌生人更准确。造成这种差异的合理原因是,朋友之间:(a)互动更多且交流的信息更多;(b)性格更相似,因此彼此之间更融洽;(c)对彼此的生活有更详细的了解。数据证实,朋友之间的互动确实比陌生人更多,在社交能力方面也更相似;然而,这些差异并不能解释朋友之间更强的共情准确性。相反,这主要归因于知识结构的差异,即朋友能够准确解读其伙伴对于在其他地点或时间想象事件的想法和感受的能力。

相似文献

1
Empathic accuracy in the interactions of male friends versus male strangers.男性朋友与男性陌生人互动中的共情准确性。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992 May;62(5):787-97. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.62.5.787.
2
Inferring the emotions of friends versus strangers: the role of culture and self-construal.推断朋友与陌生人的情绪:文化和自我建构的作用。
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012 Jul;38(7):933-45. doi: 10.1177/0146167212440291. Epub 2012 Apr 10.
3
Nice to meet you--adult age differences in empathic accuracy for strangers.很高兴见到你——成年人对陌生人的共情准确性的年龄差异。
Psychol Aging. 2015 Mar;30(1):149-59. doi: 10.1037/a0038459. Epub 2014 Dec 1.
4
It takes two: the interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy.这需要两个人:共情准确性的人际本质。
Psychol Sci. 2008 Apr;19(4):399-404. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02099.x.
5
Brains in sync, friends in empathy: interbrain neural mechanisms underlying the impact of interpersonal closeness on mutual empathy.大脑同步,朋友共情:人际亲密影响相互共情的脑间神经机制。
Proc Biol Sci. 2024 Oct;291(2032):20241326. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2024.1326. Epub 2024 Oct 9.
6
Empathic responses to others' gains and losses: an electrophysiological investigation.对他人得失的共情反应:一项电生理学研究。
Neuroimage. 2011 Feb 1;54(3):2472-80. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.045. Epub 2010 Oct 23.
7
Depression and empathic accuracy in couples: an interpersonal model of gender differences in depression.夫妻中的抑郁和共情准确性:抑郁的性别差异的人际模型。
Psychol Sci. 2011 Aug;22(8):1033-41. doi: 10.1177/0956797611414728. Epub 2011 Jul 7.
8
Everyday empathic accuracy in younger and older couples: do you need to see your partner to know his or her feelings?年轻夫妻和老年夫妻日常共情准确性:是否需要看到伴侣才能了解其感受?
Psychol Sci. 2013 Nov 1;24(11):2210-7. doi: 10.1177/0956797613490747. Epub 2013 Sep 6.
9
Couples' Perceptions of Each Other's Daily Affect: Empathic Accuracy, Assumed Similarity, and Indirect Accuracy.夫妻双方对彼此日常情绪的感知:共情准确性、假设相似性和间接准确性。
Fam Process. 2019 Mar;58(1):179-196. doi: 10.1111/famp.12344. Epub 2018 Feb 23.
10
Interaction between valence of empathy and familiarity: is it difficult to empathize with the positive events of a stranger?共情效价与熟悉度之间的相互作用:对陌生人的积极事件产生共情是否困难?
J Physiol Anthropol. 2015 Mar 22;34(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s40101-015-0049-3.

引用本文的文献

1
Brains in sync, friends in empathy: interbrain neural mechanisms underlying the impact of interpersonal closeness on mutual empathy.大脑同步,朋友共情:人际亲密影响相互共情的脑间神经机制。
Proc Biol Sci. 2024 Oct;291(2032):20241326. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2024.1326. Epub 2024 Oct 9.
2
Exploring Actual and Presumed Links between Accurately Inferring Contents of Other People's Minds and Prosocial Outcomes.探索准确推断他人心理内容与亲社会结果之间的实际及假定联系。
J Intell. 2024 Jan 26;12(2):13. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence12020013.
3
Perspective-Taking and Perspective-Sharing in Pediatric Education: Exploring Connections Between Strategies of Medical Students and Patients' Caregivers.
儿科教育中的观点采择与观点分享:探索医学生策略与患者照顾者之间的联系
Perspect Med Educ. 2023 Oct 6;2(1):372-384. doi: 10.5334/pme.412. eCollection 2023.
4
Egocentric Projection is a Rational Strategy for Accurate Emotion Prediction.自我中心投射是准确情绪预测的一种合理策略。
J Exp Soc Psychol. 2023 Nov;109. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104521. Epub 2023 Aug 12.
5
Empathy training for service employees: A mixed-methods systematic review.服务型员工同理心培训:混合方法系统评价。
PLoS One. 2023 Aug 14;18(8):e0289793. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289793. eCollection 2023.
6
Motivation and empathic accuracy during conflict interactions in couples: it's complicated!夫妻冲突互动中的动机与共情准确性:情况很复杂!
Motiv Emot. 2023;47(2):208-228. doi: 10.1007/s11031-022-09982-x. Epub 2022 Nov 9.
7
Crested macaque facial movements are more intense and stereotyped in potentially risky social interactions.在潜在危险的社会互动中,白颊猕猴的面部动作更加激烈和刻板。
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2022 Sep 26;377(1860):20210307. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0307. Epub 2022 Aug 8.
8
Adaptive Empathy: Empathic Response Selection as a Dynamic, Feedback-Based Learning Process.适应性共情:作为一个基于反馈的动态学习过程的共情反应选择
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jul 22;12:706474. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.706474. eCollection 2021.
9
It Is Hard to Read Minds without Words: Cues to Use to Achieve Empathic Accuracy.没有言语便难以读懂人心:实现共情准确性的可用线索。
J Intell. 2021 May 17;9(2):27. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020027.
10
Emotion Recognition from Realistic Dynamic Emotional Expressions Cohere with Established Emotion Recognition Tests: A Proof-of-Concept Validation of the Emotional Accuracy Test.基于逼真动态情绪表达的情绪识别与既定情绪识别测试结果一致:情绪准确性测试的概念验证验证
J Intell. 2021 May 7;9(2):25. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020025.