Latest news with #FrontiersInPsychology
Forbes
4 days ago
- Health
- Forbes
5 ‘Fallacies' Narcissists Use To Confuse And Control You — By A Psychologist
Narcissists rely on these five 'logical fallacies' like a crutch. But, with a little bit of probing, ... More their arguments ultimately fall flat. Narcissists may come across as confident and convincing during arguments. But as soon as you peel back the surface layers of their reasoning, it begins to lose its integrity. That's because, as research shows, narcissists aren't interested in understanding opposing perspectives. They only care about winning. A 2023 study from Frontiers in Psychology found that narcissists tend to score low in intellectual humility. In other words, they're quick to assume they're right — and just as quick to reject any and all evidence that challenges them. Instead of engaging in good-faith dialogue, they usually resort to manipulative tactics that prop up their ego and snuff dissent. Beyond protecting the narcissist's self-image, these tactics also serve to exploit their victims' vulnerability. As a 2024 study in Memory & Cognition explains, people are more likely to accept weak or poorly reasoned arguments if those arguments align with what they already believe or fear. Narcissists leverage this cognitive bias by framing their arguments in emotionally loaded ways: they reinforce your insecurities by twisting the logic just enough to make you second-guess yourself. This allows them to arm themselves with a suite of flawed but familiar tactics; each is designed to confuse, derail and dominate both you and the conversation. In a previous article, I covered five of the most common fallacies that narcissists rely on. In this follow-up, I'll explore five more tactics they keep in their arsenal — and how they use them to stay in control. A causal fallacy occurs when someone mistakenly assumes there to be a cause-and-effect relationship between two events. This can be achieved in various ways: by oversimplifying an obviously complex situation, by falsely attributing blame to a victim or simply by jumping to conclusions without any evidence. These fallacies are especially dangerous in confrontations, as they serve to manipulatively distort the victim's sense of reality. For instance, a narcissist might claim, 'You made me yell at you by stressing me out.' Here, they imply that their anger was a direct result of the victim's actions. In one sentence, the aggressor suggests the victim is responsible for their behavior, while simultaneously ignoring the fact they chose to react aggressively. Narcissists employ causal fallacies as a means to shift blame onto their victims, all while avoiding accountability for their actions. They represent their behavior as an inevitable reaction to something external; in turn, they spin a narrative in which the victim is the one at fault. Unlike many of the other fallacies, the burden of proof fallacy doesn't serve to conjure up false narratives, nor to ignore or refute the points that have been made. Instead, it occurs when someone shifts the responsibility of proving a claim onto the person who initially made it. Yet, in great similarity to the other fallacies, this tactic also serves to evade accountability. Specifically, because it demands an unreasonable — or even impossible — level of evidence from the accuser. For instance, if a victim says, 'You've been lying to me,' the narcissist would simply respond with, 'Well, then prove it.' Even if there's very clear circumstantial evidence to support the claim, they refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing. That is, unless the victim provides absolute, irrefutable proof, which makes it all the more difficult to hold them accountable. Narcissists rely on the burden of proof when they are acutely aware of how challenging it will be for their victim to distinctly or undeniably evince their deception or manipulation. Naturally, deferring this responsibility sets an incredibly unfair standard: it makes it nearly impossible for their victim to gain closure or defend their dignity. The appeal to nature fallacy erroneously assumes that something is good, right or acceptable simply by claiming that it's 'natural.' Despite how persuasive these arguments may sound, it's important to note that this reasoning completely ignores whatever ethical concerns surround the behaviors. The appeal to nature oversimplifies objectively harmful human behaviors; by attributing these behaviors to biology or tradition — rather than personal choice — the victim is falsely led to believe that they're impossible to condemn. For instance, a male narcissist might justify their aggression by saying, 'Men are just naturally dominant. You should accept it.' Or, on the other hand, a female narcissist might say, 'Women are naturally overprotective. You can't blame me for that.' Arguments like these suggest that harmful behaviors, such as control or possessiveness, are merely unavoidable. But, in reality, these behaviors are always a conscious decision — ones that can and should be challenged and changed. Narcissists appeal to nature purely so that they can normalize their unacceptable or abusive behaviors. They frame their actions as either natural or inevitable, and, as a result, they render any meaningful discussion regarding boundaries futile. More insidiously, these appeals make their victim feel unreasonable for expecting a different or better relationship with the aggressor. Cyclically, this reinforces control by making it seem as though the victim is resisting something fundamental, rather than rightly rejecting their mistreatment. The appeal to ignorance fallacy is, in many ways, quite similar to the burden of proof. However, it rests on a different, faulty (yet equally cunning) assumption: that a lack of evidence against something automatically makes it true. Or, conversely, that a lack of evidence for something automatically makes it false. In reality, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When narcissists use this fallacy, they exploit uncertainty by twisting it into certainty. For instance, if someone says, 'You've been acting strangely lately, and I get the feeling that you're hiding something from me.' In turn, a narcissist might respond with, 'If you can't prove I've done anything wrong, then I haven't.' Unlike the burden of proof — which pressures others to produce impossible evidence — the appeal to ignorance shuts down the conversation by pretending that not having definitive proof is the same thing as being exonerated. It reframes ambiguity as innocence, which urges the victim to discount their own judgment. This tactic is especially effective in emotionally complex situations. If intuition, patterns or past behavior may point to wrongdoing, but hard proof is hard to come by, narcissists lean on this fallacy to rewrite the narrative in their favor. The appeal to personal incredulity fallacy serves to dismiss something as false simply because it sounds unbelievable or difficult to understand. This reasoning invalidly relies on gut reactions, rather than any hard facts. Consequently, it allows aggressors to reject evidence of their wrongdoings — purely because they don't like or can't comprehend it. Say, for instance, a narcissist is presented with evidence of their manipulation tactics. In response, they might say something like, 'That's ridiculous! I would never do that.' Here, they reject reality simply because they don't want to acknowledge it. As opposed to taking the time to disprove the claim or apologize, they merely dismiss it outright as being absurd. Narcissists often rely on personal incredulity fallacies, as it allows them to shut down conversations without expending any effort whatsoever. They simply act as though an idea is too far-fetched to even consider, which makes it nearly impossible to challenge. In turn, it's futile for the victim to attempt to discuss their behavior in any meaningful way. And, even if they do, they'll more than likely tire themselves out by over-explaining their concerns. Concerned that you might have narcissistic tendencies? Take this science-backed test to find out if it's cause for concern: Narcissism Scale
Forbes
5 days ago
- Health
- Forbes
5 ‘Argument Tactics' That Narcissists Rely On — By A Psychologist
To strip the power from an emotional abuser, you must recognize their argument tactics for what they ... More are: logical fallacies. Narcissists tend to vastly overestimate the accuracy of their own beliefs. They become defensive, or even combative, when confronted with viewpoints that don't align with their own. As a 2023 study published in Frontiers in Psychology explains, this is due to the fact that narcissists often exhibit very low levels of intellectual humility. As a result, they rely heavily on manipulative argument tactics that serve to protect their inflated self-image. At face value, these tactics might seem clever, or maybe even intellectually sound. In reality, however, these tactics focus more on control than they do logic. A 2024 study in published in Memory & Cognition also notes that individuals prone to such poor argument tactics are highly likely to accept and perpetuate information that confirms their existing beliefs. Narcissists exploit this cognitive bias to others' wits end: they frame their arguments to align with their victims' fears or insecurities, or in ways that defend their warped self-image. As such, they're adept at spinning webs of flawed reasoning that feel convincing — but, under any actual scrutiny, they fall right apart. In other words, many of their go-to argument tactics are riddled with errors that are designed to deflect blame and derail conversations. In turn, they keep themselves in a position of control. Here are five logical fallacies narcissists often rely on, and why they keep them in their repertoire. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone chooses to attack the person making an argument instead of addressing the actual argument itself. They refuse to engage with the issue that was brought up, and instead discredit the speaker by focusing on their personal traits, emotions or past behavior. As a result, they shut down the discussion in its entirety. For instance, say you confront a narcissist about their manipulative behavior. With an ad hominem attack, they might respond with, 'You're just insecure and bitter, that's why you're making such a big deal out of this.' Rather than addressing your very real concerns, they attack you instead. As a result, your criticisms are rendered 'irrational' in their eyes. Narcissists heavily rely on ad hominem attacks, largely due to the fact that they will avoid engaging with facts that threaten their self-image at all costs. By turning the discussion into a critique of the accuser rather than their own actions, they change the course of the conversation. They make the victim feel self-conscious about raising concerns, which ensures the narcissist remains in control. The false dichotomy fallacy arises once someone presents two extreme options as the only possible choices; they ignore the existence of middle-ground or nuance. This type of reasoning serves to force the victim (and the conversation as a whole) into a total gridlock. In turn, they prevent the possibility of any thoughtful discussions ensuing. For instance, if you critique something that a narcissist says or does, they might respond in black-or-white statements like, 'Either you agree with me, or you're against me.' They equate any disagreement whatsoever with outright hostility. But, in reality, relationships cannot function without compromise. Nor can discussions be productive without acknowledging the existence of both parties' perspectives. Regardless, the narcissist limits the conversation to two opposing sides, which takes reasonable discourse out of the question entirely. Narcissists favor false dichotomies given how well they simplify complex issues in ways that solely benefit them. By forcing you to choose between two extremes — total compliance or rejection — they pressure you out of thinking critically or independently. More cunningly, this also serves to instill you with guilt: as though refusing to align with their viewpoints equates to a signal of disloyalty. 'Strawmanning' refers to the distortion of another person's claim, which makes it easier to attack, refute or ignore. They refrain from acknowledging any of the actual points that were made, and opt instead to exaggerate, oversimplify or misrepresent the argument. Consequently, the argument is painted as unreasonable or extreme. This eschews them from accountability, while simultaneously dismissing your concerns. Imagine that you've calmly expressed your discomfort about a narcissist's behavior. In response, they start a tirade with, 'Oh, so now I'm the worst person in the world? I guess I can never do anything right!' But by grossly exaggerating the complaint, they turn it into an extreme accusation (which was never never actually made) and trick you into focusing on damage control instead. Strawmanning is useful when a narcissist feels the need to redirect the conversation, or when they want to put their victim on the defensive. They turn your genuine concerns into a caricature, or create an entirely new, false version of it, to ensure the discussion revolves around their feelings instead of their actions. Not only does this discourage you from bringing up concerns in the future, but it also allows them to cherry-pick which of your points are worth giving credence to — even if they aren't based in reality. A red herring is a distraction tactic in which an unrelated topic is brought up purely to steer the conversation away from the real issue at hand. This technique is used to discombobulate the opposition, and to, once again, make it impossible to hold the person accountable for their actions. For example, when confronted about emotionally hurtful behavior, a narcissist might suddenly say to you, 'Well, remember when you forgot my birthday last year?' With this completely out-of-left-field rebuttal, your attention is diverted away from their actions. In lieu of admitting any kind of wrongdoing, they portray you as the aggressor and themselves as the victim. Red herrings are ideal when a narcissist is confronted with an argument that makes them feel uncomfortable, as they can derail the discussion in a manner that still allows them complete control over the narrative. Much like the other fallacies, red herrings divert your focus in a direction that ultimately only benefits them. You're forced into a position in which you must now defend yourself. Distractions like these are thrown in the hopes that their behavior will pale in comparison to yours — or that you forget you even brought it up in the first place. An appeal to hypocrisy, or tu quoque fallacy, is made by deflecting criticism with the fact that the accuser has likely done something similar in their lifetime. Once again, rather than addressing whether their behavior is right or wrong, the argument is sidetracked to whether the other person has ever made a similar mistake. In charged discussions, this appeal may actually seem like a valid rebuttal, which is what makes it so reliable. Ultimately, however, it's simply another way to avoid taking responsibility. For instance, imagine that you're trying to call a narcissist out about lying. Instead of explaining why they lied, or admitting that it was hurtful, they instead say, 'Oh, so you've never lied before?' Dishonesty is no longer the topic at hand; your past mistakes are instead. With this logic, they make it seem as though only a 'perfect person' has the right to call them out. Narcissists employ appeals to hypocrisy when they have no desire to engage in a meaningful conversation about their actions. They choose instead to create a false equivalence that vindicates them — a reality where there's neither a need to take accountability or admit that their behavior was unjustified. Concerned that you might have narcissistic tendencies? Take this science-backed test to find out if it's cause for concern: Narcissism Scale
Forbes
12-05-2025
- General
- Forbes
3 Things Not To Say To Someone In An Abusive Relationship, By A Psychologist
Words can either build bridges or walls. Learn how to support someone in an abusive relationship by ... More being mindful of how you speak and offering non-judgmental support. If you've ever seen someone close to you in an abusive relationship, your first instinct most probably would be to help. Maybe you wonder if you could say something that might make them see the truth or wish you could've stepped in sooner. You might replay conversations in your head, wondering what signs you missed or how things could have been different if they had just reached out. It's natural to want to protect someone you care about, to offer advice or to try to 'wake them up' to what's happening. But there's usually more to the situation than meets the eye. Abuse isn't always physical or obvious. It can involve emotional manipulation, financial dependency or deeply ingrained trauma patterns. Sometimes, the person doesn't even realize what they're experiencing is abuse. Factors like fear, guilt, shame or the hope that things will eventually get better can leave someone feeling stuck. Even when a way out exists, it might not feel real or safe to them. That's why your words matter more than you think they do. They could either build trust or accidentally deepen their silence. Here are three things to avoid saying to someone in an abusive relationship. While this question may seem logical, it oversimplifies a deeply complex and emotionally charged situation. A 2022 study published in Frontiers in Psychology explore how people decide to leave abusive relationships, focusing on two main factors: 'promoters' and 'accelerators.' Both factors influence the decision to leave, but in different ways: Researchers highlight that the process of leaving is not a simple, step-by-step process. Instead of following a clear path, the decision to leave can happen suddenly or unexpectedly. Sometimes, even after planning to leave, a victim may decide to stay with the abuser for a while. There is also resistance to change, meaning that even if there are forces pushing someone to leave, other factors, like fear of the unknown or emotional attachment to the abuser can make it harder to actually leave. The study challenges the idea that separation happens because of a single, big turning point. Instead, it suggests that leaving is the result of multiple, complex factors interacting over time. Support for survivors should also be more flexible and tailored to each person, focusing on their unique situation instead of just following set steps or stages. In this context, the question 'why don't you just leave?' is disempowering, failing to acknowledge the complexity of the decision-making process. It doesn't consider the emotional struggles or the external influences that make the situation far more complicated than simply choosing to leave. This emphasizes the need for a more empathetic approach, one that acknowledges their situation and the complexities that keep them stuck. This may seem like an innocent question, but it can unintentionally trigger guilt, shame or defensiveness. This question shifts the focus from acknowledging the courage it takes for the survivor to disclose their situation to questioning their timing. A 2021 study explored why victims of domestic violence sometimes choose to share or withhold their experiences with healthcare professionals. Researchers found several personal barriers that prevent victims of domestic violence from disclosing their experiences, such as fear of retaliation from the abuser or the loss of children and feelings of guilt, shame or self-blame that make it difficult to speak out. Some victims may not even recognize their situation as abuse and may not think to report it, while others may distrust healthcare professionals, fearing they won't be taken seriously or treated with respect. This highlights the complexity of disclosure and why sensitive, empathetic and non-judgmental approaches are crucial in supporting victims. Researchers found that if victims feel blamed or ignored, they may be less likely to ask for help again. Negative reactions can make them feel more powerless or unsafe. These experiences can also retraumatize them, making them feel even more helpless. This explains why survivors often take time to open up and why the manner in which someone responds, be it a friend, colleague or professional, plays a huge role. Even a brief moment of genuine connection, such as listening without judgment or offering warmth and presence, can encourage a survivor to finally speak. It's not about saying the 'perfect' thing, but about making them feel safe, heard and validated. This may seem like a reasonable suggestion, but in abusive relationships, communication often doesn't solve the problem. In fact, it can escalate the situation. Power dynamics in abusive relationships are unequal and attempting to resolve issues through conversation can often provoke further conflict, especially when one partner uses communication as a means to control or manipulate the other. Abuse isn't a misunderstanding or an issue that can be solved by 'just talking.' Instead, it's a pattern of control and harm that goes beyond simple communication breakdowns. Confrontation or discussions can trigger aggression, psychological abuse and sometimes even physical violence, further entrenching the power imbalance. A 2022 study published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examining men with a history of cumulative childhood trauma found that having a higher number of different forms of childhood trauma is associated with a higher risk of perpetrating intimate partner violence. Such men are also likely to engage in dysfunctional communication patterns, such as demand-withdrawal (where the man makes demands or criticizes his partner, while the other person withdraws in response). These patterns are not just misunderstandings; they reflect deep-seated issues like distorted attachment needs, emotion regulation difficulties and learned models of violence. When individuals with these patterns attempt to communicate, it often leads to psychological abuse (such as insults and threats), physical violence and coercive control, rather than resolution. This underscores that communication in abusive relationships can escalate the situation, particularly when the core issue is power and control, not miscommunication. To provide the right kind of support, you could instead let them know with certainty that they aren't alone and you would help them navigate the solution in your best capacity. Let them know they can and should seek out professional help or a support group, as this could assist them in navigating the situation safely. Supporting someone in an abusive relationship requires more than just offering advice. It requires a compassionate and non-judgmental approach. Acknowledge that the person's experience is complex and their feelings are valid. Instead of focusing on what they 'should' do, offer them the emotional support they need to feel safe and heard. Reassure them that they are not alone and that there are people and resources available to help them. Focus on providing a consistent and safe space where they feel empowered to make their own decisions. Simply being present and offering practical resources can be a lifeline in moments of confusion or fear. Ultimately, let them know they deserve to be treated with respect and that there is hope for a safer and healthier future. Your support can be the catalyst that helps them find the strength to take the next step, at their own pace and on their own terms. Are you curious if you have the empathy needed to truly understand and support others? Take this science-backed test to find out: Affective Empathy Scale
Forbes
07-05-2025
- Health
- Forbes
2 Signs You're A Magnet For ‘Gaslighting' In Love, By A Psychologist
Are some of us more likely to be manipulated than others? New research shows that the desire to be ... More loved can make us tolerate even the worst kind of gaslighting. getty Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where one person makes another doubt their own thoughts, feelings or reality. No one wants to go through it, and no one deserves it, yet many of us encounter it — multiple times at that. Gaslighting is always the fault of the perpetrator, but some on the receiving end might ask, 'why me?' Given its devastating effects on one's relationships and mental health, it's worth asking, is there something that makes some people more susceptible to gaslighting than others? In a new study published this April in Frontiers in Psychology , researchers asked the same question — 'Why are we willing to tolerate manipulation?' and found an answer — an addiction to love. Love addiction is a compulsive need to be in love or in a relationship, often at the expense of one's well-being. People who struggle with love addiction may feel anxious, empty or even panicked at the thought of being alone, and they may cling to relationships because being without love feels unbearable. We all want to love and be loved, but when things go wrong, some find it harder to walk away than the rest. For some, love is too precious to lose, regardless of how unhealthy it might be. Researchers found that higher levels of love addiction are associated with greater tolerance of gaslighting and manipulative behavior in relationships. They suggest that such a dependence on relationships may stem from having an insecure attachment style, which is associated with fears of rejection and abandonment, and a need for constant reassurance and validation. 'Love addiction may also lead them to reinterpret manipulative and even abusive behaviors as 'stress' or 'displays of love,' thus turning a blind eye to the harmful effects of these behaviors. This makes it more difficult for them to recognize manipulation, increasing the likelihood that they will be affected by gaslighting,' the researchers explain. Here are the two primary reasons why an addiction to love can make us a magnet for gaslighting, according to the study. 1. You Feel You've Given Too Much To Walk Away When someone is addicted to love, they devote themselves entirely to their relationships. They invest time, emotional energy, effort, money and in some cases, their entire identity into their love lives, and when they've given that much, walking away feels like a loss of everything they've invested so far. Such individuals experience 'loss aversion.' As humans, we're wired to avoid losses more strongly than we seek gains. So, for someone with a love addiction, the fear of ending a relationship isn't just about grieving love, but about trying not to feel like all that effort was for nothing . The deeper the emotional investment, the harder it becomes to leave, even when the relationship turns manipulative or harmful. Researchers suggest that in the short-term, making sacrifices for the other person can improve relationships, and this improvement can encourage the giver to sacrifice even more. However, this dynamic soon takes a toll on the giver and makes them more susceptible to feelings of loss aversion, and in turn, more likely to tolerate mistreatment to avoid facing the emotional cost of leaving. They may convince themselves that the relationship is still salvageable, that the manipulation isn't that bad or that things will get better if they just try harder. Over time, this becomes a mechanism of self-compromise, where the person's need to preserve the relationship outweighs their need to protect their own well-being. As the researchers put it, 'Love addiction initiates a cascade of relational compromises, which culminate in tolerance for gaslighting.' In these cases, gaslighting can be rationalized or reframed. The person being gaslit may downplay or reinterpret what's happening, not because they don't see it, but because acknowledging the truth would mean facing the possibility that everything they've built is crumbling. However, continuing to invest in such a relationship only leads to losing more — of your time, mental peace and sense of self. While the past can't be changed, your future can still be protected. Remember, true love will never require you to lose yourself. 2. Your Partner Holds The Power In Your Relationship When one person in a relationship is significantly more invested than the other, it creates a power imbalance. In fact, researchers found that higher levels of love addiction are associated with experiencing lower levels of power in one's relationship. When you're addicted to love, the fear of losing it can be overwhelming. This emotional dependence profoundly affects your ability to influence the direction of the relationship. You may start compromising not just on the small things, but on core values, all in the hope of keeping the peace or avoiding abandonment. You may compromise your own boundaries, silence your needs and tolerate behavior you'd otherwise never accept. When you feel powerless, it's also harder to call out manipulation or stand your ground. Instead, you might tell yourself it's not a big deal, or that you're being too sensitive. But over time, this power gap can make it easier for a controlling partner to twist reality and overpower your sense of self. Researchers highlight how 'low-power' partners tend to avoid conflict out of fear it will lead to rejection, sacrifice personal needs to maintain harmony, accept unfair terms in the relationship and stay silent in the face of manipulation. Over time, this weakens their sense of autonomy. The more you give up your power, the harder it becomes to speak up, set boundaries or leave — all of which makes gaslighting more likely to go unchecked. Many people who are addicted to love also carry a deep fear that love is scarce or conditional. Especially when they've experienced inconsistent caregiving, abandonment or neglect, they may internalize the belief that love is fragile, fleeting or that they're somehow unworthy of it. As a result, they may rush into relationships too quickly, or stay in ones that are clearly damaging — believing that if they let go, they may never find love again. This makes them more likely to stay in unstable, low-quality relationships, normalize mistreatment and downplay harm as something all relationships go through. Additionally, when your actions (staying) and your values (wanting to be treated well) conflict, your mind works overtime to make the discomfort go away — often by rationalizing the psychological abuse rather than confronting it. You stay, invest more and hope harder, all while losing more of yourself in the process. However, awareness and external support can help break this cycle. Research shows that people with access to emotional and social support are more likely to recognize when something is wrong and take steps to protect themselves. That's why reaching out — to friends, a therapist or a support group — can be so powerful. The more you feel supported, the easier it becomes to reclaim your sense of power and begin making choices that protect your well-being. It's also essential to challenge any unhealthy beliefs about love. Love doesn't have to hurt to be real and your suffering doesn't prove your devotion. You deserve to express your needs without guilt and you are not more lovable because of how much you give or how much you tolerate. Does a fear of losing out on love keep you in unhealthy relationships? Take this science-backed test to learn more: Fear Of Being Single Scale
The Independent
07-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
People more likely to empathise with groups than individuals, study finds
People are more willing to empathise with groups of people rather than individuals, a study suggests. Empathy – a person's ability to understand and share the feelings of another – is also viewed as 'distressing' when compared with remaining neutral, researchers said. The study, led by scientists in Sweden and published in the journal Frontiers In Psychology, involved 296 people. They underwent a test involving two blocks of pictures, one of individuals and the other of groups of people. They were also presented with two decks of cards, one of which asked them to try to empathise and the other which asked them to remain neutral. When given a picture to react to, the participants were asked to write down three keywords to describe the feelings of the people in the images or their appearance. They were also asked to rate how much effort empathising took, or if they found the process distressing. Researchers found people chose to stay objective to individuals compared with when they were faced with a group. In both situations, empathising was also rated as distressing and more effort. Dr Hajdi Moche, of Linkoping University in Sweden, said: 'People's willingness to empathise is different depending on who the target is: a single individual or a group of people. 'Specifically, people were more willing to empathise with a group than an individual, although empathising was rated as more effortful and distressing compared to staying objective – for both the individual and the group.' When faced with images of an individual, people chose to empathise 34% of the time, researchers found. However, during the block of group pictures, people empathised 53% of the time. This happened even though empathising was rated as harder and more distressing than remaining objective. Dr Moche added: 'The task of trying to share the internal experiences of the other requires more effort, imagination and understanding of what the person might feel compared to describing external features like hair colour. 'To share in the internal experiences might be especially hard when the information at hand is only a neutral facial expression without any body language or background context.' Dr Moche suggested further studies could pit images of individuals and groups against each other to see which people would prefer to empathise with 'In this way, we would have a direct comparison in willingness to empathise when the target is an individual versus a group of people,' she added.
