4.7 Article

The relationship between alexithymia, empathy and moral judgment in patients with multiple sclerosis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 1295-1303

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ene.12745

关键词

alexithymia; emotion; empathy; moral cognition; multiple sclerosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purposeConverging research in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown increased rates of alexithymia and disturbances in social cognition, including empathy and theory of mind. Moral judgment is one of the most complex spheres of human cognition, relying on intricate neural circuits related to many other affective, social, cognitive and behavioral processes. MethodsRelapsing-remitting MS patients (n=38) and age-, gender- and education-matched controls (n=38) completed a measure of alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale), a measure of empathy (Interpersonal Reactivity Index) and a series of moral dilemmas, for which measures of moral permissibility, emotional reactivity and moral relativity (the perception of how one's moral attitudes compare to the attitudes of the rest of the people) were derived. ResultsRelative to controls, patients exhibited decreased levels of other-oriented empathy [empathic concern (P<0.01) and fantasy (P<0.01)], increased levels of self-oriented personal distress (P<0.01), as well as higher rates of alexithymia (P<0.001). Moral permissibility was significantly reduced in patients with MS (P=0.038), who also showed higher levels of emotional reactivity (P<0.01). Additionally, a significantly higher number of patients than controls considered that respondents would deliver similar judgments to the same moral scenarios (P<0.001). DiscussionUnderstanding such complex interactions between individual dispositions and moral cognition has the potential to contribute to the development of better assessment and intervention strategies for MS patients, enhancing quality of life by achieving better social participation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据