Empathy, Anxiety, and Aggression among Moscow Students

Research on empathy, altruism, and cooperation is one of the highest priorities in the fields of social anthropology, psychology, and evolutionary sciences around the world. The goal of this article is to assess the level of empathy of Russian students towards people with disabilities. For this purpose, we measured respondents' levels of anxiety and aggression, assessed the correlation of these characteristics with empathy, determined the degree of their change under the influence of stress (sensitivity to stress). Also, we used the 2D:4D ratio as a biomarker of prenatal androgenization. The outcome of this study shows that human behavior is determined by a complex of interrelated social (cultural) and biological factors. Femininity (as a reflection of prenatal oestrogenization of the brain) is a predictor of higher levels of empathy and cooperation and more pronounced reactions to stressful stimuli, regardless of environmental factors.

Keywords

empathy, altruism, anxiety, aggression, stress, students

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the following institutions and grants: Russian Science Foundation, https://doi.org/10.13039/501100006769 [grant no. 18-18-00075]

Received

29.11.2019

Publication date

02.12.2019

Number of characters

28629

Cite

GOST	Burkova V., Butovskaya M., Dronova D., Apalkova Y. Empathy, Anxiety, and Aggression among Moscow Students // Etnograficheskoe obozrenie – 2019. – №5 C. 169-188 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://ras.jes.su/ethnorev/s086954150007385-3-1-en (circulation date: 24.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S086954150007385-3
MLA	Burkova, Valentina N, Butovskaya, Marina L, Dronova, Daria A, Apalkova, Yulia I "Empathy, Anxiety, and Aggression among Moscow Students." Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 5 (2019):169-188. DOI: 10.31857/S086954150007385-3
APA	Burkova V., Butovskaya M., Dronova D., Apalkova Y. (2019). Empathy, Anxiety, and Aggression among Moscow Students. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie (5), pp.169-188 DOI: 10.31857/S086954150007385-3

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

Гипотеза исследования.

Объект и методы исследования.

Результаты и обсуждение.

* * *


1	Изучение эмпатии и тесно связанных с ней альтруизма и кооперации является одним из самых приоритетных направлений в социальной антропологии, психологии и эволюционных исследованиях по всему миру, о чем свидетельствует множество публикаций на эту тему в самых уважаемых научных изданиях (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright 2004; Branas-Garza et al. 2013; Butovskaya et al. 2000; Fehr et al. 2013; Jolliffe, Farrington 2004; Rostovtseva et al. 2019; Буркова и др. 2019; Ростовцева, Бутовская 2017, 2018). Научный интерес к кооперативному и альтруистическому поведению возник на заре формирования современных эволюционных представлений; одним из основателей нового направления был российский ученый П.А. Кропоткин, в начале XX в. обративший внимание на роль взаимопомощи в эволюционных процессах (Ростовцева, Бутовская 2018).
2	Понятие “эмпатия” (от нем. Einfuhlung – “проецировать себя на то, что вы наблюдаете”) впервые появилось в 1909 г. в работе Э. Титченера (Titchener 1909; цит. по Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright 2004). В настоящее время оно обычно определяется с точки зрения двух подходов: 1) аффективного – рассматривающего эмпатию как эмоциональный отклик наблюдателя на аффективное состояние другого человека; 2) когнитивного – подчеркивающего, что эмпатия включает в себя понимание чужих чувств (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright 2004; Preston, de Waal 2002). В настоящее время исследователи солидарны в том, что эмпатия содержит в себе как эмоциональные, так и когнитивные составляющие, однако какова причинно-следственная связь этих составляющих – по-прежнему один из проблемных вопросов (Cuff et al. 2016; Jolliffe, Farrington 2004). В ряду наиболее универсальных определений следует отметить предложенное Д. Кохеном и Д. Страером: это способность понимать эмоциональное состояние и разделять его. Таким образом, признается, что эмпатия является одновременно познавательным (способность понимать эмоциональное состояние другого человека) и аффективным (разделение эмоционального состояния другого) процессом (Cohen, Strayer 1996). В более ранних работах одни авторы приводят данные, говорящие о том, что когнитивная эмпатия – предпосылка формирования эмоциональной эмпатии (Feshach 1979), другие – что выявляется обратная последовательность (Van Lissa et al. 2013), а третьи – что эти виды эмпатии тесно взаимосвязаны (Garlick 2002; Jensen 1998). Один из основных исследователей эмпатии приматолог Ф. де Вааль считает, что она, позволяя организму быстро соотноситься с состояниями других, прежде всего важна для регулирования социальных взаимодействий, скоординированной деятельности и сотрудничества группы в достижении общих целей. Хотя когнитивная способность восприятия перспективы помогает в этом, она вторична по отношению к базовой форме эмоциональной составляющей эмпатии (Clay et al. 2018; de Waal 2001).
3	В настоящее время наиболее распространено мнение, что эмпатия – это многогранное явление, состоящее из разных компонентов. Исследователи соглашаются, что ее уровень варьируется от человека к человеку и, следовательно, она может рассматриваться как индивидуальный фактор (Eisenberg, Strayer 1987; Farrington, Jolliffe 2001; Jolliffe, Farrington 2004). Эмпатия влияет на поведение: ожидается, что те индивиды, у кого уровень сопереживания выше, будут более внимательны к чувствам других (Eisenberg et al. 1996; Jolliffe, Farrington 2004; Kaukiainen et al. 1999). Работы нейробиологов показывают, что при решении морально-нравственных дилемм человек руководствуется эмоциональными, а не рациональными мотивами; в одном из исследований, направленных на выявление влияния различных факторов на сопереживание, эмпатию и альтруизм, было обнаружено, что при решении тестов активировались три конкретных области мозга, связанные с эмоциональной сферой (Hsu et al. 2008).

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1965

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. PMA – Polevy`e materialy` e`kspedicionny`x vy`ezdov avtorov v Severnuyu Tanzaniyu (2006–2019 gg.)

2. Archer, J., and I.A. Webb. 2006. The Relation Between Scores on the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire and Aggressive Acts, Impulsiveness, Competitiveness, Dominance, and Sexual Jealousy. Aggressive Behavior 32 (5): 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20146

3. Austin, E.J., J.T. Manning, K. McInroy, and E. Mathews. 2002. A Preliminary Investigation of the Associations Between Personality, Cognitive Ability and Digit Ratio. Personality and Individual Differences 33: 1115–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869 (02)00002-8

4. Baron-Cohen, S., and S. Wheelwright. 2004. The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34 (2): 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00

5. Batson, C.D., J. Fultz, and P.A. Schoenrade. 1987. Adults’ Emotional Reactions to the Distress of Others. In Empathy and Its Development, edited by N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer, 163–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Blackburn, R. 1993. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Chichester: Wiley.

7. Branas-Garza, P., J. Kovarík, and L. Neyse. 2013. Second-to-Fourth Digit Ratio Has a Non-Monotonic Impact on Altruism. PloS One 8 (4): e60419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060419

8. Burkett, J., E. Andari, and Z. Johnson. 2016. Oxytocin Dependent Consolation Behavior in Rodents. Science 351 (6271): 375–378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4785

9. Burkova, V.N., Y.N. Fedenok, and M.L. Butovskaya. 2019. Empatiia i intolerantnost’ rossiiskoi molodezhi v otnoshenii invalidov: polovye i lichnostnye razlichiia Empathy and Intolerance of Russian Youth Towards People with Disabilities: Gender and Personality Differences. Eksperimental’naia psikhologiia 12 (1): 53–69. https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2019120105

10. Buss, A.H., and M. Perry. 1992. The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (3): 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

11. Butovskaya, M.L. 1988. Perspektivy ispol’zovaniia etologicheskikh materialov i metodov v antropologii i etnografii Prospects of Using of Ethological Materials and Methods in Anthropology and Ethnography. Sovetskaia etnografiia 5: 26–37.

12. Butovskaya, M., F. Salter, I. Diakonov, and A. Smirnov. 2000. Urban Begging and Ethnic Nepotism in Russia. Human Nature 11 (2): 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-000-1017-z

13. Butovskaya, M.L., and V.V. Levashova. 2004. Skorost’ dvizheniia i yazyk tela peshekhodov v usloviiakh sovremennogo goroda: etologicheskii analiz Speed and Body Language of Pedestrians in a Modern City: Ethological Analysis. Arkheologiia, etnografiia i antropologiia Evrazii 3: 147–156.

14. Butovskaya, M.L., and M.Yu. Drambian. 2007. Hadza Tanzanii: traditsii i sovremennost’ Hadza of Tanzania: Tradition and Modernity. Aziia i Afrika segodnia 7: 105–110.

15. Butovskaya, M., V. Timentschik, and V. Burkova. 2007. Aggression, Conflict Resolution, Popularity, and Attitude to School in Russian Adolescents. Aggressive Behavior 32: 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20197

16. Butovskaya, M., J. Fedenok, V. Burkova, and J. Manning. 2013. Sex Differences in 2D:4D and Aggression in Children and Adolescents from Five Regions of Russia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152: 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22337

17. Butovskaya, M., V. Burkova, D. Karelin, and B. Fink. 2015. Digit Ratio (2D:4D), Aggression, and Dominance in the Hadza and the Datoga of Tanzania. American Journal of Human Biology 27 (5): 620–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.22718

18. Butovskaya, M.L., and R.A. Mkrtchian. 2016. Pal’tsevoi indeks i cherty lichnosti u armianskikh studentov: polovye razlichiia Digit Ratio and Personal Traits Among Armenian Students: Gender Differences. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia XXIII, Antropologiia 1: 76–85.

19. Butovskaya, M.L., P.R. Butovskaya, V.A. Vasilyev, et al. 2018. Serotonergic Gene Polymorphisms (5-HTTLPR, 5 HTR1A, 5 HTR2A), and Population Differences in Aggression: Traditional (Hadza and Datoga) and Industrial (Russians) Populations Compared. Journal of Physiological Anthropology 37 (1): 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40101-018-0171-0

20. Butovskaya, M., V. Burkova, D. Karelin, and V. Filatova. 2019. Association between 2D:4D Ratio and Aggression in Children and Adolescents: Cross-Cultural and Gender Differences. Early Human Development 137: 104823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2019.07.006

21. Campbell, M.W., and F.B.M. de Waal. 2011. Ingroup-Outgroup Bias in Contagious Yawning by Chimpanzees Supports Link to Empathy. PLoS One 6 (4): e18283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018283

22. Cesarini, D., C.T. Dawes, J.H. Fowler, et al. 2008. Heritability of Cooperative Behavior in the Trust Game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (10): 3721–3726. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710069105

23. Clay, Z., E. Palagi, and F.B. de Waal. 2018. Ethological Approaches to Empathy in Primates. In Neuronal Correlates of Empathy, edited by K.Z. Meyza and E. Knapska, 5: 53–66. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805397-3.00005-X

24. Cohen, D., and J. Strayer. 1996. Empathy in Conduct-Disordered and Comparison Youth. Developmental Psychology 32: 988–998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.988

25. Costa, J.P.T., A. Terracciano, and R.R. McCrae. 2001. Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2): 322–331.

26. Costa, P.T., and R.R. McCrae. 1992. Four Ways Five Factors Are Basic. Personality and Individual Differences 13: 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869 (92)90236-I

27. Cotler, T.B. 2012. The Relationship Among Attachment Patterns, Mentalization, and Empathy. PhD. Adelphi.

28. Cuff, B.M., S.J. Brown, L. Taylor, and D.J. Howat. 2016. Empathy: A Review of the Concept. Emotion Review 8 (2): 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.10.001

29. Davis, M.H. 2018. Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. New York: Routledge.

30. de Bellis, M.D. 2005. The Psychobiology of Neglect. Child Maltreatment 10 (2): 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505275116

31. de Waal, F.B.M. 2001. Empathy in Primates and Other Mammals. In Empathy: From Bench to Bedside, edited by J. Decety, 87–106. London: MIT Press.

32. de Waal, F.B. 2008. Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625

33. de Waal, F.B. 2012. The Antiquity of Empathy. Science 336 (6083): 874–876. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1220999

34. de Wied, M., S.J.T. Branje, and H.J.W. Meeus. 2007. Empathy and Conflict Resolution in Friendship Relations Among Adolescents. Aggressive Behavior 33 (1): 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20166

35. Decety, J. 2011. The Neuroevolution of Empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1231 (1): 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06027.x

36. Eisenberg, N., and J. Strayer. 1987. Critical Issues in the Study of Empathy. In Empathy and Its Development, edited by N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer, 3–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37. Eisenberg, N., R.A. Fabes, B. Murphy, et al. 1996. The Relations of Children’s Dispositional Empathy-Related Responding to Their Emotionality, Regulation and Social Functioning. Developmental Psychology 32: 195–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.195

38. Farrington, D.P. 1998. Individual Differences and Offending. In The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, edited by M. Tonry, 241–268. New York: Oxford University Press.

39. Farrington, D.P., and D. Jolliffe. 2001. Personality and Crime. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, edited by N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes, 11260–11264. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

40. Fehr, E., D. Glätzle-Rützler, and M. Sutter. 2013. The Development of Egalitarianism, Altruism, Spite and Parochialism in Childhood and Adolescence. European Economic Review 64: 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2013.09.006

41. Feshach, N. 1979. Empathy Training: A Field Study in Affective Education. New York: Praeger.

42. Fink, B., J.T. Manning, and N. Neave. 2004. Second to Fourth Digit Ratio and the “Big Five” Personality Factors. Personality and Individual Differences 37 (3): 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.018

43. Fischbacher, U., S. Gachter, and E. Fehr. 2001. Are People Conditionally Cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment. Economic Letters 71 (3): 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765 (01)00394-9

44. Fumagalli, M., M. Vergari, P. Pasqualetti, et al. 2010. Brain Switches Utilitarian Behavior: Does Gender Make the Difference? PLoS One 5 (1): e8865. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008865

45. Galizzi, M.M., and J. Nieboer. 2015. Digit Ratio (2D: 4D) and Altruism: Evidence from a Large, Multi-Ethnic Sample. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 9 (41): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00041

46. Garlick, D. 2002. Understanding the Nature of the General Factor of Intelligence: The Role of Individual Differences in Neural Plasticity as an Explanatory Mechanism. Psychological Review 109 (1): 116–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.116

47. Goodall, J. 1986. Social Rejection, Exclusion, and Shunning Among the Gombe Chimpanzees. Ethology and Sociobiology 7: 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095 (86)90050-6

48. Hoffman, M.L. 2000. Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

49. Hönekopp, J., L. Bartholdt, L. Beier, and A. Liebert. 2007. Second to Fourth Digit Length Ratio (2D: 4D) and Adult Sex Hormone Levels: New Data and a Meta-Analytic Review. Psychoneuroendocrinology 32 (4): 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.01.007

50. Hsu, F.C., J.Y. Luo, K. Yeh, et al. 2008. Superconductivity in the PbO-Type Structure α-FeSe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (38): 14262–14264. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0807325105

51. Jensen, A. 1998. The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability. Westport: Greenwood Publishing.

52. Jolliffe, D., and D.P. Farrington. 2004. Empathy and Offending: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior 9 (5): 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001

53. Kajonius, P., and E. Mac Giolla. 2017. Personality Traits Across Countries: Support for Similarities Rather than Differences. PLoS One 12 (6): e0179646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179646

54. Kajonius, P.J., and J. Johnson. 2018. Sex Differences in 30 Facets of the Five Factor Model of Personality in the Large Public (N= 320,128). Personality and Individual Differences 129: 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.026

55. Kaukiainen, A., K. Bjorkqvist, K. Lagerspetz, et al. 1999. The Relationship Between Social Intelligence, Empathy, and Three Types of Aggression. Aggressive Behavior 25: 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:23.0.CO;2-M

56. Kleck, R.E., and A. Strenta. 1980. Perceptions of the Impact of Negatively Valued Physical Characteristics on Social Interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5): 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.861

57. Klimenkova, E.N. 2016. Razvitie mentalizatsii i empatii v ontogeneze: obzor empiricheskikh issledovanii Mentalization and Empathy Ontogenetic Development: Empirical Studies Review. Konsul’tativnaia psikhologiia i psikhoterapiia 24 (4): 126–137. https://doi.org/10.17759/cpp.2016240406

58. Krivosheev, V.V. 2004. Osobennosti anomii v sovremennom rossiiskom obshchestve Features of Anomie in Modern Russian Society. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia 3: 93–97.

59. Light, S., and C. Zahn-Waxler. 2011. 7 Nature and Forms of Empathy in the First Years of Life. In Empathy: From Bench to Bedside, edited by J. Decety, 109–121. London: MIT Press.

60. Luxen, M.F., and B.P. Buunk. 2005. Second-to-Fourth Digit Ratio Related to Verbal and Numerical Intelligence and the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences 39 (5): 959–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.03.016

61. Manning, J.T. 2011. Resolving the Role of Prenatal Sex Steroids in the Development of Digit Ratio. PNAS 108 (39): 1643–1644. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113312108

62. Manning, J.T., and B. Fink. 2018. Sexual Dimorphism in the Ontogeny of Second (2D) and Fourth (4D) Digit Lengths, and Digit Ratio (2D:4D). American Journal of Human Biology 30 (4): e23138. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23138

63. Manning, J.T., and R.P. Taylor. 2001. Second to Fourth Digit Ratio and Male Ability in Sport: Implications for Sexual Selection in Humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 22 (1): 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138 (00)00063-5

64. Marshall, T.C., K. Lefringhausen, and N. Ferenczi. 2015. The Big Five, Self-Esteem, and Narcissism as Predictors of the Topics People Write About in Facebook Status Updates. Personality and Individual Differences 85: 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.039

65. Matsumoto, D. 2002. Psikhologiia i kul’tura: sovremennye issledovaniia Psychology and Culture: Modern Researches. St. Petersburg: Praim-Evroznak.

66. McCrae, R.R., and J.P.T. Costa. 1997. Personality Trait Structure as a Human Universal. American Psychologist 52 (5): 509–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509

67. Miller, P.A., and N. Eisenberg. 1988. The Relation of Empathy to Aggressive and Externalizing/Antisocial Behavior. Psychological Bulletin 103: 324–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.324

68. Mooradian, T.A., M. Davis, and K. Matzler. 2011. Dispositional Empathy and the Hierarchical Structure of Personality. American Journal of Psychology 124 (1): 99–109.

69. Muñoz-Reyes, J.A., P. Polo, N. Valenzuela, et al. 2018. Sexual Differences and Associations between Aggressiveness and Quality of Life in Late Adolescents. Current Psychology 37 (1): 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9486-3

70. Nakano, K. 2001. Psychometric Evaluation on the Japanese Adaptation of the Aggression Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy 39 (7): 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967 (00)00057-7

71. Park, J.H., J. Faulkner, and M. Schaller. 2003. Evolved Disease-Avoidance Processes and Contemporary Anti-Social Behavior: Prejudicial Attitudes and Avoidance of People with Physical Disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 27 (2): 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910408854

72. Peysakhovich, A., M.A. Nowak, and D.G. Rand. 2014. Humans Display a Cooperative Phenotype That Is Domain General and Temporally Stable. Nature Communications 5 (4939) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5939

73. Preston, S.D., and F. de Waal. 2002. Empathy: Its Ultimate and Proximate Bases. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 25 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193 (05)80082-7

74. Ross, R.R., and R. Ross. 1995. Thinking Straight: The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program for Delinquency Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation. Ottawa: Air Training and Publications.

75. Rostovtseva, V.V., and M.L. Butovskaya. 2017. Biosotsial’nye mekhanizmy kooperativnogo povedeniia muzhchin (na primere russkikh i buriat) Biosocial Mechanism of Cooperative Behavior of Males (On Example of Russians and Buryats. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia XXIII, Antropologiia 4: 107–118.

76. Rostovtseva, V.V., and M.L. Butovskaya. 2018. Sotsial’noe dominirovanie, agressiia i pal’tsevoi indeks (2D:4D) v kooperativnom povedenii molodykh muzhchin Social Dominance, and Digit Ratio (2D:4D) in Cooperative Behavior of Young Men. Voprosy psikhologii 4: 65–80.

77. Rostovtseva, V., M. Butovskaya, and R. Mkrtchyan. 2019. 2D:4D, Big Fives and Aggression in Young Men of Caucasian, Ural and Asian Origin. Social and Evolution History 18 (1): 110–126.

78. Rumsey, N., R. Bull, and D. Gahagan. 1982. The Effect of Facial Disfigurement on the Proxemic Behavior of the General Public. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 12 (2): 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1982.tb00855.x

79. Sanchez-Pages, S., and E. Turiegano. 2010. Testosterone, Facial Symmetry and Cooperation in the Prisoners’ Dilemma. Physiology and Behavior 99 (3): 355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.11.013

80. Schmitt, D.P., A.E. Long, A. Mcphearson, et al. 2016. Personality and Gender Differences in Global Perspective. International Journal of Psychology 52 (S1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12265

81. Spilberger, C.H., and I.L. Khanin. 2002. Issledovanie trevozhnosti Research of Anxiety. In Diagnostika emotsional’no-nravstvennogo razvitiia Diagnosis of Emotional and Moral Development, edited by I.B. Dermanova, 124–126. St. Petersburg: Rech’.

82. Titchener, E. 1909. Elementary Psychology of the Thought Processes. New York: Macmillan.

83. van Lissa, C.J., S.T. Hawk, M. de Wied, et al. 2014. The Longitudinal Interplay of Affective and Cognitive Empathy Within and Between Adolescents and Mothers. Developmental Psychology 50 (4): 1219–1225.

84. Volk, S., C. Thoni, and W. Ruigrok. 2012. Temporal Stability and Psychological Foundations of Cooperation Preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 81 (2): 664–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.10.006

85. Youssef, F.F., K. Dookeeram, V. Basdeo, et al. 2012. Stress Alters Personal Moral Decision Making. Psychoneuroendocrinology 37 (4): 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.07.017

86. Zahn-Waxler, C., J.L. Robinson, and R.N. Emde. 1992. The Development of Empathy in Twins. Developmental Psychology 28 (6): 1038–1047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1038

Empathy, Anxiety, and Aggression among Moscow Students

Table of contents