“Capacity for cognitive and emotional empathy in alcohol-dependent patients”: Correction to Dethier and Blairy (2012)

Reports an error in "Capacity for cognitive and emotional empathy in alcohol-dependent patients" by Marie Dethier and Sylvie Blairy ( Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 2012[Sep], Vol 26[3], 371-383). There was an error in the Method section on page 373. The sentence “ADs did not receive p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychology of addictive behaviors 2012-12, Vol.26 (4), p.962-962
Hauptverfasser: Dethier, Marie, Blairy, Sylvie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Reports an error in "Capacity for cognitive and emotional empathy in alcohol-dependent patients" by Marie Dethier and Sylvie Blairy ( Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 2012[Sep], Vol 26[3], 371-383). There was an error in the Method section on page 373. The sentence “ADs did not receive psychotropic medications at assessment.” should have read “ADs did not receive neuroleptic medications at assessment.” (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2012-13674-001.) This study assessed two previously unexplored facets of empathy in alcohol-dependent patients (ADs) divided into two groups according to Cloninger's alcoholism typology: the attribution of intentions according to emotional facial expressions (EFEs) and emotional contagion in reaction to EFEs. Twenty-three male Type-I ADs, 21 male Type-II ADs, and 24 male control participants were compared in two computerized tasks. First, participants rated the extent to which an adjective descriptive of personality weighted on interpersonal dimensions (of rejection, aggressiveness, dominance, and affiliation) corresponded with a video of a neutral EFE that changed to an intense EFE. Second, participants evaluated their own emotional states after watching a series of videos that depicted EFEs while their own face was being filmed. The results showed that Type-I ADs attributed more rejection intentions and fewer affiliation intentions to EFEs compared with controls; however, depression might better explain this biased attribution. Furthermore, AD subtypes showed a different pattern of intention attribution according to the emotions that were portrayed and the sex of the stimulus. In addition, angry EFE mimicry was stronger in Type-II ADs than other participants. Finally, ADs expressed fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions than controls when watching EFEs. These findings emphasize the importance of differentiating alcoholism subtypes and contribute to the understanding of AD interpersonal behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
ISSN:0893-164X
1939-1501
DOI:10.1037/a0030863