Social Cognition
Pain Empathy Task
Also called: empathy for pain task, pain picture ratings, perceived pain judgments
Measure judgments of other people’s pain. Participants rate drawings of hands and feet in everyday mishaps and matched neutral situations. Compare the ratings for each pair.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 174
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 6
What it measures
Measures judgments of other people's pain. Participants rate drawings of hands and feet in everyday mishaps and matched neutral situations. Scores compare ratings of the paired scenes.
Constructs
- Perceived pain in others
- Pain-related social judgments
Research uses
- Social cognition research
- Pain perception research
How the paradigm works
Participants judge how much pain another person would feel from pictures of hands and feet. Twelve everyday situations each have a mishap and a matched neutral version. Original drawings keep the limb and object the same within a pair and change their relative position. Two separate practice pictures precede 24 test ratings, or 48 with the set repeated. The session seed shuffles each pass, keeping paired versions apart and allowing no more than three pictures from one condition in a row.
More about the paradigm
The bar runs from No pain to Worst possible pain, coded 0 to 100, with no initial choice or deadline. The score averages repetitions within each scene and condition, then averages mishap minus neutral differences across complete scene pairs. Hand and foot contrasts are also reported. Choices under 100 ms are excluded. Response time is descriptive.
The source used photographs in a timed imaging study. This task uses original drawings and self-paced ratings. It measures perceived pain in these situations, not an empathy ability or diagnosis. The drawings have no independent pain-intensity validation; norms are off.
Scores
- Pain rating differencepoints
- Mean mishap minus neutral rating across complete scene pairs. A contrast in perceived pain, not an empathy ability score.
- Informational
- Mean mishap ratingpoints
- Mean rating for mishap scenes in complete pairs.
- Informational
- Mean neutral ratingpoints
- Mean rating for neutral scenes in complete pairs.
- Informational
- Hand pain rating differencepoints
- Mean paired difference for the six hand situations.
- Informational
- Foot pain rating differencepoints
- Mean paired difference for the six foot situations.
- Informational
- Complete scene pairscount
- Scenes with at least one usable rating in each condition.
- Informational
- Usable ratingscount
- Ratings excluding choices under 100 ms and missing or out-of-range answers.
- Informational
- Planned ratingscount
- Number of ratings planned for this run.
- Informational
- Median rating timems
- Median time from picture onset to confirmation, for usable ratings.
- Informational
- Anticipationscount
- Ratings first chosen under 100 ms, excluded from the scores.
- Informational
Use and evidence
174 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 4% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 169 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 43 |
| 2024 | 44 |
| 2023 | 35 |
| 2022 | 22 |
| 2021 | 30 |
| 2020 | 36 |
| 2019 | 34 |
| 2018 | 37 |
| 2017 | 41 |
| 2016 | 33 |
| 2015 | 29 |
| 2014 | 19 |
| 2013 | 18 |
| 2012 | 23 |
| 2011 | 10 |
| 2010 | 11 |
| 2009 | 10 |
| 2008 | 15 |
| 2007 | 7 |
| 2006 | 5 |
| 2005 | 4 |
| 2004 | 3 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 5
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 21
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 6
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: many papers are brain imaging studies.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Pictures
- 12 situations: 6 hands and 6 feet, each with a mishap and a neutral version. Original gray drawings show everyday contact or pressure, without blood, wounds, needles or medical scenes. Only object position changes within a pair.
- Ratings
- 24 pictures once, or 48 ratings when each picture is shown twice. Two different pictures provide practice.
- Order
- The session seed shuffles each pass. Paired versions are never adjacent, and no more than three pictures from one condition appear in a row.
- Answer
- A 0 to 100 bar from No pain to Worst possible pain, with no numbers shown and no initial choice. Click, tap or use the arrow keys, then confirm. The picture stays visible; there is no deadline.
- Timing
- A 250 ms confirmation pause and a 500 ms blank between pictures. Response time is descriptive.
- Scoring
- Mean mishap minus neutral rating across complete scene pairs, with hand and foot contrasts. Repetitions are averaged within each scene and condition first. Choices under 100 ms are excluded.
The score describes perceived pain in these situations. It is not an empathy ability score or a diagnosis. This adaptation uses original drawings and self-paced ratings instead of the source’s photographs and timed presentation. The drawings have no independent pain-intensity validation; norms are off.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: pain_empathy_rating from the run with the most ratings, with duplicate stimulus occurrences counted once. Ratings have no correct answer. Repeated answers are accepted. Choosing a point under 200 ms on at least half the trials invalidates; incomplete runs are flagged. Ratings chosen under 100 ms are counted as anticipations and excluded from the scores.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Ratings describe the participant's impressions, so neither low nor repeated ratings prove an error. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Picture repetitions | Once, 24 ratings (standard) | Once, 24 ratings (standard), Twice, 48 ratings |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Pain Empathy Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Jackson, Meltzoff and Decety, 2005), with the standard settings (picture repetitions: Once, 24 ratings). The main score was pain rating difference (mean mishap minus neutral rating across complete scene pairs).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Jackson, P. L., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2005). How do we perceive the pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in empathy. NeuroImage, 24(3), 771-779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.006Paired hand and foot scenes and ratings of the pain another person would feel.
Source papers
- Jackson, P. L., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2005). How do we perceive the pain of others? A window into the neural processes involved in empathy. NeuroImage, 24(3), 771-779.Paradigm source
Questions
How long does the Pain Empathy Task take?
About 3 to 5 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Pain rating difference, Mean mishap rating, Mean neutral rating, Hand pain rating difference, Foot pain rating difference, Complete scene pairs, Usable ratings, Planned ratings, Median rating time and Anticipations. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Pain Empathy Task used in research?
174 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 4% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 169 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Pain Empathy Task have?
In the published research, 5 papers report its test-retest reliability and 6 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Picture repetitions (Once, 24 ratings (standard), Twice, 48 ratings). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.