## 4 The Pilot Study
### Results  
The following results are related to combined indexes for the two sessions (Google Maps and Ticket Office), both when participants receive both when they give help to the virtual confederate; only in one case we reported a measure referred in particular to the second session (Ticket office), and it has been reported in the Table 1.  
Starting from the participants evaluation of the VR experience, a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) of participants' evaluations of their VR experiences (Figure 2), we can definitively report that the participants felt mainly interested, curious, relaxed, and at ease within effect: F (8) = 56.03; \(p<0.000\); \(\eta^{2}=0.25\)]. No significant effect of ethnicity within effect: F (1, 8) = 0.82; \(p=0.37\)] or social appearance within effect: F (1, 8) = 1,40; \(p\) = 0.13] on the VR experience was reported, showing the global quality of the experience. Without considering the experimental conditions, the results revealed the correlation between EEG measures and the two main components of self-assessed empathy (distress and empathic interest) are correlated (Table 1). The level of alertness recorded during the VR session is positively correlated the self-assessed negative part of empathy, personal distress (r\({}^{2}\) = 0.369; \(p\) \(<\) 0.041), and negatively correlated with empathic interest (r\({}^{2}\) = \(-\)0.346; \(p\) \(<\) 0.050) and empathy (r\({}^{2}\) = \(-\)0.457; \(p\) \(<\) 0.010). Thus, when participants felt a high level of alertness in general and in the second session in particular (\"Ticket Office,\" when participants are given the opportunity to offer help to a stranger), they displayed higher levels of distress (r\({}^{2}\) = 0.392; \(p\) \(<\) 0.022) and less empathic interest (r\({}^{2}\) = \(-\)0.343; \(p\) \(<\) 0.050) and empathy (r\({}^{2}\) = \(-\)0.446; \(p\) \(<\) 0.008). Thus, the level of alertness seems to indicate a sense of distress regarding the person in a state of need rather than the positive part of empathy (i.e., empathic interest). In the case of calmness and engagement, the correlations with empathy are not significant (specifically, for the correlation between _calmness_ and respectively distress, empathic interest and empathy: r\({}^{2}\) = 0.084; \(p\) = 0.63; r\({}^{2}\) = \(-\)0.076; \(p\) = 0.66; r\({}^{2}\) = \(-\)1.00; \(p\) = 0.57; for the correlation between engagement and respectively distress, empathic interest and empathy: r\({}^{2}\) = 0.029; \(p\) = 0.87; r\({}^{2}\) = 0.036; \(p\) = 0.84; r\({}^{2}\) = 0.14; \(p\) = 0.89). Multivariate ANOVA with the confederate social appearance and group type used as independent variables revealed that alertness (Figure 3a) is higher in counter-stereotypical conditions--those in which a member of the outgroup, who had black ethnicity, was dressed as a businessman and an \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & & **Distress** & **Empathic Interest** & **Empathy** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Total Alertness (BBR)} & Pearson Correlation & 0.369 * & \(-\)0.346 * & \(-\)0.457 ** \\ \cline{2-5}  & Sign. & 0.041 & 0.050 & 0.010 \\ \cline{2-5}  & N & 31 & 31 & 31 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Session 2 Alertness (BBR)} & Pearson Correlation & 0.392 * & \(-\)0.343 * & \(-\)0.446 ** \\ \cline{2-5}  & Sign. & 0.022 & 0.050 & 0.008 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & N & 34 & 34 & 34 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Correlations between alertness and distress, empathic interest, and empathy. Figure 2: VR experience evaluation. The y-axis represents the mean of each item reported on the x-axis. Bar Errors +/\(-\)2 SE. ingroup member, who had white ethnicity, was dressed as a beggar.