Overall: The book begins by introducing some of the most foundational concepts of empathy, including its evolutionary roots, bases in the brain, and its relationship to kind actions. As such, the claims in this chapter rest on strong theoretical and empirical evidence, and are supported by a wealth of interdisciplinary research from fields including psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and economics.
Claim 0.1: Empathy is related to kindness and prosociality.
Rating: 5
Claim 0.2: Evolution favors empathy, through selective advantages for prosocial organisms.
Rating: 5
Claim 0.3: Empathic individuals excel professionally.
Rating: 4
Claim 0.4: Empathic individuals experience greater subjective well-being.
Rating: 4
Claim 0.5: It is easier to empathize with one person than many people.
Rating: 4
Claim 0.6: “Mirroring” in the brain is associated with empathy.
Rating: 5
Overall: Several claims in this chapter, such as the genetic and environmental determinants of empathy, are backed up by a great deal of interdisciplinary research. However, other claims concern research that is either so new it has yet to be replicated or claims for which a consensus is still emerging.
Claim 1.1: IQ/intelligence can change with experience.
Rating: 5
Claim 1.2: Empathy is, in part, genetically determined.
Rating: 5
Claim 1.3: Children’s environments impact their levels of empathy.
Rating: 4
Claim 1.4: People who carry out necessary evils (such as giving bad news) experience reduced empathy.
Rating: 4
Claim 1.5: People who undergo intense suffering often become more prosocial as a result.
Rating: 3
There is ample evidence to support the claim that intense suffering can lead to increased empathy and prosociality. But in other cases, the opposite is true—violence begets violence, and suffering can make people crueler or abusive. Several review papers outline well-articulated theories of when and why suffering should lead to positive outcomes, rather than downward cycles, but further research is needed to test these theories.
Claim 1.6: Mindsets about the malleability of empathy influence people’s empathy.
Rating: 1
Our work cited in this chapter is the first examining mindsets about empathy, and it has yet to be tested in many independent replication studies. Two projects have examined the construct of empathic mindsets in tangentially related ways. One found that people low in empathy tend toward aggression, but not if they hold a malleable mindset. Another found that inducing a malleable mindset did not increase the likelihood that participants would forgive prisoners for their crimes. Overall, more research on this topic is needed to confirm the effects of mindsets about empathy we documented.
Overall: This chapter considers people’s control over their emotions and empathy, and highlights motives that drive people toward or away from empathizing. Several of these claims are based on years of well-established evidence, but others are still subject to debate among psychologists.
Claim 2.1: We have the ability to control and regulate our emotions.
Rating: 5
Claim 2.2: In situations when it’s important to build relationships, people ramp up their empathy.
Rating: 3
Much research supports the idea that empathy is important for relationship building. Further, research on loneliness and impression management does suggest that people in these situations ramp up their empathy. But relatively little research explicitly creates situations in which relationship building is critical in order to causally test the effects of affiliative desire on empathy.
Claim 2.3: People empathize to help bolster their moral self-image.
Rating: 4
Claim 2.4: When people think empathizing will be painful, they avoid it.
Rating: 4
Claim 2.5: Stress reduces empathy.
Rating: 3
Particularly in caring professions where burnout is common, evidence supports a link between increased stress and burnout and reduced empathy. However, most studies on this topic are correlational, not causal. Furthermore, although some studies demonstrate that stress can reduce perspective-taking abilities, at least one study finds that stress can increase short-term prosocial behavior. More experimental studies are needed to fully understand the relationship between stress and empathy.
Claim 2.6: When people believe empathy is a valued norm, they empathize more.
Rating: 4
Claim 2.7: Purposely cultivating empathy alters the brain.
Rating: 3
Several well-conducted studies indicate that empathy and compassion training lead to corresponding changes in the brain. However, almost all of this work focuses on brain changes resulting from contemplative practice, such as loving-kindness meditation. These studies should be augmented by additional research examining the neural effects of other empathy-building practices.
Overall: Centered around contact theory and its related claims, this chapter’s foundation is one of the most well-studied areas in the social sciences. The majority of claims in this chapter have been tested in diverse contexts, across hundreds of studies with thousands of participants.
Claim 3.1: People naturally empathize more with members of their in-groups, as compared to outsiders.
Rating: 5
Claim 3.2: We fail to empathize—and often experience antipathy—in competitive contexts.
Rating: 5
Claim 3.3: Contact generally increases empathy for outsiders.
Rating: 5
Claim 3.4: Contact can bolster empathy for outsiders amid conflict or competition.
Rating: 5
Claim 3.5: Specific conditions (for example, those laid out by Gordon Allport) are necessary in order for contact to foster empathy toward outsiders
Rating: 3
There are many studies documenting differences in the effects of contact across situations, but little agreement about which parameters are required for contact to “work,” as reflected in a recent meta-analysis.
Overall: This chapter discusses the role of narrative arts in building empathy. Compared to contact theory, there are relatively few well-controlled studies assessing the impact of the arts on our empathy. Claims in this chapter receive a low score based not on negative findings, but rather on a lack of systematic replication. That said, an increasing number of studies—including a recent meta-analysis—provide emerging evidence for the effects of storytelling on empathy. More research in this domain will help confirm or contextualize these findings.
Claim 4.1: Theater grows empathy.
Rating: 3
Despite a few well-conducted studies with promising findings, other work in this domain often a) relies on self-report; b) leads to no significant objective improvements; or c) has no control group. More well-designed, empirical work is needed to examine the extent to which theater practices grow empathy.
Claim 4.2: Literature grows empathy.
Rating: 4
Claim 4.3: Reading literature can reduce criminal offenses.
Rating: 1
Much research exists showing the benefits of education for incarcerated individuals, and there are many anecdotal reports of the benefits of bibliotherapy (that is, reading literature) for prison populations. However, outside of the evaluation of Changing Lives Through Literature itself, there are almost no experimental tests of the benefit of reading literature on the outcome of criminal recidivism.
Claim 4.4: Narrative art can reduce intergroup conflict.
Rating: 4
Overall: This chapter highlights the benefits and limitations of empathy in the context of caregiving, with a focus on medical settings. The majority of claims rest on well-documented, rigorous research, including large-scale randomized control trials and meta-analyses, though one claim is also the subject of some debate.
Claim 5.1: Compassion fatigue is prevalent among caring professions and detrimental to them.
Rating: 5
Claim 5.2: Provider empathy has salutary consequences for patient outcomes.
Rating: 5
Claim 5.3: For healthcare professionals, empathy has pitfalls.
Rating: 3
The findings around this claim are mixed: Evidence suggests empathy can produce negative consequences for medical professionals—including burnout, distress, and reduced provider efficacy—but other research suggests empathy can protect against burnout and increase provider efficacy. As described in the chapter, this likely hinges on the type of empathy (distress versus concern) caregivers experience.
Claim 5.4: Social support buffers against burnout.
Rating: 5
Claim 5.5: Mindfulness reduces burnout for caregivers.
Rating: 5
Claim 5.6: Mindfulness increases caregiver empathy.
Rating: 4
Overall: Some of this chapter’s claims, such as those concerning the power of norms, are extremely well supported by decades of interdisciplinary research. Other claims, however, such as those involving the potential for empathy interventions to transform policing and classroom discipline, rely on new research that has yet to be replicated on a large scale.
Claim 6.1: Social norms influence our thoughts and actions.
Rating: 5
Claim 6.2: People conform to perceived norms and often overestimate the prevalence of extreme positions.
Rating: 5
Claim 6.3: Empathy begets empathy: Positive and empathic norms spread.
Rating: 4
Claim 6.4: Interpersonal training programs for police improve policing outcomes.
Rating: 3
Several studies suggest that training focused on police officer empathy, conflict management, or procedural justice can improve policing outcomes, for instance, by helping officers de-escalate dangerous situations. However, relatively few studies have assessed such training programs experimentally, using control groups and looking at important outcomes over time.
Claim 6.5: Empathy bias, or preferential empathy for one’s in-group, often outweighs an individual’s overall empathy, particularly during intergroup conflict.
Rating: 2
The study by Bruneau et al. cited with this claim is quite recent and has not yet been replicated by multiple, independent groups. Although it is consistent with many studies on empathy bias and the power of in-group/out-group empathy, there have been almost no studies directly comparing empathy bias to overall empathy. Thus, the specific argument that empathy bias matters more than overall empathy has not been empirically tested in many studies.
Claim 6.6: Social and Emotional Learning programs lead to many benefits (particularly for young children).
Rating: 5
Claim 6.7: Empathic discipline helps classrooms.
Rating: 1
Jason Okonofua’s study on this topic is promising and well conducted, but this research is so new it has yet to be replicated, and no other studies have examined the impact of empathy-focused discipline in an educational setting.
Overall: This chapter’s central claims concern the impact of technology on human empathy. Like the technology discussed, much of this research is new. However, many of the claims in this chapter—about both the positive and negative effects of technology on empathy—are well supported. The most controversial claim of this chapter, accordingly, is whether increased technology and Internet use increases or decreases empathy. As the other claims indicate: It depends on how we use it!
Claim 7.1: Increased technology/Internet use is associated with decreases in empathy.
Rating: 2
When technology and Internet use supplant face-to-face interaction, they leave people less sociable and less likely to interact with those around them. However, in other cases, Internet and social media use can make people more empathetic and open-minded. In other words, online experiences can either increase or decrease empathy, depending on whether they replace or supplement other types of social interaction.
Claim 7.2: Internet anonymity encourages cyberbullying.
Rating: 4
Claim 7.3: Internet echo chambers encourage and reward extreme and emotional views.
Rating: 4
Claim 7.4: Virtual reality experiences can decrease stereotyping and discrimination.
Rating: 4
Claim 7.5: Virtual reality can build empathy.
Rating: 4
Claim 7.6: Online communities can provide meaningful and helpful support to their members.
Rating: 4
Claim 7.7: Giving to others helps the helper, making them happier or more fulfilled.
Rating: 5
Overall: Claims in the epilogue focus on leveraging empathy and related emotions to create a better future. While some of this research is well supported, much of it is new. More direct replications will help assess the reliability of this early work.
Claim 8.1: Gratitude helps people think about the long term.
Rating: 3
Several promising studies suggest that gratitude helps facilitate long-term thinking, making people more likely to delay gratification or sacrifice for future generations. However, this body of evidence is still relatively small, and further research is needed to replicate these findings.
Claim 8.2: Awe inspires connectedness and generosity.
Rating: 4
Claim 8.3: When people think about their legacy, they become more committed to sacrificing for future generations.
Rating: 3
Several compelling studies suggest that helping individuals think about their legacies encourages people to sacrifice for future generations, for example, by engaging in sustainable activities to address climate change. However, these lines of research are relatively new and need to be replicated.