Edward H. O'Brien - Why Is Empathy Decreasing? lyrics

The relationship between personality and culture is dynamic, with societal changes affecting empathy and changes in empathy feeding back into societal beliefs and norms. Our data cannot directly speak to the causes of the observed decline in empathy over time, but we can speculate on parallel trends in society that may be related. It is particularly important to speculate why these changes are most apparent after 2000. Behaviors and attitudes consistent with a decline in empathy. Some of the correlates of empathy are also changing in step with it, although we cannot know for certain whether these changes are directly tied to the observed changes in empathy. As discussed previously, narcissism, which is negatively correlated with empathy, has been rising in American college students over a similar time period (Twenge et al., 2008). Behaviors and attitudes have also shifted in a direction that may be consistent with declines in empathy. For example, in a 2006 survey, 81% of 18- to 25-year-olds said that getting rich was among their generation's most important goals; 64% named it as the most important goal of all. In contrast, only 30% chose helping others who need help (Pew Research Center, 2007). Indeed, critics of the current generation of young adults have given them a variety of derogatory nicknames, ranging from “Generation Me” (Twenge, 2006) to the “Look At Me” generation (Mallan, 2009). Their overall message has been consistent: Young adults today compose one of the most self-concerned, competitive, confident, and individualistic cohorts in recent history. Not surprisingly, this growing emphasis on the self has also come with a decreased emphasis on others. In one survey, more than 90% of American adults reported it was important to promote volunteerism, yet given the choice, more than half of the sample chose reading, watching television, and visiting in-laws over volunteering for or donating to charity (Kelton Research, 2007). Similarly, young adults from 18 to 25 (precisely the age range of most college students) consistently give the least amount of money to charity among all age groups (Gallup, 2006), giving less than 1.5% of their after-tax incomes in 2005 alone (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005). Another study found that only 3 in 10 young adults donated to church within a given year, whereas the percentage of individuals in other demographics who donated was double that, even when adjusting for relative income (Generous Giving, 2009). Perhaps these trends reflect the link between high empathy and low charitable giving as originally reported by Davis (1983c). Indeed, volunteerism and charitable giving are consistently low among young adults (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005; 2009c) and have decreased significantly throughout the 2000s (Philanthropic Giving Index, 2008; also see Helms & Marcelo, 2007), as would be predicted by a corresponding decline in empathy. However, these statistics related to charity over time might certainly be conflated with economic hardship. To try to remedy these outstanding issues, we tested whether the observed changes in empathy over time would remain after controlling for some measure of general economic health and found that they did. Increases in violence and bullying Aside from volunteerism and charitable donations, other societal trends support the claim that empathy is declining. For example, violent and aggressive acts significantly increased from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s among American college students who were self-reported moderate or heavy drinkers (Engs & Hanson, 1994). Binge drinking, driving while intoxicated, and accidental alcohol-related d**hs have all shown comparable increases from 1998 to 2006; moreover, the number of alcohol- related physical a**aults committed by college students has, at the very least, remained constant since then (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2007). Taken together, these trends may reflect Giancola's (2003) finding that those who score low on the Davis IRI are more likely to exhibit alcohol-related aggression if empathy is in fact declining among American college students. Statistics on violence among younger people reveal similar patterns; bullying is still quite prevalent in schools, with recent dramatic increases in bullying committed by females (e.g., Berger & Rodkin, 2009). Given the negative correlation between the IRI and bullying (Ireland, 1999) along with the well-established gender divide with females consistently exhibiting greater empathy (e.g., Batson et al., 1996; Davis, 1983c; Klein & Hodges, 2001; Macask**, Maltby, & Day, 2002; Rueckert & Naybar, 2008), this rise in female bullying may be a consequence of empathy being on a significant decline. Changes in media and technology Media consumption appears to be increasingly popular as technological developments continue to advance. Most obvious is the explosion of “social” media. Friendster was developed in 2002 (Lapinski, 2006), MySpace in 2003 (Lapinski, 2006), Facebook in 2004 (Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2006), YouTube in 2005 (Gueorguieva, 2007), and Twitter in 2006 (Lenhart & Fox, 2009). In turn, almost 50% of American Internet users now have online social profiles (Arbitron, 2010). According to one report, time spent social networking is up 82% from previous years as of 2009 (Whitney, 2010). Similarly, cell phone use has risen dramatically: The average American teen now sends and receives around 1,500 text messages per month, and nearly all teens use their phones for functions other than talking, such as playing games and listening to music (Pew Research Center, 2009). Such technology is easy and pervasive: More than 100 million people access Facebook with their cell phones (Media Literacy Clearinghouse, 2010), and more Americans now than ever before report using television and the Internet simultaneously (Nielsen, 2009). Moreover, 29.9% of television-owning households in the United States now contain at least four televisions (Reisinger, 2010), and television viewing recently reached an all-time high (Media Literacy Clearinghouse, 2010). Indeed, a multiyear research study revealed that the average American is exposed to a 350% increase in total information outside of work than the average amount they experienced only 30 years ago (Bohn & Short, 2009). As a result, we speculate that one likely contributor to declining empathy is the rising prominence of personal technology and media use in everyday life. Clearly, these changes have fundamentally affected the lives of everyone who has access to them. With so much time spent interacting with others online rather than in reality, interpersonal dynamics such as empathy might certainly be altered. For example, perhaps it is easier to establish friends and relationships online, but these sk**s might not translate into smooth social relations in real life. There have been significant declines in the number of organizations and meetings people are involved in as well as in the number of average family dinners and friendly visits (Putnam, 2000; Putnam & Feldstein, 2004). Indeed, people today have a significantly lower number of close others to whom they can express their private thoughts and feelings (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears, 2006). Alternatively, the ease and speed of such technology may lead people to become more readily frustrated or bored when things do not go as planned (e.g., O'Brien, Anastasio, & Bushman, 2010), resulting in less empathic interactions. Furthermore, people simply might not have time to reach out to others and express empathy in a world filled with rampant technology revolving around personal needs and self-expression. The content of modern, post-2000 media might also influence empathy. For example, the rise of reality television might provide less than empathic role models for viewers. Reality programming exploded with Survivor starting in 2000 (Haralovich & Trosset, 2004) and American Idol starting in 2002 (J. Lee, 2009). Both shows revolve around single winners, multiple losers, aggressive characters, and rugged competition. Similarly, reality programming often depicts characters with unfettered narcissism (Young & Pinsky, 2006). Since then the number of programs and the ratings of these programs have grown, and they consistently dominate the television industry (Murray & Ouellette, 2008; Nabi, Biely, Morgan, & Stitt, 2003). As a result, narcissistic reality television stars are probably less empathic role models for young adults than those in previous generations, who might have modeled less narcissistic figures such as parents (e.g., Hoffman & Saltzstein, 1967). Overall, the agentic and narcissistic qualities found in modern media seem consistent with decreasing empathy. In addition, exposure to media and technology may desensitize people to the pain of others if people are constantly bombarded with reports of violence, war, terrorism, and so on (e.g., Bushman & Anderson, 2009). In turn, the content of media— from news reports to video games to television in general— contains an increasing amount of violent coverage (Media Awareness Network, 2010). From this perspective, a decline in empathy seems understandable. Another by-product of these trends might be increased feelings of personal threat because of exposure to media violence, resulting in unrealistic fears of crime and terrorism. Perhaps more prominent public acts of violence, such as those from September 11, 2001, further enhance biases against the outside world. Accordingly, this increase in fear might lead people to be less likely to reach out to others and express empathy (e.g., Altheide, 2009). In short, although personal technology and media use have exploded over the past decade, their potential negative interpersonal effects—such as leading people to care more about themselves and to interact less with real others—might also cause a decrease in empathy. Changing parenting and family practices Surprisingly, there does not appear to be direct correlations between parental empathy and child empathy (Strayer & Roberts, 2004). Instead, links between parental and child empathy are mediated by a number of factors. Parents who promote empathy development in their children are low in controlling punishment styles (e.g., Krevans & Gibbs, 1996; Strayer & Roberts, 2004) and high in warmth and responsiveness (e.g., Barnett, 1987; Davidov & Grusec, 2006; Kanat-Maymon & Assor, 2010; W. L. Roberts, 1999; Strayer & Roberts, 2004; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979) and other-oriented punishment strategies (e.g., “imagine how he must feel”; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). They also promote children's emotional expressiveness (e.g., Strayer & Roberts, 2004). A longitudinal study examining which parental attitudes and behaviors predicted empathy 26 years later found that empathy was higher in adults if their fathers were involved in child care, their mothers were tolerant of their dependent behavior, their mothers inhibited their aggression when they were children, and their mothers were satisfied with their maternal roles. One way to think of the trends in empathy involves possible generational changes in parenting abilities and styles. The average age of first-time mothers in 1985 was 24 (Mathews & Hamilton, 2009), meaning that new parents of the mid-1980s were the college students of the early 1980s (i.e., the ones who began a trend of rising narcissism; Twenge et al., 2008). Twenty years later, their children were graduating college and exhibiting higher narcissism (Twenge et al., 2008) and the declines in empathy found in the current study. Taken together, the literature suggests that one potential cause of the recent decline in empathy scores might be changes in parenting styles. Perhaps parents have become more controlling and less warm and responsive, less focused on teaching children to imagine others' feelings, less willing to promote their children's emotional expressiveness, less tolerant of dependent behavior, more unhappy with the sacrifice that parenting requires, and more accepting of their children's aggression. What kind of parents might fit most of these characteristics? This is speculative, but the list of characteristics reads like a checklist for narcissism, so it is possible that as parents are becoming more narcissistic, their children are, in turn, becoming less empathic. A related contributor might be shrinking family sizes over time (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2009). For example, in the 1960s families with children had an average of 2.39 children, but this dropped to 1.85 in the 1980s, remaining relatively stable since then. Students entering college in the late 1970s and early 1980s (the beginning time point of our sample) were born in the 1960s, and those entering college in the early 2000s were born in the early 1980s. Thus, one possible explanation for the decline of dispositional empathy over time might be that children are less likely to learn important empathy-related sk**s in early home environments. Siblings can help children learn everyday empathy sk**s through intensive daily practice with managing conflicts and sharing (Tucker, Updegraff, McHale, & Crouter, 1999). Moreover, children may be occupied with technology (as noted previously; e.g., Bohn & Short, 2009) and spend more time in front of the television or computer and less quality time with family members, resulting in even fewer opportunities for empathy development. Increasing expectations of success Finally, we speculate that increased expectations of success, particularly for high school and college students, might be contributing to lower empathy. Standards for college admissions have become more rigorous, leading to record numbers of rejected applications (Leroux, 2008). This might also be a reflection of the fact that more young Americans today apply to college and compete for similar jobs on graduation than ever before (Tyre, 2008). Because social psychological research has demonstrated that people are substantially less likely to help when they are in a hurry (Darley & Batson, 1973), it is possible that people are becoming less empathic because they are feeling too busy on their paths to success. As young people are pressured to focus more single-mindedly on their own personal achievement to succeed, empathizing with others might decline. In fact, empathy might actually be a detriment to individual success in that other people, including friends, might now be seen as competitors. Although purely speculative, it might even be socially acceptable to not express empathy because showing empathy might suggest that one is not as capable of career success (i.e., one is “too soft”). Similarly, narcissism is linked with a promotion focus that revolves around personal achievement and attaining success (Konrath, O'Brien, & Bushman, 2010). In a system of competition and success like that built into American colleges (where students display high and rising narcissism; Twenge & Foster, 2008), perhaps narcissistic behavior is manifested in subtle ways, such as by cheating, lying, and manipulating others for personal gain. These behaviors would all be in line with a strong achievement motivation and a corresponding decline in empathy toward others. Counterexamples Other trends are inconsistent with a decline in empathy, however. For example, significantly more high school students volunteer their time to help others (Bachman, Johnston, & O'Malley, 2006), although volunteer rates might be increasing because many high schools began requiring community service for graduation over this same time (Howe & Strauss, 2000). Many colleges also favor volunteer work in admissions decisions, and college admissions have become more competitive. In fact, college graduates (42.8%) are nearly 5 times more likely to volunteer than high school dropouts (8.6%; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009d). Thus, given the fact that college graduates are the same individuals faced with these admission procedures, the motive for increased youth volunteering is unclear. There has also been a slight increase in the volunteer rate between 2008 (26.4%) and 2009 (26.8%), a finding that seemingly conflicts with a decline in empathy (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009e). However, for our purposes it is important to examine the data in terms of age: This increase in volunteerism was driven mainly by individuals between the ages of 35 and 54, and people in their early 20s (i.e., those most similar to our target demographic in the current study) reported the fewest volunteer hours. Moreover, as stated earlier, many reports suggest overall volunteerism is decreasing over a longer time frame despite hovering around 25%, with teenagers and young adults consistently reporting the greatest drops (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009e). Another trend that appears to be inconsistent with a decline in empathy is a reduction in crime, diverging from previous findings that link criminal behavior with low empathy (e.g., Bova**o et al., 2002; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004). Crime has declined since the early 1990s (Donohue & Levitt, 2001), and violent criminal acts such as murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated a**ault have all shown steady, marked decreases from the early 1990s to the late 2000s (Rand, 2008). These generalized findings might first appear to suggest that empathy is stable or even increasing, but on greater scrutiny they seem to demonstrate the opposite. When controlling for type of victim, these statistics reveal that certain criminal acts have actually risen over time: Acts of violence against the homeless have shown dramatic increases, especially over the past 10 years, and were recently estimated to be at an all-time high (Lewan, 2007; National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009); hate crimes against Hispanics and perceived immigrants as well as against lesbians, gays, and bis**ual and transgender individuals are all significantly increasing (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, 2009); and hit-and-run car accidents have increased by about 20% since 1998 (Heath, 2006; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009). Accordingly, these specific increases in crime against stigmatized, marginalized, or otherwise defenseless groups seem to support our claim that EC and PT are indeed on the decline.