Is this generation less empathetic Is this generation less empathetic? Exploring empathy in the 21st century. Mary Buckingham & Nicole Muniz, St. Joseph’s College, New York Measures Empathy Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, M. H., 1983) 14-item 5 point Likert scale rated from 1 (does not describe me well) to 5 (describes me very well). Empathic Concern (7 items): Sample item: I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. Perspective Taking (7 items): Sample item: I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. Religiosity (Rohrbaugh & Jessor,1975) 4-item scale examines importance of religion rated from 1 (not important at all) to 4 (very important). Sample item: To be able to turn to prayer when you’re facing a personal problem. Spirituality 17- item 5 point Likert scale rated from 1 (not true of me) to 5 (very true of me) assessing 3 dimensions of spirituality. Awe/ Awakening (6 items) Sample item: I have experienced awe when thinking about the nature of the world around me. Belonging/ Connecting (7 items) Sample item: I have experienced a feeling of emotional connection to people I have never met. Way of Life (4 of items): Sample item: I see each day, good or bad, as an opportunity for growth. Life Events 21-item scale examines the number and perceived impact of events before the age of 17 from 1 (very bad) to 4 (very good). Sample item: Your parents divorced, financial hardships, loss, illness Student Engagement Survey of Personal and Social Development (Jessor, R., Costa, F., & Turbin, M., 2003) Participation in volunteering activities and technology use rated from 1 (none) to 6 (more than 15 hours a week). Volunteering: Sample item: Doing volunteer work? Technology : Sample item: Playing computer games or video games, surfing the internet, etc.? Procedure Procedures followed APA ethical recommendations. Participants filled out a demographic questionnaire, self-report measures on family structure, items on technology use and volunteering, stressful life events, spirituality, religiosity and empathy. Professors administered the questionnaires to their students before or after class and asked the students to complete them. Empathic Concern as a Function of Parents’ Marital Status and Gender Perspective-Taking as a Function of Parents’ Marital Status and Gender Abstract In a recent study examining changes in empathy over time, Konrath, O’Brien & Hsing (2010) demonstrated that this generation is less empathetic than previous generations. Although not examined, Konrath et al., (2010) suggested a variety of predictors which would explain this drop in empathy (i.e., technology, parenting practices, etc.). In this study, we examined the correlates of empathy. A sample of 194 young adults completed established self-report measures of technology use, volunteering, spirituality, religiosity, family structure, stressful life events and empathy. Our sample was more empathetic than the Konrath 2005-2009 sample. Interestingly, an interaction was found between parents' marital status and gender, such that females from split families scored higher on empathy than (1) males from split families and (2) females and males from intact families. In contrast, males from split families scored the lowest on empathy. For both genders, empathy was related to religiosity and spirituality, but not volunteering, technology use, or stress. A 2 (gender) X 2 (intact vs. divorced) ANOVA indicated: -Gender F(1,183) = 22.53, p = .00, Females > Males, hp2 = .11 -Parents’ Marital Status F (1,182) = .05, p = ns -Interaction: F(1,182) = 3.80, p = .053, hp2 = .02 -R2 = .11 A 2 (gender) X 2 (intact vs. divorced) ANOVA indicated: -Gender F(1,182) = 8.05, p = .005, Females > Males, hp2 = .04 -Parents’ Marital Status F (1,182) = .22, p = ns -Interaction: F(1,182) = 2.74, p = .099, hp2 = .02 -R2 = .06 Correlates of Empathy for Males and Females Variable Empathic Concern Perspective Taking Females n=146 Males n=48 n=145 M SD Religiosity .23 .65* -.04 .30* 10.87 3.89 10.15 4.34 Spirituality .52 .54* .42 .36* 58.64 11.14 55.60 12.09 Life Events .09 -.06 .15 -.17 5.02 2.96 5.72 3.47 Life Stress -.01 .02 .08 .29* 2.03 .53 2.15 .54 Technology .12 .07 .03 3.40 1.22 3.75 1.33 Volunteering .10 .06 .01 1.76 1.06 1.36 .61*a 1 .50* 4.12 .59 3.63 .72*a 3.67 .73 3.22 .96*a Introduction Empathy has been defined as the ability to understand the affective states of another individual, has been positively correlated with prosocial behavior such as cooperation and helping, and negatively correlated with antisocial behavior such as isolation and conflict (Grühn, Rebucal, Diehl, Lumley & Labouvie-Vief, 2008; Konrath et al., 2010). Davis (1983) has argued that empathy includes affective (i.e., empathic concern) and cognitive components (i.e., perspective taking). Overall, females have been found to have higher levels of empathy than males. In addition, prosocial behaviors have been linked to both spirituality and religiosity (Markstrom, Huey, Stiles, & Krause, 2010; Cline & Richards, 1965) In the last thirty years, especially the last decade, there has been an apparent decline in empathy among American college students (Konrath, O’Brien, & Hsing, 2010). Suggested explanations for this decline have included a cohort characterized by technology use (e.g., social networking, game playing), individualism and, materialism (and less meaningful pro-social behaviors (Konrath et. al., 2010). For example, volunteering has been related to course or college admission requirements rather than interest in helping. The purpose of the present study was to examine the correlates of empathy in a current cohort of college students. We examined traditional correlates of empathy (i.e., religiosity, spirituality, life events, technology use, volunteering, empathy). In addition, gender differences were taken into consideration. Results Descriptive statistics: Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha Coefficients and Skewness Variable n+ M SD α Range Potential Actual Skew Religiosity 192 10.69 4.00 .93 4-16 -.34 Spirituality 193 57.89 11.43 .87 17-85 30.81-85 -.18 Life Events 5.55 3.36 .72 0-21 0-19 .82 Life Event Stress 188 2.06 0.54 .61 1-4 1-3.5 .30 Technology Use 194 3.49 1.25 n/a 1-6 .38 Volunteering 1.66 0.98 2.04 Empathic Concern 0.66 .62 1-5 1.63-5 -.55 Perspective Taking 3.59 0.81 .64 -.27 Research Hypotheses Religiosity, spirituality, and volunteering will be positively correlated to empathy. Technology use will be negatively correlated to empathy. Females will score higher than males in empathy. *p < 0.05 a Volunteering (t (191)= -2.39); Empathic Concern (t (192) = -4.70); Perspective Taking (t (191)= -2.66) Conclusions Contrary to expectations, this sample was more empathetic than the 2005-2009 Konrath cohort. Females had higher levels of empathic concern, perspective taking, and volunteering than males. However, overall the correlates of empathy did not differ for males and females. Spirituality and religiosity emerged as strong predictors of empathy, especially for males. Technology use, volunteering and number of life events were not related to empathy. For males, perceived life stress emerged as weak correlate. In addition, parents’ marital status was related to empathy. Females from families who were non-traditional (i.e., split) were the most empathetic whereas males from split families were the least empathetic. Future research should explore the role of martial status on the development of empathy in males and females. Future research should use a more detailed picture of volunteering including motives for such behavior (i.e., interest in helping, college admissions requirements). Finally, a deeper analysis of how technology (e.g., video games, surfing the internet, and video games) relates to empathy should be pursued. Method Participants 194 undergraduate students (48 male and 146 females) from a small private suburban commuter college. Average age : 20.33 years, SD=3.46. 84% Caucasian (n=163) Year in college 11.3% freshman (n=22) 27.8% sophomore (n=54) 40.7% juniors (n=79) 20.1% seniors (n=39) Intact Families 71% (n=133) One sample t-test indicated a significant difference for empathic concern between Konrath ‘s et al., 2005-2009 cohort and our sample (t (192)= 10.60, p =.00). One sample t-test indicated a significant difference for perspective taking between Konrath’s et al., 2005-2009 cohort and our sample (t (192)= 4.94, p =.00). Supervisor: Dominique Treboux, Ph.D.