Summary of Part C studies

From GoodWiki

[edit] Summary of Studies about Fostering Compassion & Empathy

Originally based on a 2007 article by Jennifer Goetz, UC Berkeley

Here we have defined compassion as an emotion we feel when we perceive others in need and want to alleviate that need or suffering. But does everyone feel compassion when they see another person in need? Research reviewed above indicates stable personality differences in tendencies to feel empathic concern and personal distress (Davis, 1983; Davis et al, 1999). The articles reviewed below suggest that individual differences in compassion have genetic, cultural, and socialization factors. In addition, research shows that despite individual differences, situational and target characteristics strongly influence when and how much we feel compassion.

In the first article in this section, Batson (1983) argues that empathy (which can lead to compassion) has evolved to support prosocial behavior towards those who are genetically close to us. He also argues that by using familial symbolism, religion encourages us to expand our prosocial acts to a larger group. This view suggests that there should be both genetic and situational factors leading to differences in compassion. In a study of twins, Zahn-Waxler and colleagues (1992) found that young monozygotic twins showed more similarity in empathic response than did dizygotic twins, indicating that at least some differences empathic responses are genetically based. In addition, the work of Zhou and colleagues (2002) provides strong evidence that empathic tendencies are passed from parent to child. Parental warmth and positive expression predicted more empathic responses in children, which may only underlines the interrelatedness of biological pathways and socialization processes. Finally, research on early adulthood has shown that empathy, sympathy, and prosocial behaviors in childhood strongly related to sympathy and prosocial behavior in early adulthood (Eisenberg et al, 2002).

Apart from genetics and upbringing, situational and target factors affect when and how much we feel compassion. Batson and colleagues (1996) found that having experienced a need ourselves can affect how much we empathize or de-empathize with someone else. For women, this increased the likelihood that they would empathize with the target person. For men, however, it did not have such an affect. In addition, there may be certain emotions which are more likely to elicit empathy and compassion. Duan (2000) found that participants showed more empathy for pleasant emotions and sadness than they did for shame and anger, indicating that the unpleasantness of the target emotion may have an effect on empathy and compassion. Finally, a long line of research by Weiner and colleagues has shown that judgments of responsibility are key to distinguishing when we feel sympathy instead of anger. A negative act that is judged to be the target person's responsibility elicits anger. The same negative act that is judged outside of the target's responsibility elicits sympathy. This sort of analysis applies to judgments related to achievement (failure and success), to stigma (e.g. paraplegia, obesity), and to peer rejection (Weiner, 1993). As discussed earlier, it also predicts teacher's punitive responses in the classroom (Reyna & Weiner, 2001).

Research included in the bibliography (and much not included) provides ample evidence that emotional responses such compassion, sympathy, and empathy motivate prosocial behavior. However, there are clearly other possible motivators which should not be overlooked. Self-interest, valuing the group as a whole, and moral principles are all non-emotional ways to motivate people to work towards the public good (Batson, Ahmad, & Tsang, 2002).