Implications of Life Stressors and Anxiety on Empathy

1. Implications of Life Stressors and Anxiety on Empathy Nicole Muniz & Mary Buckingham, 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. • 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). Items were also subdivided into “family chaos” and “financial stress” events. • Family Chaos sample items: Your parents divorced, The number of arguments between your parents increased • Financial Stress sample items: You changed your residence more than twice, There was a change in your mother’s (father's) financial status • Daily Hassles • Negative Event Scale (Maybery D.J., Neale, J., Arentz, A. & Jones-Ellis J., 2007) • 50-item 5 point Likert scale examines the hassles that have occurred in the last month and perceived severity of the hassle from 0 (did not occur) to 5 (event occurred and an extreme hassle). • Sample items: Your workload, your health, rejection by your spouse/partner, problems finding a job • Anxiety • State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger C.D., Gorsuch, R.L. & Lushene, R.E., 1964) • 20-item 4 point Likert scale rated from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). • Sample items: I feel upset, I feel at ease, I feel nervous • Procedure • Procedures followed APA ethical recommendations. Participants filled out a demographic questionnaire, self-report measures on family structure, stressful life events, daily hassles, anxiety and empathy. Professors administered the questionnaires to their students before or after class and asked the students to complete them. Abstract Previous research has suggested that empathy is positively correlated with prosocial behaviors such as cooperation and helping (Konrath, O’Brien & Hsing, 2010). Lower socioeconomic status has also been correlated with prosocial behavior (Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, 2010). Additionally, it has been suggested that individuals in a lower socioeconomic status experience more anxiety, more stressful life events, and more daily stressors (Gallo, Bogart, Vranceanu, & Matthews, 2005). In this study, we examined several correlates of lower socioeconomic status, such as anxiety, stressful life events and daily hassles, in relation to empathy in a sample of 96 young adults. Participants completed established self report measures on family structure, childhood life events, state and trait anxiety, daily hassles and empathy. Anxiety was positively correlated with overall empathy. Analyses suggested that daily hassles, anxiety, stressful life events and life stress were not significantly correlated with the affective subscale of empathy. However,. Parents’ marital status emerged as a predictor of empathy, such that females from split families scored higher on empathy than (1) males from split families and (2) females and males from intact families. Empathic Concern as a Function of Parents’ Marital Status and Gender Perspective-Taking as a Function of Parents’ Marital Status and Gender A 2 (gender) X 2 (intact vs. divorced) ANOVA indicated: -Gender F(1,96) = 1.62, p = ns, hp2= .02 -Parents’ Marital Status F (1,96) = .56, p = ns -Interaction: F(1,96) = .28, p = ns, hp2= .00 -R2 = .02 A 2 (gender) X 2 (intact vs. divorced) ANOVA indicated: -Gender F(1,96) = 8.67, p = .00, Females > Males, hp2=.09 -Parents’ Marital Status F (1,96) =.22, p = ns -Interaction: F(1,96) = .41, p = ns, hp2= .00 -R2 = .09 Correlates of Compassion (Empathy) for Males and Females Introduction • Empathy, the ability to understand the affective states of another individual, has been positively correlated with prosocial behaviors such as cooperation and helping, and negatively correlated with antisocial behaviors such as isolation and conflict (Grühn, Rebucal, Diehl, Lumley & Labouvie-Vief, 2008; Konrath et al., 2010). Davis (1983) has argued that empathy includes an affective component (empathic concern) and a cognitive component (perspective taking). Overall, females have been found to have higher levels of empathy than males. • Previous research on empathy has suggested that individuals with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to exhibit prosocial behaviors, specifically cooperation, egalitarianism, and generosity (Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, 2010). Additionally, it has been hypothesized that such individuals are more likely to experience higher anxiety levels as well as financial strain (Gallo, Bogart, Vranceanu, & Matthews, 2005). Research on anxiety has suggested a positive relationship between empathy and anxiety, in that individuals high in empathy may exhibit higher levels of state anxiety while individuals low in empathy may exhibit lower levels of state anxiety (Kendall, Finch, & Montgomery, 1978). • The purpose of the present study was to examine empathy in college students. We examined several correlates of empathy (i.e., daily hassles, stressful life events, anxiety, compassion ). In addition, gender differences as well as socioeconomic status were taken into consideration. Results Descriptive statistics: Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha Coefficients and Skewness ResearchHypotheses • Negative life events, life stress, anxiety and daily hassles will all be positively correlated to empathy. • Students from a lower socioeconomic background will display higher levels of empathy. • Females will score higher than males in empathy. *p < 0.05 **t-tests indicated gender differences for Empathic Concern (t (94) = -2.97); Compassion (t (94)= -2.30) Conclusions • For males, anxiety was related to the cognitive component of compassion (PT). This finding is consistent with previous research. However, our research suggests that it may the cognitive component of empathy rather than the affective component that may be related to anxiety. In addition, future research should examine anxiety as a possible mediating factor between difficult events and compassion. • 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. Overall, females had higher levels of empathic concern than males. • For both males and females, mothers’ educational level was related to the cognitive component of compassion (PT). • However, childhood life events/ stress and daily hassles were not related to compassion. The majority of our students, similar to many college students, come from non-stressed educated families. Indeed, most of our samples had at least one parent who was college educated. This restricted range in socioeconomic background may explain why an association between financial stress and empathy did not emerge-a link demonstrated in previous research (Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, 2010). Future research should examine compassion in college students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. • Our research suggests that the number of negative events do not affect compassion. However, specific life events may be more meaningful in the development of empathy as suggested by our findings regarding parental divorce and mothers’ education. Future research should examine the role of specific events (i.e., personal illness, family illness, parent absence) in the development of empathy. Method • Participants • 96 undergraduate students (38 male and 58 females) from a small private suburban commuter college. • Average age : 20.71 years, SD=4.51. • 73% Caucasian (n=73) • Year in college • 14.6% freshman (n=14) • 24% sophomore (n=23) • 45.8% juniors (n=44) • 15.6% seniors (n=15) • Intact Families 63.5% (n=61) Parents’ EducationalBackground Socioeconomic Status (Derived from Parents’ Education) *p < 0.05 Supervisor: Dominique Treboux, Ph.D.