that the student was injured. So much for em-
pathic concern!
The researchers conclude: “The evidence
we present implies that the real-world effects of
empathy are not as positive as they are often
assumed to be.”
What’s the Solution?
It might be tempting to look at these studies and
conclude that the problem is with empathy itself.
We should all just become Spocks and rationally
compute the utilitarian value of political policies
regardless of political party or the suffering of any
particular group of individuals. While I’m sure
there will be those who are all for that alternative,
I would argue that this would be a very misguided
conclusion. After all, I’ve written before how it’s our
antagonism with one another—not our empathy—
that is ripping America (and the world) apart. The
story is definitely more complex.
For one, Elizabeth Simas and her colleagues
did find a big upside to empathic concern: Where-
as empathic concern increased dislike of the out-
party, it increased comfort with out-party contact.
Those high in empathic concern were less likely to
be upset by the prospect of having a family mem-
ber or neighbor who belongs to the opposite party.
Therefore, empathic concern does have an ap-
proach-oriented aspect to it that encourages con-
tact with out-party members, even if the primary
goal of that contact is to alter behavior that is seen
as harmful to one’s in-group.
Second, even when excluding controls for em-
pathic concern and other aspects of empathy, per-
spective-taking did not significantly
reduce partisan bias. This may seem
counterintuitive to some people, who
might think that increasing perspec-
tive-taking might increase mutual un-
derstanding, but the results point out
that even that doesn’t offer a simple
solution. As developmental psycholo-
gist Paul Bloom has rightly pointed
out, even “cognitive empathy” (which
includes perspective-taking) “is over-
rated as a force for good,” consider-
ing that the ability to take the per-
spective of another person can be
used for cruelty and exploitation of others.
So what should we conclude? All else equal,
I do believe that scoring high in dispositional em-
pathic concern is a good thing. Research shows
that citizens higher in empathic concern are more
motivated to participate in the political process in
order to reduce harm. Those high in empathic con-
cern are also more likely to be attracted to the
more prosocial aspects of running for and holding
political office.
I think the findings of Simas and her col-
leagues are a reflection of the particular political
landscape which we find ourselves in. With the
rise of Trump exacerbating long-standing hostili-
ties, people are finding the need to hitch their en-
tire existence on a political identity more so than
ever and are getting stuck in their online echo
chambers to a degree perhaps unprecedented in
American history.
Therefore, in our current political climate, inwhich we have so much more shared experiences
with in-group members than out-group members,
it may indeed be possible that those predisposed
toward empathic responding are more likely to
have hostility toward their partisan “opponents”
and may even enjoy their suffering. As empathy
researcher Jamil Zaki has shown, empathy is very
contextual and is affected strongly by motivation.
Particularly when resources are limited or inter-
group conflict is featured so predominantly on
news outlets, empathy can be costly.
What we need is a stronger motivation for out-
group empathic care. The best way for that to hap-
pen, in my view, is not by decreasing one’s general
disposition toward caring for the suffering of oth-
ers but by increasing one’s contact with members
of the out-group and focusing on common experi-
ences and concerns that we all share. The good
news is that those with higher levels of empathic
concern are more likely to to be comfortable withOPINION
GETTY IMAGES