Empathy, the Coronavirus, and Political Polarization

The recent controversy over when or whether to restart the economy considering the coronavirus epidemic prompted me to examine the role of empathy in political polarization. Trump apparently prompted by arguments made by some business and investor interests publicly articulated his view that social or physical distancing, with some exceptions, should end by Easter to restart the American economy. Public health officials and related scientists suggest that such a move could endanger the health of many Americans, making the epidemic much worse.

These differing viewpoints often reflect the political polarization in our country. Republicans, with some exceptions, tend to support the restart view, especially as developed via the Fox news network. Democrats almost universally condemn such thinking as contrary to the country’s health and would further endanger the economy. Does an empathetic divide help explain these contrary positions? A recent paper by Stephen Morris may help answer this question.

Empathy

According to some research, empathy consists of three components. These include (1) an affective sharing (the capacity to feel what another is feeling or at least being able to imagine what another is feeling), (2) empathetic concern (a motivation to care about another’s welfare), and (3) perspective taking (the ability to put oneself in the mind of another and imagine what the other person is thinking or feeling). Morris suggests that the “default definition” of empathy basically rests in affective sharing.

The role of empathy in political polarization

Morris notes research on the question of empathy and political polarization is often ambivalent, but his review of the literature indicates that “the bulk of the empirical work on empathy and political attitudes offers strong reasons for rejecting Bloom’s position. By Bloom’s position, he is referring to a recent book by psychologist Paul Bloom, Against Empathy, that argues there is no difference in empathy among holders of different political attitudes. However, Morris’s careful review suggests that empathy does correlate with “one’s general political attitudes (including party affiliation) as well as with which specific policy positions one takes.” Contrary to Bloom, Morris argues that empathy relates to differences in political attitudes among liberals and conservatives and may “help explain why such attitudes have become increasingly polarized.”

Liberalism and conservatism

Numerous studies focus on explaining the existence of a political divide in America. These studies usually concentrate on one or two categories. One category emphasizes differences unrelated to personality traits. For example, reasons for the political divide between conservatives and liberals can relate to an increasingly partisan mass media, inequality, differences in education, and the increasing tendency for people to marry like-minded individuals.

The other category explains this political divide using personality variables. Liberals, for example, tend to be more open to social change, less religious, more egalitarian, less authoritarian, less punitive, more tolerant of out-groups, less concerned with in-group unity, and are less attracted to hierarchical social structures than conservatives.

These personality variable differences also help explain policy differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals look more favorably on policies that reduce wealth inequality, such as progressive taxation, give more support to policies that focus on the poor, and provide all citizens with free access to healthcare and higher education compared to conservatives. Conservatives are more likely to support more traditional social arrangements and not support or oppose gay marriage and recreational drug use. Liberals, to the contrary, generally support social change, especially when these changes promote the welfare of groups who suffer discrimination. Thus liberals are more favorably disposed towards affirmative action, immigration, and protections for the LGBTQ community. While conservatives have more favorable attitudes towards military spending and harsher punishment of convicted criminals than do liberals.

Conservatives, liberals, and empathy

Morris presents evidence from empirical research that by and large goes against Bloom’s position. He makes the point that despite using different measures of empathy “neuroscience suggests that at least some of the varying measures do indeed measure key components of empathy.” All but one of these studies draw the same conclusion: “people measuring high in general empathy tend to harbor liberal political views.” Further, “the bulk of the empirical evidence suggests that empathy is a strong predictor of political outlook and affiliation.”

The empirical studies that correlate empathy to ideological differences include both studies that focus on general ideological differences between the two sides and studies that concentrate on the differences on specific issues, “such as war, affirmative action, and climate change.” In terms of general political attitudes “an overwhelming majority of the empirical research suggests that a person’s tendency to experience empathy bears a positive correlation with their propensity to harbor liberal attitudes.” Another study shows “a connection between empathy and political preferences by highlighting how self-reported empathy and social dominance orientation (a personality trait that endorses social hierarchy and is associated with conservatism) are negatively associated with one another.

But some studies do not support the correlation between general or specific political differences and empathy. Morris reviews these studies and suggests that they were “biased in the kinds of prompts that were given to subjects. It turns out that most of the prompts used in these studies involved questioning subjects about their tolerance towards groups that tend to hold liberal political views.” In other words, the perceived ideological differences with the target group that caused subjects to respond the way they did.

A very recent study by Hanson et al. consciously avoided this problem. This study found “that regardless of which target group (political ingroup, political out-group, or neutral/non-political group) participants were asked to consider, liberals on average were motivated to feel empathy and actually experienced more empathy than conservatives.” These outcomes were replicated in three countries, the U.S., Germany, and Israel.

The causal relationship between empathy and political ideology

The review of empirical studies indicates a correlation between empathy and political affiliation or preferences. Three different possibilities about the causal relationship between empathy and political ideology can be offered:

• A person’s empathy level plays some role in determining one’s political preferences
• A person’s political preferences play some role in determining one’s empathy level
• A third factor simultaneously impacts empathy levels and political preferences in consistent patterns among different individuals.

Morris suggests that the most likely explanation for the correlation is the first possibility above: empathy or lack of empathy plays a causal role in determining one’s political affiliation or ideology. Studies that tried directly to determine the causal relationship found “while empathy had a significant effect on all three political ideologies that they tested for – including conservatism – none of the political ideologies had a significant effect on empathy.”

In these studies (see here) “empathy and SDO (Social Dominance Orientation) were found to have a causal influence on each other whereby a higher measure of the one was associated with a lower measure of the other.” SDO is considered a personality trait and not a political ideology. SDO may “play a causal role in decreasing empathy while increasing conservative political views.” This comports with the idea that empathy directly affects political ideology and not the other way around. It also suggests that empathy causally affects SDO and that SDO itself casually influences political views. Overall these studies support the view that empathy causally affects people’s political views.

Empathy and political polarization in the U.S.

The paper ends with a two-fold conclusion about empathy and political polarization in the U.S. First, studies indicate that a liberal’s interest in politics relates positively with their general level of empathy, but the opposite holds for conservatives – as a conservative becomes more active in politics, his or her general level of empathy drops.

Second, those with the strongest liberal or conservative attitudes are the ones most active in politics. Thus, Morris concludes that those with the most empathy and those with the least empathy (the far left and the far right) comprise an increasingly greater proportion of our country’s voting population.

Comment

Overall, a difference in empathy levels between democrats and republicans seem very probable. These differences may help explain the political polarization in the U.S. Perhaps they may explain varying states’ responses to the coronavirus.

For example, the Republican governors of Mississippi and Alabama very recently made national news headlines. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves issued an executive order overriding the city of Tupelo’s stay-at-home order, which was passed unanimously by the mayor and city council. Reeve promised that “Mississippi’s never going to become China or North Korea.” Alabama Republican Governor Kay Ivey said she would not be issuing a stay-at-home order because “we are not Louisiana, we are not New York, we are not California.” The Washington Post noted, however, that in California 9.9 people per 100,000 population had confirmed virus cases compared to 10.5 per 100,000 in Alabama. Georgia Republican Governor Brian Kemp declined to issue a statewide stay-at-home order because not all areas of the state needed it.

Interestingly, only three states among the 10 with the largest number of confirmed virus cases as of March 28 have not issued stay-at-home orders. These three include Florida, Georgia, and Texas, all with Republican governors. Florida’s Ron DeSantis declined also to close Florida beaches for the “Spring Break” influx of college students. In some cases, like in Florida and Georgia, some local governments have enacted stay-at-home orders.

Some Republican governors have enacted stay-at-home orders. As of March 21, 21 states have enacted such orders. Four of the 21 are headed by Republican governors: Ohio, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and Idaho. Ohio Governor DeWine has been among the most aggressive governors in responding to the coronavirus although his state does not rank in the top 10 in confirmed cases – possibly because of his early aggressive action.

It may be that Republican governors tend to be less empathetic than Democratic governors, resulting in a lessened tendency to issue such order. Other causes could be more significant. These include a personal and political closeness to Trump, such as with Florida Governor DeSantis. Generally, also, Republicans are more influenced by the business community, especially the non-finance business community and, historically, by members of local chambers of commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Association of Small and Independent Businesses. According to reporting by the Washington Post, Trump’s evident desire to open the country before Easter weekend was influenced by business interests because of his belief that the economy keys his reelection.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows the Democratic and Republican views about the coronavirus differed significantly. For example, a 19-point gap separated the views of Democrats and Republicans about whether they were worried about contracting the virus or having a member of their family contract the virus. Democrats were substantially more worried, and this difference carried across in states with more cases per resident. Among Democrats, 86% believe Trump did not move fast enough in trying to control the pandemic. This compares to 75% of Republicans saying he moved at the right speed. Overall, 25% of Democrats, 48% of independents, and 88% of Republicans approve of the job Trump is doing in handling the coronavirus. Clearly, in regard to the pandemic party polarization remains prominent.

Relatedly, some, perhaps many, Republicans may classify themselves as libertarian. Studies by Iyer et al. (see here and here) indicate that libertarians compared to both conservatives and liberals

• endorse foremost the principle of individual liberty,
• possess a cerebral much more than an emotional intellectual style,
• and show lower interdependence and social relatedness.

Studies show that libertarians reject the morality of altruism and other moralities based on a sense of obligation to other people and groups.

Additionally, according to these studies libertarians score lower on empathetic concerns than do conservatives or liberals.

Morris’s mentioning of SDO makes further connections as well. Research on SDO suggests several implications on the topic of this post.

• Emotional intelligence seems negatively correlated with SDO. Trait EI is negatively related to the ability to take the perspective of others, links with increased right-wing attitudes and subtle racial prejudice.
• Among white individuals, higher SDO is associated with less empathy and more counter-empathy in response to others’ good and bad fortunes. This reduction in empathy and propensity to experience pleasure at the misfortune of others becomes significantly stronger for Asian and black targets.
• Right-wing authoritarianism and SDO negatively affect openness to experience, empathy, and “identification with all humanity.”
  SDO correlated with support for the separation of parents from their children at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Future posts will focus on the relationship of social dominance orientation and political polarization.