The Relationship between Empathy and Attitudes toward

The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Volume 41

Issue 4

December

Article 6

2014

The Relationship between Empathy and Attitudes toward The Relationship between Empathy and Attitudes toward

Government Intervention Government Intervention

M. Alex Wagaman

Virginia Commonwealth University

, [email protected]

Elizabeth A. Segal

Arizona State University

, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw

Part of the Social Work Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Wagaman, M. Alex and Segal, Elizabeth A. (2014) "The Relationship between Empathy and Attitudes

toward Government Intervention,"

The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

: Vol. 41: Iss. 4, Article 6.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.3984

Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol41/iss4/6

This Article is brought to you by the Western Michigan

University School of Social Work. For more information,

please contact [email protected].

The Relationship between Empathy and

Attitudes toward Government Intervention

m. aLex wagamaN

Virginia Commonwealth University

School of Social Work

eLizabetH a. SegaL

Arizona State University

School of Social Work

Throughout history, government policy and programs have

played integral roles in shaping social services. This article re-

ports the ﬁndings of a study that explored the relationship be-

tween interpersonal empathy and attitudes toward govern-

ment intervention among college students. Findings suggest

that increased levels of empathy are associated with more posi-

tive attitudes toward government intervention. This relation-

ship is even stronger for participants from marginalized iden-

tity groups. Nurturing empathy among those engaged in social

welfare policy-making may support government efforts that are

in the best interest of communities they are intended to help.

Key words: empathy, government intervention, marginalized

voices, social empathy, social well-being

Since the founding of this nation, government has been

viewed as central to people’s social well-being. The pledge of

government has been to uphold “life, liberty and the pursuit

of happiness for all” through a just form of governing that

derives its power from the people. If such government fails

to provide for safety and happiness, then it is the right of the

people to decide the course of government (Declaration of

Independence, 1776). Thus, the expectation that government

will ensure social well-being, accompanied by the watchful eye

of the governed, dates from the earliest history of the United

States. Today’s discussions concerning the role of government

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, December 2014, Volume XLI, Number 4

follow in a long tradition, and reﬂect strong sentiments for

and against government intervention in our lives, as well as

varying deﬁnitions of what that intervention should look like.

For some, government has been the champion of human

rights. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the

Constitution abolished slavery and empowered Congress to

enforce it. The Fifteenth Amendment established that “The

right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied

or abridged by the United States or by any State on account

of race, color, or previous condition of Servitude.” These

Constitutional amendments are examples of federal govern-

ment intervention over localities to ensure human rights.

For others, particularly in recent years, government has

become the problem. Setting the modern tone for concern over

government intervention was former President Ronald Reagan,

who famously stated in his 1981 inaugural address that “gov-

ernment is not the solution to our problem, government is the

problem.” During the presidential campaign of 2000, George

W. Bush made famous the goal of serving as “compassion-

ate conservatives” in response to social need. That ideology

called for sympathetic responses by government through the

efforts of nonpublic groups such as faith-based organizations

and informal social supports with less reliance on government

interventions (Olasky, 2000). More recently, former vice presi-

dential candidate and federal Representative Paul D. Ryan, in

his Roadmap for America, warned that:

the heavily government-centered ideology now

prevailing in Washington, which pursues a relentless

expansion of government, creates a growing culture of

dependency, and in the process worsens a status quo that

already threatens to overwhelm the budget and smother the

economy. (2010, p. iii)

Attitudes of the public in the U.S. towards government

intervention are mixed. In 2009, the National Constitution

Center released data collected through an Associated Press

poll indicating that the majority of Americans oppose govern-

ment intervention in private enterprise, even if it is intended

to beneﬁt the economy, such as saving jobs (GfK Roper Public

Affairs & Media, 2009). The Pew Research Center (2012) found

92 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

conﬂicting values. While 59% of adults believed it is the re-

sponsibility of government to take care of people who cannot

take care of themselves, this was down from 69% in 2007; and

71% of adults felt that poor people are too dependent on gov-

ernment assistance programs. The data also revealed differ-

ences between generations in attitudes toward government

intervention. Among young voters ages 18 to 29, 56% reported

believing that government should have a more active role in

addressing the country’s problems, compared to 35% of voters

ages 65 and older who were supportive of greater government

involvement.

As social workers, our roles in relation to government

intervention are critical, as we are often part of government

efforts or supported by government resources to secure peo-

ple’s well-being and promote social justice. Our client groups

are often those who rely on government support, and who rep-

resent diverse communities. Therefore, it is imperative that we

consider what government intervention means to our profes-

sion, our clients and our communities.

Empathy and Its Relationship with the Role of

Government

Given the important role of government intervention in

forming the U.S. social welfare system, it is our position that

it is important to identify and foster factors that contribute to

positive attitudes toward government intervention. This ex-

ploratory study examined the relationship between empathy

and attitudes toward government intervention. For the pur-

poses of this study, the phrase government intervention is used

to refer to government- initiated and/or -funded actions that

are intended to support the welfare or well-being of the people

who live within its bounds. Although there are several levels

of government, this paper is primarily concerned with federal

government intervention. The rationale for this is that major

social welfare policies and funding originate from the federal

government, and much of the role of state, tribal and local gov-

ernments is as implementers and facilitators of federal policies

and programs.

Empathy, the ability to mirror and interpret the actions

of others (Iacoboni, 2008) has now been identiﬁed through

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

biophysical components found in our brains (Decety & Jackson,

2004; Decety & Lamm, 2006). These components include affec-

tive or unconscious physiological responses coupled with cog-

nitive processing (Decety & Moriguchi, 2007). Overall, empathy

reﬂects “the processes whereby one person can come to know

the internal state of another and be motivated to respond with

sensitive care…” (Batson, 2011, p. 11). Thus, interpersonal

empathy may contribute to a person’s support for collective

action through government. Those who have higher levels of

empathy have greater abilities to see and understand the cir-

cumstances of other people’s lives, and therefore may support

public policies that address the social welfare and well-being

of others. This relationship is the focus of this research.

Although no previous evidence exists to document that

empathy is a speciﬁc predictor of a person’s feelings about the

role of government, many of the key aspects of empathic abili-

ties suggest a link. Stronger empathic insights into the experi-

ences of others can lead to greater interest in and work towards

improving the welfare of others (Morrell, 2010; Pinker, 2011).

Those with higher levels of empathy are likely to consider the

involvement of a larger governing body to ensure social well-

being as worthwhile (Hoffman, 2011). These factors suggest

there may be a relationship between empathy and support of

government intervention. Thus, although empathy has been

examined for its inﬂuence on interpersonal relationships and

social interactions, its potential impact on the policymaking

process has been largely overlooked. This research is a start

towards examining that relationship.

Review of the Literature

Empathy and Social Relationships

The degree to which a person prefers collective social ar-

rangements versus individualism may be related to empathic

abilities. For example, individuals who are highly empathic

prefer egalitarian social relations—that is relationships and

policies that reduce group-based hierarchy and intergroup

separation rather than hierarchal social relations (Chiao, 2010).

Hierarchal social relations are held by high social dominance-

oriented people. In research conducted by Pratto, Sidanius,

Stallworth, & Malle (1994),

94 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

high dominance-oriented people expressed less concern

for others than did low dominance oriented people…

[and] people who are highly empathic (speciﬁcally,

concerned with others’ well-being) and to a lesser

extent, those who feel interdependent or communal

with others, tend to prefer egalitarian relationships

among groups. (p. 757)

The relationship between high socially-dominant people

and lower levels of empathy was recently measured through

brain imaging technology:

Individuals who indicated a greater desire for social

dominance hierarchy showed less response when

perceiving pain in others within fronto-insular regions

[of the brain] critical to the ability to share and feel

concern for the emotional salience of another person’s

misfortune. (Chiao, Mathur, Harada, & Lipke, 2009, p.

180)

Although those who favor hierarchical social relations may not

be opposed to government intervention, they would be more

likely to consider appropriate intervention to follow enforce-

ment of the status quo rather than intervention that promotes

equality (Cheon et al., 2011).

Empathy may also be a key variable in tolerance of social

differences. For example, feeling empathy for a person who is

a member of a stigmatized group can then be generalized to

the group as a whole (Batson et al., 1997). This transference of

empathic insight from individual cases to larger groups allows

for greater understanding of commonalities and reduces pref-

erence or tolerance for social inequality (Dovidio, Gaertner, &

Saguy, 2009; Stephan & Finlay, 1999).

The social groups that one identiﬁes with may also impact

empathy. Research has shown that increases in feelings of

power impact the brain’s ability to mirror responses of others

(Hogeveen, Inzlicht, & Obhi, 2013). On the ﬂip side, a sense

of powerlessness was associated with a greater ability for the

brain to mirror the responses of others, an important aspect

of the physiological component of empathy. This may explain

important differences found in polls of Americans’ attitudes

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

96 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

toward government intervention. For example, if a commu-

nity has limited access to social power, could this increase

its members’ ability to feel empathic toward groups needing

access to assistance from the government? Might this outside

status increase positive attitudes toward government inter-

vention, because government has the power to reduce the per-

ceived inequality?

Empathy and Its Impact on Society

Because empathy can lead to resonance with the experi-

ences of others, “the ability to act on behalf of the greater good

can not only improve our personal health and our relation-

ships with others—it can practically or symbolically promote

peace in our society and between cultures” (Keltner, Marsh, &

Smith, 2010, p. 177). The result is that empathy can inﬂuence

the making of laws that reﬂect social justice (Hoffman, 2011).

Government intervention has been at the forefront of

making laws that promote social justice, or create a greater

level of fairness. Fairness is not just a social goal and a po-

tential outcome of greater empathy, but can have the effect of

improving empathy. While we often turn to government to

ensure fairness in society, and greater empathy leads to egali-

tarian or “fairness” policy orientations, there is also an inverse

relationship. People tend to have more empathy for others if

those others are viewed as behaving fairly in social interac-

tions, while the perception of selﬁshness diminishes empathy

for others (Singer et al., 2006).

Thus, empathy promotes social justice, and in turn, greater

social justice improves empathy. This cyclical relationship rein-

forces the desirability of embedding empathy within our social

policies and social institutions (Morrell, 2010). This research

argues that by encouraging policies of fairness, empathy can

be nourished. Who better to enact, enforce and ensure the

continuation of social justice for all than our government?

However, the debate and controversy over the role of govern-

ment presents a challenge for the social work profession.

Unpacking the Debate over Government Intervention:

A Values Perspective

As previously introduced, the debate over the role of the

U.S. government in the welfare of its citizenry is longstand-

ing. It is important to tease out the underlying values within

this debate in order to better understand why empathy may

have value as a tool for enhancing the responsiveness of our

social welfare state. Examination of government intervention

in social welfare raises a number of questions. Who does gov-

ernment help and is that help fair? Does government support

create dependency? And does government intervention protect

people’s rights or impinge on civil liberties? These concerns

often dominate debate on whether to support government in-

volvement in social welfare and, in turn, question the role of

social work.

Who Does Government Help and is That Help Fair?

While public perception may suggest that only the “needy”

get government help, the reality is that most Americans are

beneﬁciaries of social welfare policies and programs. Mettler

and Koch (2012) analyzed pollster data from the Cornell

Survey Research Institute

on the broad question: “Some

people, when they think through their life experiences,

report that they have at some point used a government

social program.” The majority, 57 percent, responded that

they had never used a government social program. Later

in the survey, the same respondents were asked about their

personal use of any of 21 speciﬁc government programs. In

response to this question, 96 percent had used at least one

program, with two thirds of the respondents having used

four or more of these programs. Mettler (2011) argues that

some of these programs are less visible to people and there-

fore submerged and not counted as government support.

This perception often fuels the sense that government

money is disproportionately spent.

Based on actual spending (Congressional Budget Ofﬁce,

2012), 20 percent of the nation’s annual budget covers Social

Security, another 20 percent is spent on national defense,

Medicare spending is 13 percent, Medicaid is 8 percent, and

the interest on the debt (which keeps the U.S. from default-

ing on its loans) is 6 percent. Taken together, these ﬁve items

cover two-thirds of government spending. The other third is

left for everything else government does, including education,

employment services, international affairs, science, space,

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

technology, veterans, agriculture, regulation, transportation,

postal services, and the countless other programs and services

that involve the federal government.

The cost of this “submerged state” is signiﬁcant. In addi-

tion to the portions of the federal budget dedicated to these

major programs is the lost revenue due to the more invisible

government intervention policies. According to the nonpar-

tisan Congressional Budget Ofﬁce (2013), exclusions from

taxable income—such as deductions for employer-sponsored

health insurance, mortgage interest paid, and charitable con-

tributions as well as tax credits and preferential tax rates on

capital gains—cost more than $900 billion, or almost 6 percent

of the nation’s gross domestic product. This amount would

pay for all of our national defense and interest on the public

debt or wipe out ten percent of our overall cumulative national

debt in any given year.

Not everything the government does can be quantiﬁed

by the annual budget or tax revenue. The federal government

covers homeland security, the safety of driving on the roads

and ﬂying in the air, and the enforcement of the Constitution,

such as protection from racial discrimination and hate crimes.

The federal government also monitors the safety of food

coming into our country and regulates the information across

the airwaves. In modern times, it is impossible to ﬁnd much in

our lives that is not touched by the federal government.

Does Government Support Create Dependency?

Once we acknowledge that we are all receiving govern-

ment support, the question of dependency becomes less rel-

evant. In a nation with so much diversity, government is one

shared aspect of life. Through the election process, some voters

win and some voters lose, but in the end after an election, ev-

eryone shares the outcome. When we hold government as a

part of us, we can build a sense of community. And a sense

of community can promote numerous prosocial behaviors,

including ﬁnding solutions to social problems (Omoto, Snyder,

& Hackett, 2010) and building trust among citizens (Putnam,

1995). In fact, greater collectivism in societies has been found

to have a signiﬁcant impact on individuals’ well-being, includ-

ing lower levels of anxiety and depressive disorders (Chiao &

Blizinsky, 2010). By deﬁnition, collectivist cultures “endorse

98 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

thinking of people as highly interconnected to one another”

(Chiao & Blizinsky, 2010, p. 529).

Conversely, when we hold government as the problem and

distance ourselves from it, we lack that shared sense of com-

munity. Research on childhood experience demonstrates that

children who grow up in more communal societies and fami-

lies are more inclined to invest in community social welfare

than children who grow up in compartmentalized and sepa-

rate communities (Perry, 2002).

Does Government Intervention Protect People’s Rights or Impinge

on Civil Liberties?

One current perspective holds that government interven-

tion, particularly in securing civil rights and protecting people

from discrimination, leads to a loss of individual liberties, but

this perspective is not borne out by history:

There is no record, however, of any oppressive regime

having taken power by advancing on the social welfare

front. Lenin and Stalin, Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Fidel

Castro, and Chile’s Pinochet did not consolidate power

by gradually increasing social welfare programs, taxes,

and regulation of the environment or workplace …

Hitler did not become the supreme ruler of the Nazi

state by ﬁrst taking over the health department.

(Neiman, 2000, pp. 160-161)

In fact, countries that protect minority rights are more

democratic and promote trust among their citizens. Research

on 46 countries over 10 years demonstrates that governments

that protect voting rights and maintain antidiscrimination pol-

icies “produce more trusting citizens” (Smith & Paxton, 2010,

p. 211). Such government intervention facilitates trust between

individuals from different groups (Tilly, 2004). Pinker (2010,

2011) argues that violence subsided and civilization came to

be because of a conﬂuence of several reasons, including the

evolution of an organized state government; a realization that

cooperation is more beneﬁcial than killing; and growth in

empathy. He also believes that our innate empathic tenden-

cies, especially to those with whom we share characteristics or

familiarity, has widened. Thus, Pinker draws together govern-

ment and empathy as a path for greater civilization.

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

Social Work Practice and Government Intervention

Direct government employment of social workers numbers

in the tens of thousands (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). For

example, the Social Security Administration employs more

than 26,000 social workers, while the Veterans Administration

employs over 9,000 (NASW, 2011). The services of the

Department of Health and Human Services are so varied that

it is impossible to get a true count of the number of social

workers employed under that federal agency. These numbers

do not reﬂect those who work in NGO’s that receive federal

government ﬁnancial support for programs and local and state

agencies. Given the signiﬁcant involvement of social workers

in government programs and in implementing government

policies, it is surprising that little research exists on the con-

nection between government and social work.

Social work is a pivot point between the economic market

and the government. On one hand, as Ng (2010) points out, a

professional conﬂict has been created for the social work pro-

fession promoting altruism in a capitalist system. Ng argues

that social services do not ﬁt well in a market system. On the

other hand, it is only through government intervention that

serious challenges to the profession can be addressed (Ng,

2010). Not only are social workers intricately connected to gov-

ernment intervention through their clients, but also through

their own well-being. However, social workers are often hes-

itant to pursue policy change that may be perceived as self-

serving or to engage in this larger debate overall. This may

be due, in part, to the capitalist ideals of individualism, self-

sufﬁciency, and minimizing government dependence.

To further complicate the role of social workers in advo-

cating for government intervention, the profession has been

characterized as serving as agents of social control. Government

intervention has been seen as a means of controlling popula-

tions that have traditionally been marginalized in U.S. society

(Abramovitz, 1998). From this perspective, government inter-

vention is regarded as a form of surveillance and control, and

social workers are the agents of the state who implement the

will of those in political and economic power. This reﬂects a

long-standing professional debate about whether the role of

social workers is to challenge the status quo and work for

100 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

systemic change, or to provide support to help marginalized

communities and populations learn how to adapt to and cope

with the status quo (Abramovitz, 1998). For example, Stojkovic

(2008), in an analysis of the U.S. Patriot Act, raised the issue that

government policies risk involving social workers in practices

that are antithetical to the profession. Some of these policies,

such as detention of noncitizens and treatment of immigrants,

can place social workers as agents of government control and

not as advocates for social justice.

With globalization has come a rise in a climate that pro-

motes individual responsibility. Alston (2002) argues that

social workers have an obligation to promote and advocate for

a collective responsibility that can be modeled by the govern-

ment in a market that has repeatedly failed to ensure the health

and well-being of individuals. Alston argues that it is impor-

tant that social workers turn to professional values such as em-

powerment to engage in the social debate around government

intervention.

Curiously, U.S. social work scholars rarely discuss these

existing debates and conﬂicts around government interven-

tion. In other parts of the world, research has been conducted

on people’s attitudes toward government support for those in

poverty. As Ng and Koh (2012) state, evidence should be col-

lected so that policies can reﬂect the wishes and desires of the

general public, rather than those holding the most political,

social and/or ﬁnancial power. Structurally, what further com-

plicates the position of social workers in the debates around

government intervention in the U.S. and beyond is the limited

control that both service recipients and service providers have

in dictating how social welfare policies are shaped and imple-

mented, particularly with regard to spending cuts (Beresford,

& Croft, 2004). The lack of engagement of those most directly

impacted by social welfare policy decisions can have detri-

mental effects (Fawcett & Hanlon, 2009). The marginalization

of both the profession and our clients underscores the neces-

sity for investigation and analysis of attitudes towards the role

of government in promoting social well-being.

Empathy and Social Work

There is no question that empathy plays a signiﬁcant role

in the social work profession. Social work educators train

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

101

students to become empathic professionals—in tune with their

own emotional processes, and able to relate to and under-

stand those of their clients. As existing research knowledge of

empathy grows, it is clear that the components of empathy can

be taught. Neural pathways have elasticity, and cognitive pro-

cesses can be developed and enhanced (Long, 2006; Schwartz

& Begley, 2003). Given the role that government interven-

tion has played in the development of the U.S. social welfare

system, it is appropriate that social workers are at the forefront

of exploring the connection between empathy and the govern-

ment policies and structures that increase the well-being of

client groups and communities.

Current Study

This review of government intervention grew out of a

larger study that focused on the development of an instru-

ment to measure social empathy. Social empathy is a key con-

tributor to the establishment of social welfare policies that

promote social well-being and social justice. One key part of

social empathy is the role of government as a facilitator and

provider of civil rights and social services. This research ana-

lyzes whether interpersonal empathy is a signiﬁcant predictor

of people’s attitudes about social rights and the role of govern-

ment. Further analysis considered whether support for gov-

ernment intervention differed by race, class and gender. More

speciﬁcally, we hypothesized that:

H1: Higher levels of interpersonal empathy, as

measured by the Empathy Assessment Index, are

associated with more positive attitudes toward

government intervention with regard to social welfare.

H2: Members of populations that face marginalization

and exclusion, including women, people from poor

or working class families, and people who identify

as members of racial or ethnic groups other than

those of Anglo/White descent, have more positive

attitudes towards government intervention even after

controlling for interpersonal empathy level.

102 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Methods

Sample

A convenience sample of students from a large southwest-

ern university were invited to participate in the study through

eight Introduction to Social Work courses (5 in-person course

sections and 3 online sections) in the spring semester of 2012.

Students were recruited in a non-randomized fashion. Extra

credit for participation was given to some students at the dis-

cretion of the instructor. Students were emailed a link to the

survey, which was administered through Qualtrics, and were

asked to complete the survey within a week. The study was

approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. The

sample pool was selected for the larger study purpose of vali-

dating a measure of social empathy.

A total of 490 students participated. Seventeen students

(3.5%) were eliminated due to missing data. The ﬁnal sample

for this study consisted of 473 participants ranging in age from

18 to 55 years (M = 21.8, SD = 5.1), 70% of whom were between

the ages of 18 and 21. The sample was 59.3% female. Twenty-

six percent were freshman (n = 121), 30.5% were sophomores

(n = 142), 24.5% were juniors (n = 114), 18.5% were seniors (n

= 86), and less than 1% were masters level students (n = 3).

Participants identiﬁed more than 40 different academic areas

of primary study, including 5.1% (n = 24) who reported an un-

decided major.

Of those who reported their race/ethnicity, 56.3% were

Caucasian (n = 261), 14.9% were Latino (n = 69), 7.3% were

Asian (n = 34), 6.3% were multiracial (n = 29), and 3.4% were

African American (n = 16). Almost 11% of the participants (n

= 50) identiﬁed “other” as their racial or ethnic identity. When

asked to specify, the predominant groups reported included

Arab and Middle Eastern (n = 39; 8.4%). Twenty-ﬁve percent

of the participants reported having lived outside of the United

States at one point in their lives. Participants were asked to

identify the class background for their families of origin.

Answer options included poor (n = 16; 3.5%), working class (n

= 98; 21.3%), middle class (n = 182; 39.5%), upper middle class

(n = 136; 29.5%), and wealthy (n = 29; 6.3%).

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

103

Measures: The Empathy Assessment Index (EAI) and Government

Intervention Scale

The EAI is a validated self-report measure of interpersonal

empathy that includes a total of 20 items on a 6-point Likert

scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, 5 = almost

always, 6 = always) (Lietz et al., 2011). Total scores for the EAI

range from 20 to 120 with higher scores indicating greater

levels of interpersonal empathy ( = .84). The EAI is made up

of four components, each with 5 items. The four components

include affective response, self-other awareness, perspective-

taking, and emotion regulation, and are based on a neurosci-

ence approach to understanding the dynamics of the human

empathic response.

Affective response is the physiological response that is

triggered in us when we view the emotional responses of

others, and includes items such as, “Hearing laughter makes

me smile.” Self-other awareness refers to the cognitive ability

to separate another’s emotions from one’s own, and includes

items such as “I can tell the difference between my friend’s

feelings and my own.” Perspective-taking is the component

of empathy most associated with our understanding of em-

pathic responses and refers to an understanding of another’s

experiences that may be causing or creating an individual to

emotionally respond in a speciﬁc way. An example of a per-

spective-taking item is “I can imagine what it’s like to be in

someone else’s shoes.” Finally, emotion regulation is the cog-

nitive ability to regulate one’s affective responses to others’

emotions, and includes items such as “When I am upset or

unhappy, I get over it quickly.” Taken together, the Empathy

Assessment Index (EAI) items are a valid tool for measuring

interpersonal empathy.

The government intervention scale consists of four,

self-report items intended to measure attitudes toward the

government intervening in issues around social welfare and

well-being. The items (see Table 1) use the same 6-point Likert

scale described above for the EAI, and as a scale have good

internal consistency ( = .79). Scale scores range from 4 to 24

with higher scores indicating a more positive attitude toward

government intervention around issues of social welfare and

civil rights.

104 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Table 1. Descriptives for Government Intervention Items and Scale

Item Mean SD

I think the government needs to be a part of

leveling the playing ﬁeld for people from

different racial groups.

3.83 1.34

I believe government should protect the rights

of minorities.

4.57 1.26

I think it is the right of all citizens to have their

basic needs met.

4.79 1.25

I believe the role of government is to act as

a referee, making decisions that promote the

quality of life and well-being of the people.

4.37 1.24

Government intervention scale ( = .79) 17.55 3.99

Demographic Variables

Because of the substantial number of participants who

identiﬁed “other” as their racial or ethnic identity, and the small

subsamples of racial/ethnic groups such as African American

and American Indian, the participants were divided into dom-

inant and non-dominant racial categories. Those identifying

as white/Caucasian or of Anglo descent were categorized as

dominant. Those identifying as a member of any of the other

racial/ethnic groups, or who identiﬁed as “other” and speci-

ﬁed as a member of an identity group other than white/Anglo,

were categorized as non-dominant. A dummy variable was

created with “dominant racial group identity” as the reference.

A small number of participants listed “other” as their

family class background (n = 4). When asked to specify, the

participants listed responses including; “single parent” and

“working middle class.” For the purposes of this analysis,

these responses were coded as missing in order to develop an

ordinal scale for the control variable of family class background

using the answer options provided (1 = poor, 2 = working class, 3

= middle class, 4 = upper middle class, and 5 = wealthy).

Analysis

Regression was used to analyze two models. The ﬁrst

model was a bivariate regression analysis with government

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

105

intervention scale score as the dependent variable, and the

Empathy Assessment Index total score as the independent

variable. A second model used multiple regression to analyze

the predictive value of the EAI score and added control vari-

ables for gender, class background of family of origin, and

racial identity regressed on government intervention score.

Table 2. Multiple Regression Model Summary for Predicting

Attitudes Towards Government Intervention (N = 473)

Model R

(adj) B (SE)

1. Empathy .100 (.097)***

EAI .124 (.018) .315

2. Empathy w/controls .193 (.185)***

EAI .126 (.017) .321 .100***

Gender (male) 1.21 (.368) .147 .020**

Family of origin class -.638 (.193) -.148 .020**

Race (dominant) 1.671 (.365) .205 .039***

Note: *** = p ≤ .001; ** = p ≤ .01; * = p ≤ .05

Results

The dependent variable, attitudes toward government

intervention, was correlated with the independent variable,

interpersonal empathy (r

= .317, p < .01). As summarized in

Table 2, interpersonal empathy alone accounted for 9% of the

variance in attitudes toward government intervention. When

the control variables for gender, race, and family of origin class

background were added into the model, the total variance in

government intervention attitudes that was accounted for in-

creased to 18%. All three of the control variables had distinct

contributions toward the overall model, as evidenced by the

semi-partial correlations. Interpersonal empathy accounted for

10% of the variance in attitudes toward government interven-

tion when controlling for gender, family class background, and

racial identity. Each of the identity predictors contributed an

additional 2% (gender and family class background) to just

under 4% (race) over and above that of interpersonal empathy.

Because the control variables are statistically signiﬁcant,

the second model suggests that attitudes toward government

106 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

107

intervention are more positive for women, participants from

lower class families, and people of color, even after control-

ling for empathy level. This suggests that these groups have

some experience or perspective that has shaped their attitudes

toward government intervention that does not solely draw on

interpersonal empathy.

Discussion

The ﬁndings of this study suggest that interpersonal

empathy plays a signiﬁcant role in people’s attitudes toward

government intervention. What is not known from this study

is the directionality of the relationship. Does interpersonal

empathy create more positive attitudes toward government

intervention, or does a positive attitude about government

intervention increase one’s empathy? Given that previous re-

search has suggested a bi-directional relationship (Singer et al.,

2006), future research should explore this as well as whether

this relationship exists in other populations.

The relationship between empathy and attitudes toward

government intervention suggest that empathic insight into the

experiences of others may support peoples' attitudes toward

making an effort to create policies that support the welfare and

well-being of others. While this may seem obvious, it is impor-

tant to reﬂect on the fact that empathy can be taught and en-

hanced. It is not a static characteristic. One way that empathy

can be nurtured is through the cultivation of meaningful in-

teractions and relationships between people from different

aspects of society. Some may argue that policymakers will

rarely sit and have a meaningful conversation with those for

whom they are making important decisions. However, we can

use our understanding of empathy to share empathy-build-

ing skills and strategies with not only policymakers but with

community members across our nation. Empathic decision-

making power lies not only in the hands of the elected, but

also in the hands of those who vote or who are engaged at any

level in making their communities better.

In addition to the relationship found between empathy

and attitudes toward government intervention, most strik-

ing in the ﬁndings of this study is the fact that the variance

explained doubled when the demographic variables were

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

included in the second model. Although previous studies

suggest that powerlessness is associated with an increased

ability for the brain to mirror the experiences of others—the

physiological underpinnings of empathy—the ﬁndings of this

study suggest that experiences of being in groups with less

access to social power have important implications, even after

holding empathy levels constant. This ﬁnding suggests that

those who belong to marginalized groups may have unique

experiences and knowledge that impacts their perceptions of

government intervention. Much more research is needed to

further explain this relationship, but given many non-domi-

nant social groups’ negative histories with government inter-

vention, it is important to understand and assess the favorable

attitudes and to understand the kind of interventions that these

groups would ﬁnd beneﬁcial. At a minimum, social workers

and other human service providers can work to include the

voices of people from marginalized communities at the tables

of decision making bodies and to use their perspectives to help

shape government intervention efforts.

Making these ﬁndings publicly known and allowing re-

search such as this study to be entered into the public debate

would beneﬁt social workers as well as those the profession

serves. Such research evidence supports the inclusion of

voices in the dialogue about government intervention in ways

that may support the development of more empathic policy-

making. The ﬁndings also provide some direction for social

workers, who often feel unsure about how to impact policy

debates about government intervention. Building empathy,

particularly self–other awareness and perspective taking, is

something that social workers can do—among one another, in

our constituent groups, and with elected ofﬁcials. Supporting

greater understanding across differences enhances the sense

that “we are all in this together” and government is an exten-

sion of ourselves. It belongs to us all.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations of this exploratory study.

The sample from which the data was collected is limited in

its generalizability. It was a convenience sample of students

taking social work courses at one institution in the southwest-

ern United States. Future research should explore whether the

108 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

relationships found between variables exists in other, broader

populations, as well as outside of a university setting.

In addition, due to the low numbers of participants within

some of the racial and ethnic groups represented within the

sample, the researchers made a decision to not eliminate those

cases but rather to include them by collapsing the sample into a

dichotomous group of dominant and non-dominant based on

the racial structure that exists within U.S. society. The research-

ers acknowledge that this is problematic in some ways, and an

oversimplication of the racial and ethnic experience in the U.S.

However, the researchers were guided by previous research in

the area of perceived racial and ethnic discrimination that ties

the experiences of people to the social group with which they

most identify (Hernandez, 2005; Michelson & Pallares, 2001).

Future research should seek samples that include racial and

ethnic groups of participants large enough to separate. Indeed,

such research may ﬁnd distinct differences in the relationships

between variables as compared to other non-dominant racial

groups.

Finally, a limitation of this study is the scale items that were

used to assess people’s attitudes toward government interven-

tion around issues of social welfare. These items have not been

validated as a scale beyond the Cronbach’s alpha score that was

identiﬁed for this sample. In addition, the response patterns

for the items were skewed positively. This could be a reﬂection

of the items, or of the sample. Future research should further

validate the measure, including testing it in other populations.

Conclusion

Throughout the history of the United States' social welfare

system, government intervention has played a signiﬁcant and

pervasive role. Interpersonal empathy contributes to attitudes

toward government intervention. In addition to empathy,

identiﬁcation as female, poor or working class family back-

ground, and as a member of a non-dominant racial or ethnic

group have a positive relationship with people’s attitudes

toward government intervention related to social well-being.

Further research is needed to explore all of the factors that

impact people’s attitudes and behaviors related to supporting

government intervention, as well as the relationships between

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

109

factors. It is particularly important that social workers and

human service providers understand both the dominant and

non-dominant narratives that shape the attitudes of policy

makers, voters and community members at large. One way to

do this is to engage in efforts to increase empathic insight.

References

Alston, M. (2002). From local to global: Making social policy more

effective for rural community capacity building. Australian Social

Work, 55(3), 214-226.

Abramovitz, M. (1998). Social work and social reform: An arena of

struggle. Social Work, 43(6), 512-526.

Batson, C.D. (2011). These things called empathy: Eight related but

distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social

neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J.,

Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. I., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L.

(1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a

stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105-118.

Beresford, P., & Croft, S. (2004). Service users and practitioners

reunited: The key component for social work reform, British

Journal of Social Work, 34, 53-68.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). Occupational employment and wages,

May 2013, 21-1029 social workers, all other. Retrieved from http://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes211029.htm#ind

Cheon, B. K., Im, D., Harada, T., Kim, J., Mathur, V. A., Scimeca, J. M.,

Parrish, T. B., Park, H.W., & Chiao, J.Y. (2011). Cultural inﬂuences

on neural basis of intergroup empathy. NeuroImage, 57, 642-650.

Chiao, J.Y. (2010). Neural basis of social status hierarchy across

species. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20, 803-809.

Chiao, J.Y., & Blizinsky, K. D. (2010). Culture-gene coevolution of

individualism-collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 277, 529-537.

Chiao, J.Y., Mathur, V. A., Harada, T., & Lipke, T. (2009). Neural basis

of preference for human social hierarchy versus egalitarianism.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 174-181.

Congressional Budget Ofﬁce (2012). An update to the budget and

economic outlook: Fiscal years 2012-2022. Washington, DC: Author.

Congressional Budget Ofﬁce. (2013). The distribution of major tax

expenditures in the Individual income tax system. Washington, DC:

Author.

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of

human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3,

71-100.

Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of

social neuroscience. The Scientiﬁc World Journal, 6, 1146-1163.

110

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Decety, J., & Moriguchi, Y. (2007). The empathic brain and its

dysfunction in psychiatric populations: Implications for

intervention across different clinical conditions. BioPsychoSocial

Medicine, 1(22), 1-21.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and

the complexity of "we”: Social attitudes and social change.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3-20.

Fawcett, B., & Hanlon, M. (2009). Child sexual abuse and Aboriginal

communities in Australia: A case study of non-inclusive

government intervention. European Journal of Social Work, 12(1),

87-100.

GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. (2009). The Associated Press –

National Constitution Center Poll. New York: GfK Custom Research

North America.

Hernandez, D. M. (2005). Undue process: Immigrant detention,

due process, and lesser citizenship. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley,

Institute for the Study of Social Change. Retrieved from http://

escholarship.org/uc/item/15b1h07r

Hoffman, M. L. (2011). Is empathy necessary for morality? In A.

Coplan & P. Goldie (Eds), Empathy: Philosophical and psychological

perspectives (pp. 231-254). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hogeveen, J., Inzlicht, M., & Obhi, S. S. (2013). Power changes how

the brain responds to others. Journal of Experimental Psychology,

143(2), 755-762. DOI: 10.1037/a0033477.

Iacoboni, M. (2008). Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect

with others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Keltner, D., Marsh, J., & Smith, J. A. (2010). The compassionate instinct.

New York: WW Norton & Company.

Lietz, C. A., Gerdes, K. E., Sun, F., Geiger, J. M., Wagaman, M. A.

& Segal, E. A. (2011). The Empathy Assessment Index (EAI): A

conﬁrmatory factor analysis of a multidimensional model of

empathy. Journal of the Society for Social Work Research, 2(2), 104-

124. doi:10.5243/jsswr.2011.6.

Long, W. J. (2006). Quantum theory and neuroplasticity: Implications

for social theory. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology,

26(1–2), 78-94

Mettler, S. (2011). The submerged state: How invisible government

policies undermine American democracy. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Mettler, S., & Koch, J. (2012). Who says they have ever used a government

social program? The role of policy visibility. Unpublished paper.

Michelson, M. R., & Pallares, A. (2001). The politicization of Chicago

Mexican Americans: Naturalization, the vote, and perceptions of

discrimination. Aztlan, 26(2), 63-85.

Morrell, M. E. (2010). Empathy and democracy: Feeling, thinking, and

deliberation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University

Press.

National Association of Social Workers. (2011). Social workers in

government agencies: Occupational proﬁle. Washington, DC: Author.

Empathy & Attitudes Toward Government Intervention

111

Neiman, M. (2000). Defending government: Why big government works.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ng, I. Y. H. (2010). What if social workers were paid more?.

Administration in Social Work, 34(4), 351-360.

Ng, I. Y. H., & Koh, G. (2012). Chinese Singaporean attitudes towards

poverty and inequality: A comparative analysis. International

Journal of Social Welfare, 21, 149-159.

Olasky, M. (2000). Compassionate conservatism: What it is, what it does,

and how it can transform America. New York: Free Press.

Omoto, A. M., Snyder, M., & Hackett, J. D. (2010). Personality and

motivational antecedents of activism and civic engagement.

Journal of Personality, 78, 1703-1734.

Perry, B. D. (2002). Childhood experience and the expression of

genetic potential: What childhood neglect tells us about nature

and nurture. Brain and Mind, (3), 79-100.

Pew Research Center. (June 4, 2012). Trends in American values: 1987-

2012: Partisan polarization surges in Bush, Obama Years. Washington,

DC: Author.

Pinker, S. (2010). Why is there peace? In D. Keltner, J. Marsh, & J. A.

Smith (Eds.), The compassionate instinct (pp. 260-266). New York:

W.W. Norton & Company.

Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has

declined. New York: Viking.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social

dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social

and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

67(4), 741-763.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social

capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 1, 65-78.

Reagan, R. (1981). Inaugural Address. Retrieved from http://www.

reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/12081a.htm

Ryan, P. (2010). Roadmap for America’s future version 2.0: A plan to solve

America’s long-term economic and ﬁscal crisis. Washington, DC:

Author.

Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2003). The mind and the brain:

Neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. New York, NY: Harper

Perennial.

Singer, T., Seymour, B. O’Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J. &

Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by

the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439, 466-469.

Smith, J. A., & Paxton, P. (2010). America’s trust fall. In D. Keltner, J.

Marsh, & J. A. Smith (Eds.), The compassionate instinct (pp. 203-

212). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving

intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 729-743.

Stojkovic, S. (2008). The U.S. Patriot Act: Implications for the social

work profession. In I. C. Colby (Ed.), Handbook of social work and

social welfare: Social policy and policy practice (Vol. 4, pp. 103-112).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Tilly, C. (2004). T

rust and rule. Theory and Society, 33, 1-30.

112 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare