New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Self-Reported Empathy Dropped over Last 30 Years

Analysis of some 14,000 college student surveys over the last three decades finds that self-reported levels of empathy for others have decreased. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As you get jostled in the daily rough and tumble, does it feel like other people care less about how rough you have it and how much you’re getting tumbled? Well, your suspicion may have some data to back it up. Because according to an article in Scientific American Mind magazine, analysis of surveys of college kids reveals that self-reported empathy has been dropping for the last 30 years. And empathy really took a nosedive in the last 10 years. [Jamil Zaki, "What, Me Care?"]

Nearly 14,000 student questionnaires that were completed in the last three decades were used for the study. And 75 percent of those surveyed today rated themselves as being less empathic than what was the average score 30 years ago.

One possible explanation is social isolation—we tend to do more things on our own and engage in fewer group activities than we used to. Another possible cause is a decrease in reading fiction for pleasure. Studies have found that the number of stories preschoolers read correlates with their ability to understand other people’s emotional states. The good news is that if empathy can go down, it can also go back up. You feel me?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe