Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Gerontologist logoLink to The Gerontologist
. 2019 Jun 1;60(4):617–627. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnz065

Does Empathy Have a Cost? Older Adults and Social Partners Experiencing Problems

Meng Huo 1,✉, Jamie L Fuentecilla 1, Kira S Birditt 2, Karen L Fingerman 1
Editor: Suzanne Meeks
PMCID: PMC7228441  PMID: 31152585

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Empathy underlies older adults’ awareness and responses to their social partners’ needs, but it is unclear whether such awareness is beneficial or harmful to older adults’ well-being. We examined whether older adults’ empathy was associated with having encounters with social partners incurring problems and their own well-being throughout the day.

Research Design and Methods

Participants were adults aged more than 65 years from the Daily Experiences and Well-being Study. These older adults (n = 313) rated empathy and indicated social partners’ problems (e.g., health, emotional, and financial problems) in a baseline interview. They also reported encounters with social partners and their mood every 3 hr over 5–6 days.

Results

Multiple regressions showed that more empathic older adults reported a greater proportion of social partners with major life problems than less empathic older adults. Older adults’ empathy was not associated with their contact or negative encounters with social partners experiencing problems. Multilevel models revealed that encounters with these social partners had negative consequences for older adults’ mood throughout the day; however, these consequences were reduced in more empathic older adults.

Discussion and Implications

This study emphasizes the importance of empathy in late life and refines our understanding of older adults’ social lives and well-being. Findings carry implications for interventions that aim to protect older adults’ well-being when their close others incur crises.

Keywords: Mood, Ecological momentary assessments, Social encounters

Empathy, the ability to share and understand others’ emotions, is critical to individuals’ social ties and well-being (Decety & Svetlova, 2012). Because older adults place strong values on their ties to social partners (family and friends; Charles & Carstensen, 2010), empathy may be especially important in late life. Empathy may enable older adults to attend to social partners’ needs and help in response to those needs. Older adults typically have social partners suffering major life problems (e.g., a disabled spouse, a divorced child, or a depressed friend; Fingerman, Huo, Graham, Kim, & Birditt, 2018; Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017). More empathic older adults may be more aware of these problems and more likely to reach out to their social partners in everyday encounters. It is less clear, however, whether the link between these encounters and older adults’ well-being varies by their empathy. Prior literature documented positive aspects of empathy (Caprara et al., 2012; Decety & Svetlova, 2012), but we also consider costs of empathy. For example, more empathic older adults may report greater emotional suffering by sharing their partners’ distress (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Hodges & Biswas-Diener, 2007).

Charles’s (2010) Strength and Vulnerability Integration model posits that when older adults cannot avoid distress (as when more empathic older adults have encounters with social partners who have problems), they may report worse mood due to a prolonged recovery from that distress. We asked whether older adults’ empathy was associated with (a) social partners’ problems, (b) contact and negative encounters with these partners throughout the day, and (c) their mood when encounters occurred. Findings may carry implications for therapies and interventions, with regard to helping older adults cope with their social partners’ problems while also protecting their own well-being.

Older Adults’ Empathy and Social Partners Experiencing Problems

We examined empathy as a personality-like trait that varies between individuals, which may explain the different ways older adults interact with their social partners having problems. Theories posit that empathy is a multifaceted construct including emotional and cognitive components, both of which are crucial for more empathic individuals to share others’ emotions and take action more readily (Preston & de Waal, 2002; de Waal, 2008). The empathy–altruism hypothesis further argues that more empathic individuals care more about their social partners’ welfare and feel more motivated to help (Batson, 2011). We drew on this model to examine how individual differences in empathy shape older adults’ exposure and encounters with social partners experiencing problems.

Exposure to Social Partners Experiencing Problems

Empathy may influence older adults’ exposure to their social partners’ problems. Following the empathy–altruism hypothesis (Batson, 2011), more empathic older adults are more motivated to keep an eye on their social partners’ everyday life. These older adults may be more aware when their social partners incur problems and less likely to abandon these partners during crises. In addition, social partners having problems may prefer disclosing problems to more empathic adults. Research suggests that more empathic individuals are more willing to devote time to social partners and offer more effective help (Batson, 2011; Verhofstadt, Buysse, Ickes, Davis, & Devoldre, 2008; Verhofstadt et al., 2016). Thus, we expected more empathic older adults would report more social partners having problems than less empathic older adults. More empathic older adults may not necessarily have more social partners with problems; rather, they may just know more about these problems.

Encounters with Social Partners Experiencing Problems

We then examined whether empathy increases older adults’ contact with social partners having problems. More empathic older adults may engage in such contact more often, presumably in the hope of improving these partners’ situations (Batson, 2011). Granted, some research suggests that more empathic individuals may reduce contact to avoid sharing others’ distress (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Eisenberg & Eggum, 2009). Yet, this may not be the case in older adults’ ties with close social partners (Charles & Carstensen, 2010). Rather, more empathic older adults may reach out to their social partners suffering problems (or social partners feel more comfortable turning to these more empathic adults), offering companionship or lending a listening ear to these partners (e.g., Einolf, 2008; Hoffman, 2008; Huo, Graham, Birditt, & Fingerman et al., 2019). We expected more empathic older adults to have more frequent contact with social partners incurring problems than less empathic older adults.

Moreover, we asked whether empathy influenced older adults’ negative encounters with these social partners. Research suggests that individuals have more negative encounters with their family members incurring troubles (Birditt, Kim, Zarit, Fingerman, & Loving, 2016; Seltzer et al., 2009). Nevertheless, more empathic individuals show greater understanding for their social partners’ misfortunes; they are more likely to help solve problems than blaming or arguing with these partners (Batson, 2011; Carlo et al., 2012; Rizkalla, Wertheim, & Hodgson, 2008). We tested this link in older adults and expected more empathic older adults were less likely to have negative encounters with social partners incurring problems. Given that more empathic older adults may have more contact with these partners in total, we asked whether more empathic older adults had a smaller proportion of negative encounters.

Older Adults’ Empathy and Implications of Encounters for Mood

Older adults suffer when they interact with social partners incurring problems in a daily context (Bourassa, Memel, Woolverton, & Sbarra, 2015; Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017; Pillemer, Suitor, Riffin, & Gilligan, 2017). In parent–child ties, studies examined midlife parents and found spending time and having negative encounters with children who have problems are associated with elevated levels of cortisol on the same and next days (Birditt et al., 2016; Seltzer et al., 2009). In older couples, interacting with a depressed, sick, or stressed spouse is demanding and associated with worse daily mood (Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017; Roper & Yorgason, 2009). Yet, these links may vary by older adults’ empathy. We examined positive and negative mood as well-being outcomes throughout the day and considered competing hypotheses.

In line with the literature regarding positive aspects of empathy, more empathic older adults may find it rewarding to interact with social partners having problems. These older adults may engage in helping behaviors and problem solving during these encounters, which may improve their social partners’ situations and alleviate these partners’ distress (Batson, 2011; Carlo et al., 2012; Rizkalla et al., 2008; Sze, Gyurak, Goodkind, & Levenson, 2012; Verhofstadt et al., 2008, 2016). Thus, even during negative encounters, being empathic may still protect older adults’ mood (i.e., maintain or increase positive mood and reduce negative mood).

We also asked whether empathy had a cost (i.e., reduce older adults’ well-being). A burgeoning literature suggests that sharing others’ negative emotions can lead to distress or emotional burnout (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Eisenberg & Eggum, 2009; Oakley, Knafo, Madhavan, & Wilson, 2011). More empathic older adults may pay greater attention to their social partners’ misfortunes and perceive their distress more accurately (Eisenberg & Eggum, 2009; Hoffman, 2008). It is possible that contact and negative encounters with social partners having problems burden empathic older adults more than their less empathic counterparts (i.e., increase negative mood and decrease positive mood).

Other Factors and the Current Study

We controlled for factors including older adults’ age, gender, physical health, education, marital status, and minority status. Older and healthier adults report better emotional well-being (Charles, 2010; Charles & Carstensen, 2010). Women are more empathic than men (Beadle, Sheehan, Dahlben, & Gutchess, 2015; O’Brien, Konrath, Grühn, & Hagen, 2013). Education may also be positively associated with empathy (Grühn, Rebucal, Diehl, Lumley, & Labouvie-Vief, 2008). African Americans are more reactive to stressors and report poorer well-being than European Americans (Cichy, Stawski, & Almeida, 2012; Rosenfield, 2012). Empathic people tend to stay in long-term marriages and married people are often happier (Cramer & Jowett, 2010; Rendall, Weden, Favreault, & Waldron, 2011).

We also included agreeableness and neuroticism. Empathy may explain why more agreeable people get along with others better than less agreeable people (Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007; Haas, Ishak, Denison, Anderson, & Filkowski, 2015). Neuroticism is associated with low empathy (Mooradian, Davis, & Matzler, 2011) and greater daily negative affect (Robinson, Ode, Moeller, & Goetz, 2007; Roelofs, Huibers, Peeters, & Arntz, van Os, 2008).

This study tested the following hypotheses:

H1:  We expected more empathic older adults to report more social partners having problems than less empathic older adults.

H2a: We expected more empathic older adults to have more frequent contact with their social partners having problems than less empathic older adults.

H2b. When in contact with social partners having problems, we expected more empathic older adults to have fewer negative encounters than less empathic older adults.

H3.  We tested competing hypotheses regarding whether empathy maintained or reduced older adults’ mood when they had encounters with social partners having problems.

Methods

Participants were from the Daily Experiences and Well-being Study which occurred in 2016–2017 (Fingerman, Huo, Charles, & Umberson, 2019). The University of Texas at Austin Institutional Review Board approved all procedures (2015-02-0123). We recruited 333 community-dwelling adults aged more than 65 years in the Greater Austin, Texas. The screening procedure selected older adults who did not have cognitive impairment and were not employed for pay over 20 hr a week. We oversampled male and minority participants to obtain a diverse sample. Although this sample was better educated than the older population in this area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017), we included participants from the full spectrum of socioeconomic statuses.

Participants first completed 2-hr face-to-face interviews, during which they offered their background characteristics and listed social partners using three concentric convoy circles (Antonucci, 1986). Names of the 10 closest social partners (first name and last initial) were entered into ecological momentary assessments (i.e., EMA; Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford, 2008) on Android devices provided by the study. Participants received in-depth training on filling out these assessments. EMA captured participants’ behaviors and experiences every 3 hr throughout the day across 5–6 days (2 weekend days and 2 or 3 weekdays). We individualized these assessments for participants to indicate their encounters with each social partner. Participants also reported on their own mood in these assessments.

All participants were invited to complete EMA and 313 participants provided data for analysis (m = 20 assessments, n = 6,262 assessments). These participants were less likely to be minority (χ2 = 7.19, p = .007) but did not differ in other characteristics from the other 20 participants. Participants received $50 for the interview and another $100 for the EMA.

Interview Measures

Participant empathy

Participants rated their empathy using 5 items out of the original 8-item scale. The scale was modified from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, a widely used measure of individual differences in empathy (empathic concern and perspective taking subscales; Davis, 1983). Participants rated how much each of the statements described them from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). Example items included the following: “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me” and “I sometimes try to understand other people better by imagining how things look from their perspective.” Three statements were reverse coded such as, “Sometimes I do not feel sorry for other people when they are having problems.” Interviewer notes and recordings revealed that most participants reported difficulties in understanding these items. Thus, we excluded these 3 items and instead used a 5-item scale in analyses. We averaged participants’ ratings across the five items (α = .73).

Participant characteristics

Participants reported their age in years; gender as 1 (male) and 0 (female), physical health as 1 (poor), 2 (fair), 3 (good), 4 (very good), and 5 (excellent; Idler & Kasl, 1995); education as 1 (no formal education), 2 (elementary school), 3 (some high school), 4 (high school), 5 (some college or vocation or trade school), 6 (college graduate), 7 (post college but no additional degree), and 8 (advanced degree); and marital status dichotomized as 1 (married or remarried) and 0 (not married). We recoded minority status as 1 (ethnic or racial minorities) and 0 (non-Hispanic Whites) based on participants’ ethnic and racial identities. Among participants who self-identified as minorities (n = 109), 51% of these participants were Latinx Americans and 49% were African Americans. As for agreeableness and neuroticism, we used validated personality measures from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) which is a national study of adults aged 25–74 years. Participants rated how well each of the five agreeableness items (helpful, warm, softhearted, sympathetic, caring; Mroczek & Almeida, 2004) described them from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). They also rated the four neuroticism items (e.g., moody, nervous; Lachman & Weaver, 1997) from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). We averaged the ratings across items to measure agreeableness (α = .77) and neuroticism (α = .70).

Social partners

Participants named members in their social networks. In three concentric circles (Antonucci, 1986), they listed social partners: (a) that they feel so close to, it is hard to imagine life without them, (b) to whom they may not feel quite that close, but who are still very important, and (c) whom they have not already mentioned but who are close enough and important enough in their lives that these social partners should also be included. Participants had 15.09 social partners (range = 0–30, primarily family and friends), which is higher than in other older adult samples (e.g., m = 11.30 in Ajrouch, Fuller, Akiyama, & Antonucci, 2018; m = 10.82 in Fiori, Smith, & Antonucci, 2007). To avoid fatigue, participants specified characteristics of up to 10 closest social partners (Fiori et al., 2007).

Social partner life problems

Participants indicated whether each social partner incurred seven life problems during the past year (Fingerman, Miller, Birditt, & Zarit, 2009). The problems were (a) health problem or injury, (b) psychological problem, (c) drug or alcohol problem, (d) financial problem, (d) loss of a close friend, (e) the victim of a crime, and (f) housing or neighborhood problem. Owing to skewed distributions of problems, we recoded a variable to measure 1 (this social partner had at least one problem) and 0 (this social partner did not have any problems). We calculated the proportion of social partners experiencing problems.

Ecological Momentary Assessment Measures

Encounters

Every 3 hrs, participants reported whether they had any contact with each social partner as 1 (yes) and 0 (no). If they had an encounter, participants also indicated (a) whether they discussed anything stressful on 1 (yes) or 0 (no), and (b) how pleasant this encounter was from 1 (unpleasant), 2 (a little unpleasant), 3 (neutral), 4 (a little pleasant) to 5 (pleasant). We recoded the second indicator as 1 if the encounter was at least a little unpleasant (score of 1 or 2) or 0 if they were not unpleasant (scores 3 –5). Then we generated an indicator such that encounters were coded as negative if they involved discussing anything stressful and/or were considered unpleasant. In total, only 2% of encounters involved discussing something stressful but were not viewed as unpleasant.

Encounters with social partners suffering problems

Using the variable indicating whether each social partner had at least one life problem, we generated two variables: (a) 1 (participants had contact with social partners suffering problems during the past 3 hr) and 0 (participants did not have contact with social partners suffering problems during the past 3 hr), as well as (b) 1 (participants had negative encounter with social partners suffering problems during the past 3 hr) and 0 (participants did not have negative encounter with social partners suffering problems during the past 3 hr). We also calculated two proportions for analysis: (a) the proportion of 3-hr assessments in which older adults had contact with social partners having problems out of all assessments involving contact and (b) the proportion of 3-hr assessments in which older adults had negative encounters with social partners having problems out of all assessments involving contact with these social partners.

Mood

Participants rated the extent to which they experienced three positive emotions (content, loved, calm) and five negative emotions (nervous or worried, irritated, bored, lonely, sad; Fingerman, Kim, Tennant, Birditt, & Zarit, 2016; Piazza, Charles, Stawski, & Almeida, 2013). Responses were coded from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). We calculated averages to measure positive (α = .73) and negative mood (α = .72) for each participant at each 3-hr assessment.

Analytic Strategy

All models adjusted for participant age, gender, education, health, marital status, minority status, agreeableness, and neuroticism. We first examined whether more empathic older adults reported a greater proportion of social partners who had problems than less empathic older adults. We estimated a multiple regression, where participants’ empathy was the predictor and the proportion of social partners with problems was the outcome.

We then tested whether more empathic older adults had more contact but fewer negative encounters with social partners incurring problems throughout the day. We estimated two multiple regressions, predicting the proportion of assessments older adults had (a) contact and (b) negative encounters with social partners incurring problems. The predictor was empathy.

Finally, we examined whether empathy moderated the associations between contact or negative encounters with social partners suffering problems and mood. We estimated three-level models using SAS PROC MIXED due to nested data. The 3-hr report (Level 1) was nested within each day (Level 2), which was nested within each participant (Level 3). Predictors were whether participants had (a) contact with social partners having problems as 1 (yes) or 0 (no), and (b) negative encounter with these social partners as 1 (yes) or 0 (no); predictors were analyzed in separate models. Positive and negative mood every 3 hr were outcomes in separate models (four models). To test whether these links varied by empathy, we included interaction terms between empathy (centered on the sample mean) and the social encounter variables. In the interview, 74% of participants (n = 229) reported having both social partners with problems and partners without problems. Thus, we controlled for whether participants had contact or negative encounters with social partners not experiencing problems in the same 3-hr interval in the same models. We explored significant interactions with simple slopes analysis.

Results

The vast majority (77%, n = 241) of participants had at least one social partner experiencing problems. These participants did not differ from the other 72 participants without social partners experiencing problems in any characteristics. Participants had contact during the majority of assessments (89%) and had negative encounters during about one fifth of all the assessments. We present bivariate correlations in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Information of Participants (n = 313) and Correlations between Measures

Characteristics M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Age 73.94 6.38 —
2. Educationa 5.88 1.61 −0.07 —
3. Healthb 3.56 1.02 −0.04 0.30*** —
4. Empathyc 3.77 0.66 −0.07 0.12* 0.01 —
5. Agreeablenessd 3.46 0.48 −0.03 −0.03 0.01 0.33*** —
6. Neuroticisme 2.42 0.69 −0.13* −0.09 −0.25*** −0.05 −0.13* —
7. % of contactf 0.36 0.38 0.03 0.08 −0.12* 0.08 0.09 0.12* —
8. % of negative encountersf 0.10 0.19 −0.10 0.04 −0.09 0.08 0.06 0.16** 0.65*** —
9. Positive moodg 3.47 0.80 −0.10 −0.03 0.09 0.13 0.23*** −0.09 0.01 −0.01 —
10. Negative moodg 1.21 0.39 −0.03 −0.02 −0.22 0.05 −0.04 0.37*** 0.10 0.19** −0.07 — —
Proportion
11. Females .56 0.02 0.17** 0.04 −0.12* −0.27*** 0.02 −0.05 −0.09 −0.05 −0.02 —
12. Marital statush .59 −0.23*** 0.16** 0.03 −0.02 −0.12* 0.14* −0.05 −0.03 0.04 −0.04 0.40*** —
13. Minorityi .31 −0.12* −0.36** −0.35*** 0.01 0.03 0.14* −0.02 −0.05 0.07 0.02 −0.00 −0.01 —
14. Partners with problemsj .77 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.52*** 0.40*** 0.02 0.11 −0.09 −0.06 −0.06 —
Open in a new tab

Note: Data source—Daily Experiences and Well-being Study.

a1 (no formal education), 2 (elementary school), 3 (some high school), 4 (high school), 5 (some college or vocation or trade school), 6 (college graduate), 7 (post college but no additional degree), and 8 (advanced degree).

b1 (poor), 2 (fair), 3 (good), 4 (very good), and 5 (excellent).

cAveraged ratings of 5 items from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal).

dAveraged ratings of 5 agreeableness items (e.g., helpful, considerate) on 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (somewhat), 4 (a lot).

eAveraged ratings of 4 neuroticism items (e.g., moody, nervous) on 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (somewhat), 4 (quite a bit), and 5 (a great deal).

fPercentage of contact or negative encounters with social partners who had problems.

gAveraged ratings of 4 positive items (e.g., calm, proud) and five negative items (e.g., nervous, irritated) from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal).

hCoded as 1 (married or remarried), and 0 (not married).

iCoded as 1 (an ethnic or racial minority), and 0 (not a minority).

jPercentage of participants who had at least one social partner with problems.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hypotheses Testing

Exposure and encounters with social partners experiencing problems

As expected, older adults’ empathy was associated with a greater proportion of social partners having problems (B = 0.04, p = .04; Table 2). We also expected more empathic older adults to have more contact and fewer negative encounters with these social partners. Yet, older adults’ empathy was not significantly associated with having contact (B = 0.02, p = .43) or negative encounters (B = −0.00, p = .93) with these social partners (not in table).

Table 2.

Multiple Regression Predicting the Proportion of Social Partners Experiencing Problems From Participant Empathy

Parameter Without covariates With covariates
B SE B SE
Intercept 0.04 0.07 −0.10 0.22
Participant empathya 0.06** 0.02 0.04* 0.02
Covariates
 Participant age — — 0.00 0.00
 Participant genderb — — −0.03 0.03
 Participant educationc — — 0.02 0.01
 Participant self-rated healthd — — −0.03* 0.01
 Participant marital statuse — — −0.06 0.03
 Participant minority statusf — — −0.01 0.03
 Participant agreeablenessg — — 0.04 0.03
 Participant neuroticismh — — 0.04* 0.02
F 8.55** 3.45***
Adjusted R2 .02 .06
Open in a new tab

Note: Data source—Daily Experiences and Well-being Study. Participants n = 313, social partners n = 4,724.

aAveraged ratings of 5 empathy items on 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (somewhat), 4 (quite a bit), and 5 (a great deal).

b1 (male) and 0 (female).

c1 (no formal education), 2 (elementary school), 3 (some high school), 4 (high school), 5 (some college or vocation or trade school), 6 (college graduate), 7 (post college (no additional degree)), and 8 (advanced degree).

d1 (poor), 2 (fair), 3 (good), 4 (very good), and 5 (excellent).

e1 (married or remarried) and 0 (not married).

fCoded as 1 (racial or ethnic minority) and 0 (not a minority).

gAveraged ratings of 5 agreeableness items (e.g., helpful, considerate) on 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (somewhat), 4 (a lot).

hAveraged ratings of 4 neuroticism items (e.g., moody, nervous) on 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (somewhat), 4 (quite a bit), and 5 (a great deal).

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Implications for mood

We explored whether empathy had benefits or costs on older adults’ mood. We expected older adults’ empathy to maintain or reduce their mood when they had contact or negative encounters with social partners incurring problems. We found one interaction of empathy × negative encounters on older adults’ positive mood (B = 0.10, p < .001; Table 3). Simple slopes analysis (Figure 1) revealed that older adults reported reduced positive mood when they had negative encounters with social partners incurring problems; however, this link was weaker in more empathic older adults (B = −0.06, p < .05) compared to less empathic older adults (B = −0.20, p < .001). There was no significant interaction of empathy and negative encounters on negative mood (B = −0.03, p = .14). We did not observe interactions involving contact on positive mood (B = 0.03, p = .23) or negative mood (B = 0.00, p = .81, not in tables).

Table 3.

Older Adults’ Empathy Moderating the Link between Negative Encounters and Positive Mood Throughout the Day

Parameter Without covariates With covariates
B SE B SE
Intercept 3.45*** 0.04 3.13*** 0.64
Participant empathya 0.17** 0.06 0.07 0.06
Negative encounters with partners having problemsb −0.14*** 0.02 −0.13*** 0.02
Empathya × negative encountersb 0.10** 0.03 0.10*** 0.03
Covariates
 Negative encounters with partner not having problemsb — — −0.07*** 0.02
 Participant age — — −0.01 0.01
 Participant genderc — — −0.01 0.09
 Participant educationd — — −0.01 0.03
 Participant self-rated healthe — — 0.09*** 0.01
 Participant marital statusf — — 0.25** 0.09
 Participant minority statusg — — 0.04 0.09
 Participant agreeablenessh — — 0.39*** 0.09
 Participant neuroticismi — — −0.17** 0.06
Random effects
 Intercept VAR (Level 2: Day) 0.05*** 0.00 0.04*** 0.00
 Intercept VAR (Level 3: Participant) 0.46*** 0.04 0.41*** 0.04
 Residual VAR 0.13*** 0.00 0.13*** 0.00
−2 log likelihood 7,182.0 6,940.9
Open in a new tab

Note: Data source—Daily Experiences and Well-being Study. Participants n = 313, social partners n = 4,724. VAR = variance.

aAveraged ratings of 5 empathy items on 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (somewhat), 4 (quite a bit), and 5 (a great deal).

b1 (had negative encounters with social partners (not) experiencing problems), and 0 (did not have negative encounters with social partners (not) experiencing problems).

c1 (male) and 0 (female).

d1 (no formal education), 2 (elementary school), 3 (some high school), 4 (high school), 5 (some college or vocation or trade school), 6 (college graduate), 7 (post college (no additional degree)), and 8 (advanced degree).

e1 (poor), 2 (fair), 3 (good), 4 (very good), and 5 (excellent).

f1 (married or remarried) and 0 (not married).

gCoded as 1 (racial or ethnic minority) and 0 (not a minority).

hAveraged ratings of 5 agreeableness items (e.g., helpful, considerate) on 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (somewhat), 4 (a lot).

iAveraged ratings of 4 neuroticism items (e.g., moody, nervous) on 1 (not at all), 2 (a little bit), 3 (somewhat), 4 (quite a bit), and 5 (a great deal).

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Interaction effects of empathy × negative encounters with social partners having problems on older adults’ positive mood throughout the day.

Post hoc tests

We conducted lagged analyses to examine whether older adults’ empathy influenced the lingering effect of older adults’ encounters on their mood. We found one interaction: empathy × contact on older adults’ negative mood (B = −0.05, p = .005). Simple slopes analysis revealed that after having contact with social partners experiencing problems, more empathic older adults reported reduced negative mood in the next few hours (B = 0.04, p = .04). Less empathic older adults, however, reported increased negative mood (B = −0.03, p = .04).

Discussion and Implications

A burgeoning literature examines the downside of empathy (e.g., Decety & Lamm, 2009; Eisenberg & Eggum, 2009; Manczak, Delongis, & Chen, 2016; Oakley et al., 2012), but this was the first empirical study that tested whether empathy reduces older adults’ well-being when their family or friends suffer troubles. We found that more empathic older adults reported more social partners who had major life problems but did not have more encounters with these partners throughout the day. Encounters with social partners who had problems reduced older adults’ mood; however, this link was weaker or even reversed in more empathic older adults. Findings identify a promising role that empathy may play in family therapies and interventions that protect older adults’ emotional well-being when their social partners incur problems.

Older Adults’ Empathy and Social Partners Experiencing Problems

We expected more empathic older adults to report more social partners with major life problems and confirmed this hypothesis. Indeed, more empathic older adults are more concerned about their social partners’ welfare (Batson, 2011). We relied on older adults’ reports of their social partners’ problems in the past year. It may be that more empathic older adults are more likely to keep their social partners’ needs in mind whereas less empathic older adults do not take others’ problems seriously. Further, researchers may obtain social partners’ reports to examine whether they tend to disclose problems to more empathic older adults.

We also expected more empathic older adults to engage in more contact and fewer negative encounters with social partners who had problems throughout the day. Surprisingly, we did not find these links. It is possible that empathy influences the content rather than the frequency of these encounters. Research suggests that more empathic individuals tend to engage in problem solving or helping behaviors (Carlo et al., 2012; Rizkalla et al., 2008). Likewise, more empathic older adults may spend time helping their social partners having problems (Huo, Fuentecilla, Birditt, & Fingerman, 2019) whereas less empathic older adults criticize these partners during their encounters. This interpretation requires further exploration with more detailed accounts of older adults’ daily social encounters. Researchers may ask participants what they had discussed during encounters, or capture their conversations using auditory data.

Older Adults’ Empathy and Implications of Encounters for Mood

We also raised competing hypotheses and asked how empathy was associated with older adults’ mood during contact and negative encounters with social partners experiencing problems. Findings suggest that more empathic older adults are less reactive to their negative encounters with social partners having problems compared to less empathic older adults. This may be because more empathic older adults are better able to “stand in these social partners’ shoes” and understand these partners’ struggles. By contrast, less empathic older participants may blame their social partners for what these partners are suffering (Decety & Lamm, 2009; Oakley et al., 2012). Further, helping behaviors likely co-occur even when more empathic older adults have negative encounters with their social partners having problems. For example, more empathic older adults may focus on addressing their social partners’ problems rather than ruminating about their social partners’ problems (Batson, 2011; Carlo et al., 2012; Rizkalla et al., 2008).

We also explored lingering consequences of these encounters. Research showed that interacting with adult children who suffered problems negatively influenced midlife and older parents’ emotional and physical well-being the next day (Barker, Greenberg, Seltzer, & Almeida, 2012; Birditt et al., 2016). We found that empathy reversed this link. More empathic older adults received lasting benefits from contact with their social partners experiencing problems whereas less empathic older adults suffered from such contact. More empathic older adults may use their everyday encounters to check in with their social partners’ situations, which may bring these older adults comfort and emotional rewards.

Limitation and Implications

Several limitations in this study warrant consideration. This study drew on a relatively small sample from a small geographic area of the United States, where older adults are highly educated. Yet, this is the most diverse sample available to examine older adults’ daily experiences. Also, due to the complexity of the Daily Experiences and Well-being Study, our participants may be more social and positive than the general older population. We did not measure participants’ own problems using the same items, but we adjusted for their education and health, which are highly associated with life problems (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010). We used older adults’ self-reports of social experiences and well-being, which may be positively biased. A daily diary study tracked participants aged 21–89 years across 7 days and found that more empathic participants regarded their encounters as more positive and meaningful (Grühn et al., 2008). Researchers may measure social experiences in a more objective manner.

Future studies may examine negative aspects of empathy we failed to capture. For example, empathy may have a more salient negative effect in certain older adults. Scholars posit that empathy may be detrimental when individuals cannot regulate distress (Hodges & Biswas-Diener, 2007; Hoffman, 2008). Some older adults are exposed to chronic stressors (e.g., serving as a primary caregiver or incurring severe disability themselves) and they may have a harder time regulating the distress they share.

This study carries practical implications by identifying a promising role that empathy may play in family therapies and health-promotion interventions. Researchers have successfully improved young children’s empathy via interventions (Eisenberg, Eggum, & Di Giunta, 2010; Fonagy et al., 2009). Nevertheless, similar empathy training has rarely been implemented in older populations. Our findings emphasize that interventions targeting older adults should also incorporate empathy training to benefit their social experiences and well-being. Prior empathy trainings in younger populations have incorporated role playing with a virtual figure to understand others’ emotions. Given that older adults prioritize their social ties with close family and friends, it may be more effective to train older adults’ empathy in real-life settings. Most older adults have beloved social partners who incur major life problems, which likely hurt these older adults (Pillemer et al., 2017). Empathy training may focus on increasing older adults’ awareness to their social partners’ problems and have the potential to improve their behaviors in response. For instance, training older adults’ empathy may equip them with better skills to communicate with their social partners and offer help in a more considerate way (Batson, 2011; Huo et al., 2019). Moreover, increasing empathy, and the helping behaviors that accompany it, may build older adults’ resilience in the face of social stressors.

In conclusion, this study extends the literature by showing how empathy shapes older adults’ social experiences involving their friends and family who incur problems. We found that being empathic exposed older adults to a greater number of these social partners with problems and also protected their well-being during encounters with these partners. Findings offer new insights into family therapies and health-promotion interventions, emphasizing the importance of empathy in promoting successful aging.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging (NIA), Social Networks and Well-being in Late Life: A Study of Daily Mechanisms (R01AG046460; K. L. Fingerman, Principal investigator). This research was supported by grant, P2CHD042849 awarded to the Population Research Center (PRC) at the University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). This study also was supported by the Donald D. Harrington Dissertation Fellowship awarded to M. Huo by the University of Texas at Austin.

Conflict of Interest

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or nonfinancial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

References

  1. Ajrouch K. J., Fuller H. R., Akiyama H., & Antonucci T. C (2018). Convoys of social relations in cross-national context. Gerontologist, 58, 488–499. doi:10.1093/geront/gnw204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonucci T. C. (1986). Hierarchical mapping technique. Generations, 10, 10–12. [Google Scholar]
  3. Batson C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barker E. T., Greenberg J. S., Seltzer M. M., Almeida D. M. (2012). Daily stress and cortisol patterns in parents of adult children with a serious mental illness. Health Psychology, 31, 130–134. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Beadle J. N., Sheehan A. H., Dahlben B., & Gutchess A. H (2015). Aging, empathy, and prosociality. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70, 215–224. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Birditt K. S., Kim K., Zarit S. H., Fingerman K. L., & Loving T. J (2016). Daily interactions in the parent-adult child tie: Links between children’s problems and parents’ diurnal cortisol rhythms. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 63, 208–216. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.09.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bourassa K. J., Memel M., Woolverton C., & Sbarra D. A (2015). A dyadic approach to health, cognition, and quality of life in aging adults. Psychology and Aging, 30, 449–461. doi:10.1037/pag0000025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Caprara G. V., Alessandri G., Eisenberg N., Kupfer A., Steca P., Caprara M. G.,…Abela J (2012). The positivity scale. Psychological Assessment, 24, 701–712. doi:10.1037/a0026681 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlo G., Mestre M. V., McGinley M. M., Samper P., Tur A., & Sandman D (2012). The interplay of emotional instability, empathy, and coping on prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 675–680. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.022 [Google Scholar]
  10. Charles S. T. (2010). Strength and vulnerability integration: A model of emotional well-being across adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1068–1091. doi:10.1037/a0021232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Charles S. T. & Carstensen L. L (2010). Social and emotional aging. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 383–409. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cichy K. E., Stawski R. S., & Almeida D. M (2012). Racial differences in exposure and reactivity to daily family stressors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 572–586. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00971.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Conger R. D., Conger K. J., Martin M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 685–704. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cramer D. & Jowett S (2010). Perceived empathy, accurate empathy and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 327–349. doi:10.1177/0265407509348384 [Google Scholar]
  15. Davis M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 [Google Scholar]
  16. Decety J. & Lamm C (2009). Empathy versus personal distress: Recent evidence from social neuroscience. In Decety J. & Ickes W. (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 199–213). Cambridge, MA: MIT press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Decety J. & Svetlova M (2012). Putting together phylogenetic and ontogenetic perspectives on empathy. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2011.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Einolf C. J. (2008). Empathic concern and prosocial behaviors: A test of experimental results using survey data. Social Science Research, 37, 1267–1279. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Eisenberg N. & Eggum N. D (2009). Empathic responding: Sympathy and personal distress. In Decety J. & Ickes W. (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 71–83). Boston: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eisenberg N., Eggum N. D., & Di Giunta L (2010). Empathy-related Responding: Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 143–180. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fingerman K. L., Huo M., Charles S. T., & Umberson D. J (2019). Variety is the spice of late life: Social integration and daily activity. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbz007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fingerman K. L., Huo M., Graham J. L., Kim K., & Birditt K. S (2018). A family affair: Family typologies of problems and midlife well-being. Gerontologist, 58, 1054–1064. doi:10.1093/geront/gnx131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fingerman K. L., Kim K., Tennant P. S., Birditt K. S., & Zarit S. H (2016). Intergenerational support in a daily context. Gerontologist, 56, 896–908. doi:10.1093/geront/gnv035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fingerman K., Miller L., Birditt K., & Zarit S (2009). Giving to the good and the needy: Parental support of grown Children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1220–1233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00665.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fiori K. L., Smith J., & Antonucci T. C (2007). Social network types among older adults: A multidimensional approach. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, 322–330. doi:10.1093/geronb/62.6.P322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fonagy P., Twemlow S. W., Vernberg E. M., Nelson J. M., Dill E. J., Little T. D., & Sargent J. A (2009). A cluster randomized controlled trial of child‐focused psychiatric consultation and a school systems focused intervention to reduce aggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 607–616. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02025.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Graziano W. G., Habashi M. M., Sheese B. E., & Tobin R. M (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person x situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 583–599. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Grühn D., Rebucal K., Diehl M., Lumley M., & Labouvie-Vief G (2008). Empathy across the adult lifespan: Longitudinal and experience-sampling findings. Emotion, 8, 753–765. doi:10.1037/a0014123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Haas B. W., Ishak A., Denison L., Anderson I., & Filkowski M. M (2015). Agreeableness and brain activity during emotion attribution decisions. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 26–31. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2015.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hodges S. D. & Biswas-Diener R (2007). Balancing the empathy expense account: Strategies for regulating empathic response. In Farrow T. F. D. & Woodruff P. W. R. (Eds.), Empathy in mental illness (pp. 389–407). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoffman M. L. (2008). Empathy and prosocial behavior. In Lewis M., Haviland-Jones M., & Barrett L. F. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 440–455). New York, NY: Guilford press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Huo M., Fuentecilla J. L., Birditt K. S., & Fingerman K. L (2019). Empathy and older adults’ support exchanges in a daily context. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0265407519837372 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Idler E. L. & Kasl S. V (1995). Self-ratings of health: Do they also predict change in functional ability? The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 50, S344–S353. doi:10.1093/geronb/50B.6.S344 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kiecolt-Glaser J. K. & Wilson S. J (2017). Lovesick: How couples’ relationships influence health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 421–443. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lachman M. E. & Weaver S. L (1997). The Midlife Development Inventory (MIDI) Personality Scales: Scale construction and scoring. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University. [Google Scholar]
  36. Manczak E. M., DeLongis A., & Chen E (2016). Does empathy have a cost? Diverging psychological and physiological effects within families. Health Psychology, 35, 211–218. doi:10.1037/hea0000281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mooradian T. A., Davis M., & Matzler K (2011). Dispositional empathy and the hierarchical structure of personality. American Journal of Psychology, 124, 99–109. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mroczek D. K. & Almeida D. M (2004). The effect of daily stress, personality, and age on daily negative affect. Journal of Personality, 72, 355–378. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00265.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Brien E., Konrath S. H., Grühn D., & Hagen A. L (2013). Empathic concern and perspective taking: Linear and quadratic effects of age across the adult life span. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68, 168–175. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbs055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Oakley B., Knafo A., Madhavan G., & Wilson D. S., eds. (2011). Pathological altruism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Piazza J. R., Charles S. T., Stawski R. S., & Almeida D. M (2013). Age and the association between negative affective states and diurnal cortisol. Psychology and Aging, 28, 47–56. doi:10.1037/a0029983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Pillemer K., Suitor J. J., Riffin C., & Gilligan M (2017). Adult Children’s problems and mothers’ well-being. Research on Aging, 39, 375–395. doi:10.1177/0164027515611464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Preston S. D. & de Waal F. B (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–20. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rendall M. S., Weden M. M., Favreault M. M., & Waldron H (2011). The protective effect of marriage for survival: A review and update. Demography, 48, 481–506. doi:10.1007/s13524-011-0032-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rizkalla L., Wertheim E. H., & Hodgson L. K (2008). The roles of emotion management and perspective taking in individuals’ conflict management styles and disposition to forgive. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1594–1601. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  46. Robinson M. D., Ode S., Moeller S. K., & Goetz P. W (2007). Neuroticism and affective priming: Evidence for a neuroticism-linked negative schema. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1221–1231. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Roelofs J., Huibers M., Peeters F., Arntz A., & van Os J (2008). Rumination and worrying as possible mediators in the relation between neuroticism and symptoms of depression and anxiety in clinically depressed individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 1283–1289. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Roper S. O. & Yorgason J. B (2009). Older adults with diabetes and osteoarthritis and their spouses: Effects of activity limitations, marital happiness, and social contacts on partners’ daily mood. Family Relations, 58, 460–474. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2009.00566.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Rosenfield S. (2012). Triple jeopardy? Mental health at the intersection of gender, race, and class. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 74, 1791–1801. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Seltzer M. M., Almeida D. M., Greenberg J. S., Savla J., Stawski R. S., Hong J., & Taylor J. L (2009). Psychosocial and biological markers of daily lives of midlife parents of children with disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50, 1–15. doi:10.1177/002214650905000101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shiffman S., Stone A. A., & Hufford M. R (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sze J. A., Gyurak A., Goodkind M. S., & Levenson R. W (2012). Greater emotional empathy and prosocial behavior in late life. Emotion, 12, 1129–1140. doi:10.1037/a0025011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. U.S. Census Bureau (2017, April 10). Facts for Features: Older Americans Month: May 2017. Retrieved July 1, 2018, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_1YR_S1501&prodType=table
  54. Verhofstadt L. L., Buysse A., Ickes W., Davis M., & Devoldre I (2008). Support provision in marriage: The role of emotional similarity and empathic accuracy. Emotion, 8, 792–802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Verhofstadt L., Devoldre I., Buysse A., Stevens M., Hinnekens C., Ickes W., & Davis M (2016). The role of cognitive and affective empathy in spouses’ support interactions: An observational study. PLoS One, 11, e0149944. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. de Waal F. B. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279–300. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Gerontologist are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES