Religious Commitment and Empathic Concern
An Empirical Study of German Youth
In: Journal of Empirical TheologySearch for other papers by Hans-Georg Ziebertz in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
There is very extensive literature on whether and how religiosity and empathy are related. Such research shows very different results, with some finding a positive influence while others seeing no influence. This paper presents research conducted on German youth (N=2157) regarding the question of how young people score on empathic concern and which concepts function as predictors. Therefore, different concepts on religious commitment are included, and in order to properly assess the meaning of religiosity in the social context of young people, socio-cultural concepts and socio-demographic characteristics are similarly included. The findings show that around two thirds of the respondents score positive or very positive on empathic concern, and that empathic concern correlates with both religious and socio-cultural concepts. Our regression analysis shows that among religious concepts the centrality of religiosity has the strongest influence (β=.220) and among the socio-religious concepts the students’ support for multiculturalism is the strongest factor (β=.195). Admittedly, the beta of sex is even higher, as being female shows the strongest influence on empathic concern (β=.265).
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Allport G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
-
Allport G.W. and Ross J.M. (1967). ‘Personal religious orientation and prejudice’. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 5, issue 4, 432-443.
-
Altemeyer B. and Hunsberger B. (1992). ‘Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest, and Prejudice’. In International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 2, issue 2, 113-133.
-
Bampton R. and Maclagan P. (2009). ‘Does a ‘care orientation’ explain gender differences in ethical decision making? A critical analysis and fresh findings’. In Business Ethics, Vol. 18, Issue 2, 179-191.
-
Batson C.D. (1983). ‘Sociobiology and the role of religion in promoting prosocial behaviour: An alternative view’. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45, 1380-1385.
-
Cartledge, M. (2009). God, Gender and Social Roles: A Study in Relation to Empirical-Theological Models of the Trinity. In Journal of Empirical Theology, Vol. 22, Issue 2, 117-141.
-
Chopik W.J., O’Brien E. and Konrath S.H. (2017). ‘Differences in Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking Across 63 Countries’. In Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 48, Issue 1, 23-38.
-
Cikara M., Bruneau E.G. and Saxe, R.R. (2011). ‘Us and Them: Intergroup Failures of Empathy’. In Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 20, Issue: 3, 149-153.
-
Coward H. (1986). ‘Intolerance in the world’s religions’. In Studies in Religion, Vol. 15, 419-431.
-
Cuff B.M.P, Brown S.J., Taylor L. and Howat D.J. (2016). ‘Empathy: A Review of the Concept’. In Emotion Review, Vol. 8, Issue 2, 144-153.
-
Darwall, S. (1998). ‘Empathy, Sympathy, and Care’. In Philosophical Studies, Vol. 89, 261-282.
-
Davis M.H. (1983). ‘Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach’. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 44, 113-126.
-
Davis, M. H. (1980). ‘A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy’. In JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol. 10, 85.
-
Decety J. and Lamm C. (2006). ‘Human Empathy Through the Lens of Social Neuroscience’. In The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 6, 1146-1163.
-
Decety J., Bartal I.B.A, Uzefovsky F. and Knafo-Noam A. (2016). ‘Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species’. In Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371 (1686), 20150077.
-
DeVellis R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications, London: Sage.
-
Dupuis J. (1999). Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, Maryknoll: Orbis.
-
Duriez B. (2004). ‘Are religious people nicer people? Taking a closer look at the religions-empathy relationship’. In Mental Health, Religion and Culture, Vol. 7, Issue 3, 249-254.
-
Duriez B., Fontaine R.R.J. and Hutsebaut D. (2000). ‘A further elaboration of the Post-Critical Belief Scale’. In Psychologica Belgica, Vol. 40, 153-181.
-
Einolf C.J. (2008). ‘Empathic concern and prosocial behaviors: a test of experimental results of survey data’. In Social Science Research, Vol. 37, Issue 4, 1267-1279.
-
Eisenberg N. and Miller P.A. (1987). ‘The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors’. In Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 101, 91-119.
-
Francis L.J. (1987). ‘Empathic development during adolescence: religiosity, the missing link?’. In Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 145-148.
-
Francis L.J. (2007). ‘God images and empathy’. In Heggy P. (ed.), What do we imagine God to be? Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 67-88.
-
Francis L.J., Croft, J.S. and Pyke A. (2012). ‘Religious diversity, empathy, and God images: perspectives from the psychology of religion shaping a study among adolescents in the UK’. In Journal of Beliefs & Values, Vol. 33, Issue 3, 293-307.
-
Gilligan C., Attanucci J. (1988). ‘Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities’. In Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 34, Issue 3, 223-237.
-
Giordano A.L., Prosek E.A. and Lankford C.T. (2014). ‘Predicting Empathy: The Role of Religion and Spirituality’. In Journal of Professional Counseling, Practice, Theory, & Research, Vol. 41, Issue 2, 53-66.
-
Hedges P. (2010). Controversies in interreligious Dialogue and the Theology of Religions, London: SCM Press.
-
Henry P.J. and Hardin C.D. (2006). ‘The Contact Hypothesis Revisited. Status Bias in the Reduction of Implicit Prejudice in the United States and Lebanon’. In Psychological Science, Vol. 17, Issue 10, 862-868.
-
Hermans, C.A.M. (2013). Spiritual Transformation: Concept and Measurement. In Journal of Empirical Theology, Vol. 26, Issue 2, 165-187.
-
Hick J. and Knitter P.F. (1987). The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, Maryknoll: Orbis.
-
Huber St. (2003). Zentralität und Inhalt. Ein neues multidimensionales Messmodell der Religiosität. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
-
Huber, S. and Huber, O. (2012). ‘The Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS)’. In Religions, Vol. 3, 710-724.
-
Khan Z.H., Watson P.J. and Habib F. (2007). ‘Muslim attitudes toward religion, religious orientation and empathy among Pakistanis’. In Journal of Mental Health, Religion & Culture, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 49-61.
-
Koestner R., Weinberger J. and Franz C. (1990). ‘The Family Origins of Empathic Concern. A 26-Year Longitudinal Study’. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 58, Issue 4, 709-717.
-
Konrath S. and Grynberg D. (2013). The positive (and negative) psychology of empathy. The neurobiology and psychology of empathy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Biomedical Books.
-
Maiboom H. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Empathy. Abingdon: Routledge.
-
Malhotra D. (2010). ‘(When) are religious people nicer? Religious salience and the “Sunday Effect” on pro-social behavior’. In Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 138-143.
-
Mestre M.V., Samper P., Frías M-D. and Tur A.M. (2009). ‘Are Women More Empathetic than Men? A Longitudinal Study in Adolescence’. In The Spanish Journal of Psychology, Vol. 12, 76-83.
-
Miles E. and Crisp R.J. (2014). ‘A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis’. In Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 17, Issue 1, 3-26.
-
Niezink L.W., Siero F.W., Dijkstra P. Buunk A.P, and Barelds D.P.H. (2012). ‘Empathic concern: Distinguishing between tenderness and sympathy’. In Motivation and Emotion, Vol, 36, Issue 4, 544-549.
-
Nunnally J.C. and Bernstein I.H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
-
O’Brien E., Konrath S.H., Grühn D. and Hagen A.L. (2013). ‘Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking: Linear and Quadratic Effects of Age Across the Adult Life Span’. In The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Vol. 68, Issue 2, 168-175.
-
Poloma M.M. and Gallup G.H. (1991). Varieties of Prayer. Philadelphia: Trinity Press.
-
Preece J.J. and Ghozati K. (2001). ‘Experiencing Empathy Online’. In Rice R.E. (ed.), The Internet and Health Communication: Experiences and Expectations. Thousend Oaks: Sage, 237-260.
-
Rattazzi A. M. M., Bobbio A. and Canova, L. (2007). ‘A short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale’. In Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 43, Issue 5, 1223-1234.
-
Salazar, Ch. (2014). Understanding Belief: Some Qualitative Evidence. In Journal of Empirical Theology, Vol. 27, Issue 2, 199-213.
-
Saroglou V., Pichon I., Trompette L., Verschueren M. and Dernelle R. (2005). ‘Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings’. In Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 44, Issue 3, 323-348.
-
Schilderman, H. (2014). Religion as Concept and Measure. In Journal of Empirical Theology, Vol. 27, Issue 1, 1-16.
-
Shoemaker A. and Bolt M. (1997). ‘The Rokeach Value Survey and perceived Christian values’. In Journal of Psychology and Theology, Vol. 5, 139-142.
-
Stewart, C., Lawrence, S. and Burg, M.A. (2018). The Relationship of Personality and Spirituality to Empathy. In Journal of Empirical Theology, Vol. 31, Issue 1, 1-17.
-
Strayer J. and Roberts W. (1997). ‘Children’s Personal Distance and Their Empathy: Indices of Interpersonal Closeness’. In International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol. 20, Issue 3, 385-403.
-
Stueber K. (2017). ‘Empathy’. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by E.N. Zalta, Stanford.
-
Tarrant M., Dazeley S. and Cottom T. (2009). ‘Social categorization and empathy for outgroup members’. In The British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 48, Issue 3, 427-446.
-
Ven, van der J.A. (1998). God Reinvented? A Theological Search in Text and Tables, Leiden: Brill.
-
Watson P.J., Hood R.W. and Morris R.J. (1985). ‘Dimensions of Religiosity and Empathy’. In Journal of Psychology and Christianity, Vol. 4, Issue 3, 73-85.
-
Watson P.J., Morris R.J., Hood R.W. and Hall J.R. (1984). ‘Empathy, religious orientation and social desirability’. In Journal of Psychology, Vol. 117, Issue 2, 211-216.
-
Wilhelm M.O. and Bekkers R. (2010). ‘Helping Behavior, Dispositional Empathic Concern, and the Principle of Care’. In Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 73, Issue 1, 11-32.
-
Ziebertz H.-G. (2004). ‘God Image. The conceptual Triangle of the Image of God. A quantitative empirical Study of young people in Germany’. In Hermans C. and Moore M.E. (eds.), Hermeneutics and Empirical Research in Practical Theology, Leiden: Brill, 75-100.
-
Ziebertz H.-G., Kalbheim B. and Riegel U. (2003). Religiöse Signaturen. Gütersloh/Freiburg: GVH/Herder.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 526 | 91 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 69 | 2 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 68 | 6 | 3 |
Religious Commitment and Empathic Concern
An Empirical Study of German Youth
In: Journal of Empirical TheologySearch for other papers by Hans-Georg Ziebertz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
There is very extensive literature on whether and how religiosity and empathy are related. Such research shows very different results, with some finding a positive influence while others seeing no influence. This paper presents research conducted on German youth (N=2157) regarding the question of how young people score on empathic concern and which concepts function as predictors. Therefore, different concepts on religious commitment are included, and in order to properly assess the meaning of religiosity in the social context of young people, socio-cultural concepts and socio-demographic characteristics are similarly included. The findings show that around two thirds of the respondents score positive or very positive on empathic concern, and that empathic concern correlates with both religious and socio-cultural concepts. Our regression analysis shows that among religious concepts the centrality of religiosity has the strongest influence (β=.220) and among the socio-religious concepts the students’ support for multiculturalism is the strongest factor (β=.195). Admittedly, the beta of sex is even higher, as being female shows the strongest influence on empathic concern (β=.265).
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 526 | 91 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 69 | 2 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 68 | 6 | 3 |
