How many times have you cried while watching a movie? Maybe you’re someone who always bawls during a dramatic scene in a romantic comedy because you relate to the protagonist’s dating misfortunes, or perhaps you’ve only ever teared up at the particularly confronting images in dramas or documentaries about war and genocide, imagining what it would be like to see your own family torn apart so horrifically. Regardless of your sensitivity level, almost every human has at some point imagined themselves in another person’s situation and understood some of their experience. Empathy is the capacity to perceive, understand, and resonate with the emotional and cognitive states of others, often leading to prosocial behavior. It involves both cognitive empathy, which requires perspective-taking and understanding another person’s thoughts or mental state, and affective empathy, which is the emotional attunement we feel when sharing or mirroring another’s emotional experience.

Feeling sad or moved by the characters on screen could also be known as sympathy, a concept closely related to empathy. Although the terms are often used interchangeably, empathizing and sympathizing are actually distinct processes. While sympathy involves being moved by or mirroring another person’s emotions, empathy involves understanding another person’s experience from a cognitive and intellectual perspective while simultaneously resonating with the feeling on an emotional level. One imagines what it would be like to be in the other person’s situation, and despite understanding that the other person’s experience is distinct from their own, they feel it as if they were actually the one going through the same thing.¹

While sympathy is passive and often involves feelings of pity or feeling bad for someone else while maintaining your own perspective, empathy involves a more active understanding of the feelings as if they were your own. 

Within the broader term, empathy is usually split into three main types: cognitive empathy, which entails the intellectual understanding of others’ experiences, emotional empathy, which involves detecting and resonating with others’ emotions, and compassionate empathy, which includes a desire to help and alleviate their suffering.² 

Empathy has been documented across time, cultures, gender, and species.^3,4,5,6 Our drive to empathize with others (or not) has likely played a role in our human evolution.3 As our technology evolves and the body of research on empathy expands, so does our understanding of the biological underpinnings of the phenomenon.⁷ Because empathy is primarily about connecting to others and understanding their experiences as individuals who are distinct from us, figuring out how we can further cultivate empathy between people and animals of all different backgrounds may be one of the most powerful ways to encourage a little more patience, kindness, and compassion in the world at large. 

Sympathy: The feeling of concern, compassion, or sorrow for someone else's misfortune or emotional experience. Unlike empathy, which involves feeling with someone and imagining their perspective, sympathy involves feeling for someone—recognizing their suffering but maintaining some emotional distance.¹

Cognitive Empathy: Understanding another person's thoughts, feelings, and perspectives, even if you don't feel those emotions yourself. It's about putting yourself in someone else's shoes and trying to see the world from their viewpoint.² 

Emotional/Affective Empathy: Feeling the same emotions as another person, such as experiencing their joy, sadness, or anger as if it were your own. It's about being able to connect with someone on an emotional level.²

Compassionate Empathy/Empathic Concern: Concern that goes beyond understanding and feeling another person's emotions; it involves a desire to help and alleviate their suffering. It's about being motivated to act on your empathy and make a positive difference in someone else's life.²

Neuroplasticity: The brain's ability to change and adapt throughout a person's life in response to experience, learning, or injury. This includes the formation of new neural connections, strengthening or weakening of existing ones, and even the reorganization of entire brain regions. Neuroplasticity underlies many cognitive functions, including memory, skill acquisition, recovery from brain damage, and the effects of therapeutic interventions.⁸

Mirror Neurons: A type of brain cell that fires both when an individual performs an action and when they observe someone else performing the same action. Discovered in the premotor cortex of monkeys, these neurons are thought to play a key role in understanding others' actions, imitation learning, and potentially empathy and social cognition in humans.⁷

Empathy Gap: Our tendency to underestimate the influence of varying mental states on our own behavior. Although empathy is usually used to describe our ability to relate to others, this bias explains why we are often unable to correctly predict how we will behave, because we make our predictions based on current emotional states and often act much differently under conditions of strong emotion or physical sensation. 

Since the dawn of humanity, there has been empathy. In fact, empathy likely existed far before Homo sapiens came on the scene: empathic behavior has been observed across animal species, and we constantly uncover new evidence that animals share many of our complex emotional and cognitive processes.⁶ While we see monkeys and apes display behavioral and biological signs of empathy in the present day, the hominids from which we descended most likely had these same tendencies. Empathy may have even played a role in how we diverged from our ancestors and can explain some of our evolutionary history.³ As inherently social creatures, early humans lived and moved in packs, and empathy not only strengthened our tribes through strong social cohesion, but also helped keep the most vulnerable members of the herd alive—more on this later.³ 

​The formal study of empathy draws on philosophy, psychology, sociology, and neuroscience, but the term "empathy" was first introduced into the English lexicon in 1909 by psychologist Edward Titchener as a translation of the German "Einfühlung," which means "feeling into.”⁹ This concept was originally focused on our experience of aesthetics, describing our emotional resonance with art or nature.​ The German philosopher Theodor Lipps expanded on the idea, understanding empathy as an active, imaginative process that could include personal feelings.​⁹ In the mid-20th century, empathy research expanded into social psychology when psychologist Gordon Allport highlighted empathy's role in reducing prejudice and fostering social harmony. His work played an important part in establishing empathy-focused educational programs to bridge the grim racial divides.¹⁰  

Developmental psychologists like Carolyn Zahn-Waxler have studied how children as young as one year old exhibit empathetic and prosocial behaviors, challenging the notion that young children are inherently self-centered.¹¹ Other research has underscored this influence of parenting and environment on the development of empathy, suggesting that empathy must be cultivated.¹² Of course, nothing is entirely nurture or nature, and our empathic tendencies are influenced by genetics as well.⁹ 

Some of the most compelling research for the existence of empathy in other species (and thus that empathy also has a basic biological basis) took place in 1925, when Robert Yerkes, a psychologist with a controversial past in both primatology and eugenics, reported how his bonobo, Prince Chim, was so extraordinarily concerned and protective toward his sickly chimpanzee companion, Panzee, that the scientific establishment might not accept his claims. As he said, “If I were to tell of his altruistic and obviously sympathetic behavior towards Panzee, I should be suspected of idealizing an ape.”¹³ 

In 1964, researchers observed that rhesus monkeys refused to pull a chain that delivered food to themselves if doing so gave a shock to a companion. One monkey stopped pulling the chain for 12 days after witnessing another monkey receive a shock—the primates were literally starving themselves to avoid hurting another animal.¹⁴ A significant amount of the evidence of animal empathy published since then has come about unintentionally. The aforementioned research psychologist Zahn-Waxler, for example, visited people’s homes to find out how young children respond to family members’ emotions, instructing people to pretend to sob, cry, or choke. Meanwhile, she found that many household pets seemed as worried as the children were by the feigned distress of the family members. As dogs and cats often do when their people are upset, the pets hovered nearby and put their heads in their owners’ laps.¹² 

There is overwhelming evidence for all kinds of animals experiencing empathy, including animals that we often don’t think of as feeling pain or fear for those around them. Rats, elephants, cows, pigs, and even many birds have been extensively studied, demonstrating stress as a response to the stress of others, nuzzling each other for comfort, and even holding funerals to mourn their dead.^15,16 Contemporary research continues to document astounding examples of the depth of animal emotion and cognitive capacity, although the research is often underfunded, overlooked, and conducted at the expense of animal welfare.¹⁵ Unfortunately, many human researchers appear to lack empathy for the animals they conduct experiments on, subjecting animals to some of the most violent, gruesome, and unnecessary procedures imaginable under the guise of conducting important research.^14,15 

As neuroscience has advanced, empathy research now explores the neural mechanisms underlying empathetic responses. The discovery of mirror neurons in the 1990s, for instance, has provided insights into how individuals internally replicate the experiences of others, deepening our understanding of empathy's biological foundations.¹⁷​ The multifaceted trajectory of empathy research reflects its complexity and significance across domains ranging from aesthetics to social justice. In every field, empathy plays a pivotal role in understanding human interaction and societal cohesion.

Edward Titchener

A prominent English psychologist who introduced the term "empathy" into the English language in 1909 as a translation of the German word "Einfühlung," defining it as "feeling into," or the capacity to understand and share in the emotions of others.⁹

Theodor Lipps

A German psychologist and philosopher who is known for his pioneering work on empathy in the late 1800s, describing it as an instinctual projection of oneself into another's role through imitation.⁹ 

Gordon Allport

An American psychologist whose research focused mainly on personality and relationships. Although Allport didn’t explicitly study empathy, his work emphasized overcoming anti-Semitism and prejudice through warm relationships with others, including practical applications of empathy.¹⁰ 

Carolyn Zahn-Waxler

A prominent figure in empathy research, Zahn-Waxler is an American psychologist whose work has explored social emotions and empathy across the lifespan.¹² 

Robert Yerkes

An American psychologist, primatologist, and most problematically, eugenicist. Yerkes was among the early scientists to argue that studying non-human primates could offer insights into human psychology, including social behaviors like empathy, cooperation, and communication. His work laid the foundation for later primatologists who expanded on the idea that empathy is not uniquely human but observable across species.¹³

Giacomo Rizzolatti

An Italian neurophysiologist and leader of the research team at the University of Parma that discovered mirror neurons in the frontal and parietal cortex of the macaque monkey in the 1990s. His team’s initial findings, as well as his additional decades of research on mirror neurons, have been hugely influential in establishing the biological basis of empathy.¹⁷ 

Empathy is often explained through Theory of Mind, which involves predicting others' emotions, and Simulation Theory, where we feel others' emotions by simulating their experiences. These theories highlight how empathy likely evolved to promote social cohesion and survival, with the discovery of mirror neurons demonstrating its biological basis.

Theory of Mind versus Simulation Theory 

There are two main theories that describe this thing we call empathy: Theory of Mind and Simulation Theory, which both attempt to explain how humans understand and empathize with others, but do so in fundamentally different ways.¹⁸

The first, Theory of Mind, suggests that people understand others by attributing mental states (such as personal beliefs or desires) to them and then predicting and interpreting their behavior by constructing an internal model of their thoughts.¹⁸ For example, imagine that your significant other is a huge football fan. You may personally find football incredibly boring and avoid it at all costs, but you know your partner is heavily invested in their home team and follows the scores of every game. The Theory of Mind explains how someone can intellectually grasp another person’s emotional state without necessarily feeling it themselves. So, if your partner’s favorite team loses, you can recognize that they must be feeling down, even if you aren’t experiencing sadness yourself. 

In this example, your representation of your partner’s emotions is inferred based on reasoning and social learning, demonstrating how a Theory of Mind explanation of empathy often requires deliberate and explicit associations.¹⁸ Research on Theory of Mind has often been linked to developmental psychology, particularly in studies of autism spectrum disorder, where deficits in this type of mental processing can lead to difficulties in understanding others' emotions and intentions.¹⁹

In contrast, Simulation Theory posits that people understand others by mentally simulating their experiences within their own minds. Instead of using cognitive inference to attribute others’ mental states, this concept suggests that people run a mental model of another person’s experience and replicate the emotions as if they were in their shoes.¹⁸ This would be akin to seeing your significant other pouting on the couch after the football game and feeling the same disappointment as them, as if you were experiencing the loss or the negative emotions yourself (even though you don’t actually care about the game itself). You may feel these same emotions in a more embodied way because this process is more experiential and intuitive than Theory of Mind, relying on internal emotional mirroring. As we’ll discuss, neuroscientific research supports this theory through the discovery of mirror neurons, which activate both when an individual performs an action but also when they simply observe someone else performing the same action.¹⁷

Despite these differences, the two theories aren’t mutually exclusive. While reading these descriptions, you might have intuitively understood from your own experience of empathy how both processes can work in tandem. Theory of Mind can provide a structured understanding of social interactions, while Simulation Theory allows for deeper emotional resonance. Research supports this idea that empathy works through both frameworks, together painting a more realistic picture of the incredibly dynamic way humans relate to one another emotionally and socially.¹⁸

Evolutionary Explanations and Self-Interest 

If you’re someone who’s interested in evolutionary psychology or anthropology, perhaps you’ve asked yourself: how could a trait like empathy, which seems to suggest altruistic caring for others or even denying self-interest, make its way through the natural selection process? The truth is, empathy and self-interest are not in opposition. We as humans likely evolved with this trait because it helped us survive and thrive in multiple ways. By empathizing with and taking care of the members of their tribes, our ancestors could form stronger and more cooperative groups, which was in the best interest of everyone’s survival.³ 

As mammals, humans also have a natural inclination to care for their offspring—an urge that may be obvious if you’re a parent yourself. Empathy allows us to understand and share the feelings of others, including our children, and thus helps us to both recognize and respond appropriately to their needs. Since babies can’t raise themselves, empathetic parents who can take care of their offspring are a crucial aspect of survival and species continuation.³ 

Although we’ve been conditioned to believe that people are selfish by nature, there is actually a vast amount of research to suggest the opposite.³ In fact, Russian geneticist Dmitri Belyaev published his theory on our evolved capacity for empathy and kindness just two years after Richard Dawkins published his (much more popular) book on egotistical genes. In contrast to Dawkins’ work, Belyaev outlined how, for the majority of human history, it was the nicest humans who had the most children, perhaps because they had more opportunities for mating or because their survival was so strongly linked to their capacity for group cohesion and social interaction.²⁰ 

We can even see the importance of social bonds play out in the evolution of our physical appearance. For example, have you noticed how humans have a larger sclera (the white part of your eyeball) relative to other animals? Researchers hypothesize that this trait makes it easier to track where others are looking and, by having a better sense of their perspective, understand their thoughts and feelings.²¹ Dutch researcher Rutger Bergman’s book, Human Kind: A Hopeful History, outlines this theory, the way we resemble domesticated Neanderthals in the same way dogs resemble baby wolves (we continue to get cuter as we evolve), and the role of countless other physical traits like blushing, which is uniquely human, in facilitating trust and empathy.³  

Biological Evidence of Empathy and Continued Cultivation 

Clearly, there’s a plethora of proof that empathy is embedded in our DNA, inscribed by genetic changes that have happened over tens of thousands of years. Fortunately, in the present day, we can still see evidence of empathy within our brain structures. Scientists have found parts of the brain, specifically regions in the medial prefrontal cortex, that have activation patterns when they’re making judgements about others as well as themselves.⁷ The prefrontal cortex is responsible for higher-level reasoning, and so it makes sense that the complex thought process of thinking from the perspective of someone else takes place in this part of the brain.⁷ What’s more, people with alexithymia, which involves difficulties in identifying, describing, and expressing feelings and is consequently associated with challenges in interpersonal relationships and mental health, often show deficits in these brain regions.²² 

It’s believed that emotional empathy, which involves feeling the same emotions as another person, is largely dependent on our ability to produce a synchronous psychophysiological state as the person we’re with. Scientists have discovered evidence of “mirror neurons” that fire when we both observe and experience emotion or other motor activities. The multimodal properties of these neurons were first observed in monkeys, where when a monkey grasps an object or watches another monkey grasping the same object, the same neurons fire.¹⁷ 

Research suggests that humans have a similar mirror neuron system, which also involves neurons firing in response to more complex behaviors, including observing others process pain or happiness. These mirror neuron systems are thus important for social interaction, learning, and understanding others' intentions and emotions.⁷  On the flip side, dysfunctional mirror neurons and low activity in the brain areas associated with processing emotionally charged stimuli are often seen in those with autism spectrum disorder or alexithymia.²²  Understanding the biological basis for our empathic actions can give us insight into how people with these processing differences see the world and perhaps how we can improve the social cohesion between people of all kinds of neurological structures. 

Our ability (or inability) to connect with the thoughts and feelings of others can have profound implications for society. People’s empathic capacity, as well as who they empathize with, is not always equal, and we can see these differences play out across gender, race, and the socially ostracized. 

Gender Differences in Empathy 

There's a common perception that women are more empathetic than men. While many gendered stereotypes are sexist and fall apart when empirically tested, research does suggest that women tend to score higher on cognitive empathy tests. Many studies, like one by the University of Cambridge that studied men and women from 57 countries, have shown that women, on average, demonstrate higher cognitive empathy than men in many countries.²³ 

The same is true for Theory of Mind tests; females are better at putting themselves in others’ shoes and imagining what the other person is thinking or feeling. Although women are often portrayed as more emotional and men are portrayed as more cognitive, this research would indicate that women outperform men in almost every type of empathy.²³  

Why might this be the case? The evolutionary psychology perspective would confirm a need for women (historically the caretakers of the young, elderly, or sick) to be both more nurturing and better in tune with the needs of others. Research confirms that there may be neurobiological differences in the experience of compassion, with women potentially having higher levels of oxytocin, a hormone linked to bonding and social connection. Meanwhile, men tend to have higher levels of testosterone, which is associated with inhibited feelings of empathy.⁵

Despite the potential differences that have emerged in research, it’s important to note that gender is largely a social construct, constantly and continuously shaped by cultural expectations.⁸ There is little research on how intersex and transgender people experience empathy, and researchers have confirmed that the gender differences we see are likely influenced by social expectations and motivations. Not only are women and girls often expected to appear empathetic, but they are also given more opportunities to practice this skill.^24,25 

As soon as a child is born, cultural pressures and gendered expectations shape their experience with their environment and the structure of their neuroplastic brain.⁸ Hence, an expectation for gendered differences in empathy may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In some studies, the differences in empathy scores between men and women were not significant, and in a few cases, men even scored higher in certain types of empathy: clearly, the relationship between such complex concepts as gender and empathy is more complicated than what first meets the eye.^24,25 

Racial Intergroup Empathy Differences 

Research suggests a racial bias in empathy, where people tend to show stronger empathic responses to those of their own race.²⁶ Neuroimaging evidence has indicated that the brain regions involved in empathy, like the supplementary motor area, anterior cingulate cortex, and lateral frontal cortices, show increased activity when perceiving pain in same-race faces, but decreased activity when perceiving pain in other-race faces. For example, a white person may experience less of the same mirror neuron activation related to pain when they see a Black person grimace as they dunk their hand in ice-cold water than when they see a white person do the same thing. Some studies have even shown that empathy for ingroup members (those of the same race) is neurally distinct from empathy for humankind more generally.²⁶  

These differences are especially dangerous in healthcare settings, where people of color receive biased communication, discriminatory treatment, lower quality of care, and a lack of empathy, often directed toward women of color in particular. Some may even point to this empathy gap as a factor leading to the infamously higher mortality rate for Black mothers during pregnancy and labor compared to their white counterparts.²⁷  

Although this appears to suggest a biological basis for racial bias in empathy, we must remember that just as our genes influence how we interact with our environment, our environment likewise shapes our physiology. Research on people who grew up in a racial minority in their country or had significant exposure to people outside their race has found that the cultural experiences with racial out-group members may increase their neural responses to the suffering of other-race individuals and thus reduce the racial bias in empathy. Essentially, the more people have been exposed to others, the more they can relate to and empathize with them.²⁸ Some researchers have already explored other possible interventions to reduce racial ingroup bias, including strategies that enhance perspective-taking and take a Theory of Mind approach to emphasizing the value and the welfare of those who are unfamiliar.²⁸ 

Empathy for the Worst Offenders 

It may seem self-evident that empathy is both a necessary and powerful force for social cohesion. It’s also likely uncontroversial that we should have empathy for children and the disadvantaged. But what about when people are in need not because of something circumstantial like a physical disability, but a disadvantage they’ve brought upon themselves? Is everyone deserving of our empathy? What do we owe each other? 

These philosophical questions become substantive when deciding how to deal with some of the worst offenders in society. For those who have been convicted of crimes like mass murder, torture, or child molestation, many people feel that these acts are “unforgivable” and “unimaginable.” While empathy does not equate to forgiveness or even sympathy, it does require that we conceptualize the other person’s thoughts or feelings in some way. For the most heinous acts, this may seem impossible, but the small percentage of therapists and social workers who are willing to work with these populations emphasize that some level of radical empathy may be one of the only ways we can make progress with perpetrators.²⁹ Regardless of your stance on whether or not these individuals deserve a second chance or the opportunity to heal, the truth is that unspeakably atrocious crimes will continue to exist. If we can open up dialogues between those who have committed such acts and those who are keen to understand how and why the person acted the way they did, we may be able to prevent others in the future from falling into the same darkness. 

Cultivating Empathy Across Generations

In the last decade, there has been a plethora of coverage both in the scientific community and pop culture about the significance of intergenerational trauma and how cycles of poverty, abuse, and mental illness impact people’s lives. While our parents and grandparents undoubtedly play a role in our well-being, the discussion is often framed around the negative impacts our caretakers can have. However, a recently published study from The Society for Research in Child Development sheds new light on intergenerational cycles of empathy, support, and resilience.³⁰

This 25-year longitudinal study followed 184 teens from age 13 into their mid-30s, tracking how empathy is learned, practiced, and passed down across generations. Each year, researchers invited the teens, along with their parents and their closest friend, into the lab to observe how they interacted with one another during real conversations about personal problems. At the start of the study, when the teens were 13, the focus was on how their mothers responded when their child came to them for advice or support. 

Researchers brought both the teen and their parent into the lab and had the child ask their parent for advice about a personal dilemma. The researchers paid attention to how engaged and emotionally attuned the moms were—did they understand the problem clearly? Did they offer meaningful emotional support? Then, over the next seven years, the same teens were observed talking with their closest friends about things their friends were struggling with, giving researchers a window into how teens were applying empathy in their own peer relationships.³⁰

Years later, when many of those teens had become parents themselves, the researchers followed up, asking them about their parenting style and their own children’s empathy. The results were striking: Mothers who showed more empathy to their 13-year-olds were more likely to raise teens who treated their friends with empathy throughout adolescence. For the participants who eventually went on to have kids of their own, the pattern of empathy continued; teens who practiced empathy with their close friends became adults who parented with empathy, and their children were more likely to show empathy too.³⁰

Why does this matter? Well, not only does it give us a glimmer of hope that the positive energy we put into raising kids can actually do something, but it also reinforces a fact that is both simple and powerful: empathy isn’t just taught, it must be experienced. If we want to raise empathetic kids, we need to show up for them emotionally, especially during hard moments; the times when it’s hardest for us to express empathy may be the moments when children need to receive it the most. This research also demonstrates that we need to give kids the space to practice empathy in their closest friendships, because it’s in those everyday peer interactions where critical social skills like emotional attunement and perspective-taking really get refined. Friendship, it turns out, isn’t just a nice-to-have for teens—it’s a training ground for the kind of empathy that shapes not only their adult relationships but even how they parent the next generation.³⁰

Discovery of Mirror Neurons in Macaque Monkeys

The groundbreaking discovery of mirror neurons occurred in the early 1990s at the University of Parma in Italy.¹⁷ Neurophysiologist Giacomo Rizzolatti and his team had set out to study neurons in the ventral premotor cortex of macaque monkeys, specifically an area known as F5, which was understood to be involved in the control of hand and mouth actions, like picking up objects. The researchers implanted electrodes into the brains of macaque monkeys to record the activity of individual neurons. It’s important to note that this invasive measurement technique involves drilling holes into the skulls of animals, a gruesome and painful procedure, often done without anesthesia. During the experiments, the monkeys were allowed to reach for pieces of food, and the researchers measured how specific neurons responded to these movements.¹⁷

Initially, the researchers were focused on understanding how these F5 neurons responded when the monkeys themselves performed different actions, like reaching for or biting a peanut. Instead, they made a surprising and unexpected observation: some of the monkeys’ motor neurons would start to fire when the researchers themselves picked up a peanut to hand it to the monkey. What made this observation truly remarkable was that these were the very same neurons that fired when the monkey itself grasped the peanut. This indicated that certain neurons were active both when the monkey performed an action themselves and when they observed the same action being performed by someone else.¹⁷

These mirror neurons were also highly specific; a mirror neuron that fired when the monkey grasped a peanut would only fire when the experimenter grasped a peanut, and a neuron that activated when the monkey put a peanut in their mouth would only activate when the experimenter did the same. This suggested that these neurons weren’t just responding to any movement, but to very particular, goal-directed actions.¹⁷

Rizzolatti proposed that these mirror neurons could provide a neuroscience-based explanation for how and why we "read" other people's minds and feel empathy for them: we have a direct, immediate, and involuntary connection with the actions and potentially the emotions of others. At a fundamental level, it appears that our brains are wired to recognize the similarities between ourselves and those around us and empathize with others.¹⁷ Research has since explored whether similar "mirroring" occurs in brain regions involved in processing emotions like disgust and sensations like touch, further strengthening the link between the mirror system and our capacity for empathy.

Algorithms that Enhance Empathy? The Potential and Limitations of AI in SEL 

Social-emotional learning, or SEL, builds on both Simulation Theory and Theory of Mind’s explanations for how we develop our empathic skills. SEL has been gaining popularity as educators recognize that teaching students how to manage emotions, build healthy relationships, and make responsible decisions is crucial to their overall success. This perspective piece highlights the potential for AI to support educators’ SEL curricula. 

Nurturing Children’s Empathy: Opportunities for Behavioral Science 

School teaches us more than just colors and counting. Early childhood education plays a huge role in nurturing children’s empathy responses. This article explores the role of behavioral science in nurturing children's empathy and socio-emotional skills in the post-pandemic era and delves into effective strategies for supporting the development and re-development of these crucial abilities.

1. Hodges, Sara & Myers, M.W.. (2007). Encyclopedia of social psychology. Empathy. 296-298.  
2. Daher, K., Saad, D., Mugellini, E., Lalanne, D., & Abou Khaled, O. (2022). Empathic and Empathetic Systematic Review to Standardize the Development of Reliable and Sustainable Empathic Systems. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 22(8), 3046. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22083046
3. Bregman, R. (2020). Humankind: A hopeful history (E. Manton, Trans.). Little, Brown and Company. 
4. Wang, Zimo & Zhang, Danrui & Zheng, Zikai. (2023). Cross-Cultural Differences in Empathy and Relevant Factors. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. 10. 197-202. 10.54097/ehss.v10i.6919.  
5. Loon, M.J.W. (2009). Gender difference in human empathy. Theories on the Timbergen four "why's". 
6. Panksepp, J., & Panksepp, J. B. (2013). Toward a cross-species understanding of empathy. Trends in neurosciences, 36(8), 489–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2013.04.009 
7. Häusser L. F. (2012). Empathie und Spiegelneurone. Ein Blick auf die gegenwärtige neuropsychologische Empathieforschung. Empathy and mirror neurons. A view on contemporary neuropsychological empathy research. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 61(5), 322–335. https://doi.org/10.13109/prkk.2012.61.5.322  
8. Kleinherenbrink, A. (2014). Mapping plasticity: Sex/gender and the changing brain. Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, 17(4), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1557/TVGN2014.4.KLEI  
9. Coplan, A., & Goldie, P. (Eds.). (2020). Empathy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empathy/ 
10. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2024, November 7). Gordon Allport. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gordon-W-Allport 
11. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28, 126-136.
12. Zahn-Waxler, C., Hollenbeck, B., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1984). The origins of empathy and altruism. In M.W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984/85 (pp. 21-41). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.
13. de Waal, F. (2005, September 1). The evolution of empathy. Greater Good Magazine. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_evolution_of_empathy 
14. Wechkin, Stanley & Masserman, Jules & Terris, William. (2014). Shock to a conspecific as an aversive stimulus. Psychonomic Science. 1. 47-48. 10.3758/BF03342783.  
15. Singer, P. (2015). Animal liberation (Updated ed.). New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
16. de Waal, F. B. M. (2015, September 1). Evidence implies that animals feel empathy. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-implies-that-animals-feel-empathy/ 
17. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Brain research. Cognitive brain research, 3(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0 
18. Röska-Hardy, L. (2009). Theory Theory (Simulation Theory, Theory of Mind). In: Binder, M.D., Hirokawa, N., Windhorst, U. (eds) Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-29678-2_5984 
19. Baron-Cohen, S. (2001). Theory of mind in normal development and autism. Prisme, 34, 174–183.
20. Belyaev D. K. (1979). Destabilizing selection as a factor in domestication. J. Heredity 70 301–308. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a109263 
21. Kano, F., Kawaguchi, Y., & Hanling, Y. (2022). Experimental evidence that uniformly white sclera enhances the visibility of eye-gaze direction in humans and chimpanzees. eLife, 11, e74086. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74086 
22. van der Velde, J., Servaas, M. N., Goerlich, K. S., Bruggeman, R., Horton, P., Costafreda, S. G., & Aleman, A. (2013). Neural correlates of alexithymia: a meta-analysis of emotion processing studies. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 37(8), 1774–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.008 
23. Greenberg, D. M., Warrier, V., Abu-Akel, A., Allison, C., Gajos, K. Z., Reinecke, K., Rentfrow, P. J., Radecki, M. A., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2022). Sex and age differences in ‘theory of mind’ across 57 countries using the English version of the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ Test. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; 26 Dec 2022; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2022385119
24. Michalska, K. J., Kinzler, K. D., & Decety, J. (2013). Age-related sex differences in explicit measures of empathy do not predict brain responses across childhood and adolescence. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 3, 22-32  
25. 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(7075), 466-469.  
26. Han S. (2018). Neurocognitive Basis of Racial Ingroup Bias in Empathy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(5), 400–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.013 
27. Hoang, T. M. H., Ramirez, X. R., Watkins, D. N., Sbrilli, M. D., Lee, B. A., Hsieh, W. J., Wong, A., Worthington, V. K., & Tabb, K. M. (2025). Impact of Racial Bias on Providers' Empathic Communication Behaviors with Women of Color in Postpartum Checkup. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 10.1007/s40615-025-02297-w. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-025-02297-w 
28.  Zuo, Xiangyu & Han, Shihui. (2013). Cultural experiences reduce racial bias in neural responses to others’ suffering. Culture and Brain. 1. 10.1007/s40167-013-0002-4.  
29. Hubbard, M. (2014, March). Sex offender therapy: A battle on multiple fronts. Counseling Today. American Counseling Association. https://www.counseling.org/publications/counseling-today-magazine/article-archive/article/legacy/sex-offender-therapy-a-battle-on-multiple-fronts 
30. Stern, J. A., Bailey, N. A., Costello, M. A., Hellwig, A. F., Mitchell, J., & Allen, J. P. (2024). Empathy across three generations: From maternal and peer support in adolescence to adult parenting and child outcomes. Child Development, 95(5), 1628–1640. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14109