TECHNOLOGYS IMPACT ON HUMAN EMPATHY

Review of Literature
Abby Rowland and Georgina Burros
Contents
I.

Research Rationale

II.

Review of Literature
Need To Talk? Message Me
Rewiring Our Brains
Whats The Big Deal About Violence?
Digitalizing Empathy
Conclusion
III. Works Cited

How and to what extent does exposure to technology decrease empathy?

Rationale:
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, just announced that hes working on a new feature
for his multi-billion dollar corporation called the empathy button. The most popular social networking
site online is telling the world that empathy can be expressed through the simple click of a button. This is
the new standard for empathy, and it isnt right. The use of technology, specifically social media, online
messaging, and video game software, has become a prevalent necessity for going about daily life. More
and more children and adolescents are not developing emotional intelligence or the ability to understand
and empathize with others, and this is partially a result of growing up with such a strong reliance on
digital technology. This is because the digital world promises a simple alternative to the complicated,
emotional relationships that take place outside of the screen. Additionally, kids are spending so much time
on screens that their brains dont have time to fully develop and theyre left without the emotional
capacity to connect with others. If this trend continues, the need and want to relate to and help others
might begin to disappear, and this is something that needs to be addressed.
We are defining empathy as the ability to understand and relate to the feelings of others. This is
not to be confused with sympathy, which is the actual feeling of sorrow for someone elses hardships.
However, as we discuss in our research, empathy may be defined too narrowly. For example, it should be
acknowledged that empathy can also include the fact that society is overall more accepting of lifestyles
that used to be shunned, such as gay marriage. This acceptance comes from the understanding of these
lifestyles, so it still fits under our definition of empathy. In fact, social media functions as an outlet for
individual expression of ideas that were once unaccepted. It is a place people can garner that
understanding mentioned above.
With the limitless ability and constant demand for new technologies, a large portion of the human
interaction we benefit from is replaced. As we innovate, our reliance on technology only grows, and this
in turn leads to even more innovation. The severe extent of overexposure of technology decreases the
ability to form sympathetic and empathetic skills. The impact of technology currently takes a huge toll,
yet the impact will deepen for upcoming generations as the movement of reliance on face-to-face
communication to digital means is one of the biggest changes of the 21st century.
This problem is worth attention simply due to the extreme prevalence of technology and the direct
correlation between increased use of technology and impacted emotional ability, specifically empathy.
Basic and daily functions that were once executed by humans are now easily completed through
technological means. The value of in-person social interaction and collaboration has been significantly
decreased. As we live in a relatively affluent community with unlimited access to technology, we have
seen a change in behavior and interaction with ourselves and especially our siblings, who, being younger

with less restrictions on their exposure to digital technology, are significantly more susceptible to these
effects. Both of our brothers, aged 7, 12, and 13, are, quite simply, addicted to video games. They all talk
about violence, killing other people and each other as though they are normal and inconsequential topics.
Although these two things do not necessarily have a direct cause-and-effect relationship, we have
scientific evidence that link video games and the observed behaviors.
Therefore, based on all the information presented above, the prevalence of this issue, and its
timeliness, our study will attempt to define a direct relationship between loss of empathy and the use of
technology. This correlation between the two has been briefly touched upon, but never has a direct cause
and effect relationship or solution been established through research. However, there are many experts,
including those in the medical as well as psychological field who express the need for increased research.
Many of the findings regarding empathy and technology are case studies performed regarding human
interaction among various groups of people using different forms and mediums of technology, such as
families, children, and classroom settings.
It isnt enough to just be aware that technology is affecting the ability to empathize, but thats the
best place start. This studys purpose is to first clue people into the problem at hand and then make a call
to action. There are simple things that every person can do to make sure their standards for empathy and
their ability to empathize are not compromised. Before spending extensive time researching this topic, we
primarily communicated via text message with our parents. For example, I (Georgina) used to text my dad
from upstairs, whats for dinner? He would respond with what he had made or brought home, and if my
little brother or I wanted it we would come downstairs. Now, we have both told our families that we need
to make sure we have dinner together every night. Its already made us a little more comfortable with
face-to-face conversation. Of course, technology is not the only cause of decreased empathy in our
modern culture, but it perpetuates the dehumanization of our interaction and communication. At present,
ignorance is a big part of the problem, but if more people are aware and start to make little changes like
the ones we have made, technology will stop negatively affecting our ability to empathize.

I. Need To Talk? Message Me

Theres a joke thats been circulating on the internet for a long time. Its a picture of a teenager
who sees another teen walking his way and yells, Ah! A teenager!... Wait Im a teenager. It makes fun
of people being afraid of other people before remembering, Oh yeah, Im no different than them. They
arent scary. Im a person, too. And yes, its a joke, but it holds some truth. Technology, specifically
social media and means of digital communication like texting, is creating a world in which people dont

know how to or are afraid of talking to each other. Online communication is simply easier than face-toface communication. Breaking up with someone over text doesnt hurt as much as seeing their face when
you tell them youre ending the relationship. Professor and psychologist Sherry Turkle, in her TEDtalk
Connected, but alone? says that this is because whoever is doing the breaking up doesnt have to register
the other persons emotions. Its disconnected in a way face-to-face communication is not, and it is so
very tempting to use technology as a shield from difficult in-person conversations, which in turn is
hurting our ability to empathize.
As we started to get into this topic, however, we ran into a few problems because empathy is hard
to measure. It isnt solely physical or emotional or mental, and how empathetic a person is varies no
matter how often he or she uses technology. Therefore all of the literature we found at first only
speculated about the link between technology and empathy. So we decided we needed to define empathy
as we saw it for the rest of our research and decide which behaviours and abilities we were going to
associate with displaying empathy. We decided that for our purposes, empathy would be defined as the
ability to understand and relate to the feelings of others, and it would be associated with being able to
reciprocate those feelings. This could be linked to emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and face-to-face
communication. This helped us be able to research with a firm definition and kept us on a solid track.
We found that when people retreat into their screens a lot of the benefits of face-to-face communication
are lost. The internet only allows the sharing of information and facts, or sips. They arent good for
learning about other people or understanding what someone else is feeling. Those things cant be
expressed through text the way they can through voice and visible non-verbal communication (Turkle
2012). If a connection with and the understanding of others' emotions are lost when the switch from
physical communication to virtual communication occurs, empathy is definitely going to be impacted.
Teddy Wayne makes a point to say in his New York Times column, Future Tense, that empathy can be
exchanged virtually, but in-person empathy, like a hug or a squeeze of a hand, as opposed to a like on
social media, has six times the impact on feelings of social support. Digitally mediated conversation
also doesnt allow people to register nonverbal cues or recognize emotions, which is an essential skill for
being socially aware (Uhls 2014).
People arent just losing connections with others, either. Theyre losing the ability to connect with
themselves. Being constantly connected to the social scene through a screen leaves no time for self
reflection. Thus, we cant understand ourselves and our own emotions and dont develop the capacity for
solitude. We stop feeling comfortable when we are alone, so we turn to the internet. We look out at other
peoples personas instead of in at ourselves (Turkle 2012). It is most definitely certain that if we cant
read our own emotions, we cant understand the emotions of others. Right along with the loss of
emotional intelligence comes the loss of empathy, since the two are interdependent.

Javier Serrano-Puche of the London School of Economics study entitled Emotions and Digital
Technologies: Mapping the Field of Research in Media Studies explores the relationship between online
and digital communication and human emotions. Technology works directly with our emotions through a
mutual shaping process. Human emotions such as empathy, are transferred to online communication
technology as an outlet for expressing these feelings. Technology also shapes these feelings, including
those that are empathetic, as it is used as a platform to interact with others and their emotional states and
to express the feelings and concerns of the user.
What we see online and how we communicate directly affects what we are feeling. With digital
communication, the user employs technology to interact with others and this alters the users feelings and
emotional state. Serrano-Puche emphasizes how the reaction to what we post online, positive or negative
feedback; is a result of our online communication. This response from what we express online alters our
moods. As technology dictates what type of material we see, our ability to form empathetic emotions and
ability is hindered. In a controversial experiment conducted by the University of California and Cornell
University, along with the assistance of Facebook programmers, the feeds of 690,000 users were
manipulated for a week. One user group received positive news, while another group was given news full
of negative connotations. Those who watched less negative stories in their feed were less to write a
negative post (and vice versa): When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive
posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred
(Serrano-Puche).
Thomas Brignall and Thomas Van Valey, in the Sociological Spectrum article The impact of
internet communication on Social Interaction, address the important issue that came up in our research;
how technological communication directly decreases empathy due to the decreased face to face
communication skills that results from a reliance on technology. The problem, as explained by Brignall
and Van Valey, is that without the practice of face-to-face communication skills, it is harder to identify
and relate to the emotions of other humans, leading to a decrease in the ability to empathize with others.
Brignall and Van Valey raise the valid claim that social interaction, a huge part of the ability to empathize
with others, cannot be taught online. Proper social and emotional skills cannot be taught and developed
by digital communication. Brignall and Van Valey write that The skills and lessons of socialization that
students need to learn in order to cope in everyday life, however, cannot be manufactured by computer
simulations or video games (at least not yet). Classrooms with computers hooked up to the Internet
predispose students to work as individuals rather than as members of any social group. Although students
can interact with others when they are on the Internet, they are often able to choose with whom they wish
to interact and how they want to manage it. (Brignall and Van Valey 344).This point he clearly makes is
that the everyday use and dependence on technology has become the primary way to express our

emotions as face-to-face communications and digital interactions. Technology is not only an outlet for the
human emotions but also shapes these feelings (Serrano-Puche).
Technologys effect on empathy is even showing within families. Digital media use tends to be a
very isolated activity and its leading to both a bedroom culture, which is the tendency of kids to spend
more time alone in their rooms with technology than in communal living spaces, and a digital divide in
which family members of different generations cannot as easily connect because there is a gap in
understanding of technology between them (McGrath 2012). McGrath points out that children use this
divide to label many activities non-adult spaces that only the kids who have a really good grasp on
modern technology have access to. Again, human connection is a very integral part, if not the most
integral part, of possessing the ability to empathize, and as kids pull away from their parents and make
former family activities individual activities that include a screen, the less human connection is present.
As I (Abby) was reading McGraths study, a Maynooth University psychology student, I saw a scary
amount of similarities between the families that she was observing and my own family. We often ate
dinner separately because my brother or I had work to do, or we all were free at different times, and
McGrath said this was a huge part of families disconnecting. The same day I read that, I went to my
parents and asked them if we could start making sure we had family dinner again, and that it would be
mandatory for all four of us to be there. Georgina did the same thing with her family. Already, we both
talk to our parents more and find it easier to start conversations with them.
The reason people have let technology come this far and hinder social interactions and personal
relationships is because social media gives a false sense of community and empathy. Facebook and the
other assorted social networking sites are home to an infinite community of people that we can friend and
message. We can see their interests and their friends and what they do on an almost day-to-day basis. And
theres a constant need to have more and more friends or followers. Thats because social media holds this
underlying premise that its better to know lots of people, even if we know each of them less. But as much
as wed like to believe that the internet allows us to have intimate connections with others, its false
(Baer). All we see is what people choose to show us, unlike in real life, where its possible to pick up on
things that arent specifically handed to us. We cant know people through the internet with only that
information. Its impossible. But the way that social media is set up forces a feeling of closeness on us
that doesnt actually exist. So people are tending to neglect intimate relationships they have outside of the
screen for the multitude of casual relationships available within it. And if we revisit our definition of
empathy we see that it is the ability to understand and relate with others. Baers article, Social Media,
Pretend Friends, and The Lie of False Intimacy, argues that the limits of internet relationships simply
dont allow people to understand each other in the deep, personal way that empathy requires.

II. Rewiring Our Brains

Overexposure to technology has cognitive and neural effects that hinder empathy. Throughout our
research, overwhelming evidence has pointed towards the effects of technology on brain development,
and further social, emotional and cognitive development; primarily in younger children. These effects of
digital media are directly detrimental to empathy. Throughout this aspect of our research, we have found a
direct correlation between increased technology use, specifically with the internet and online
communication and hand-held technological devices, and decreased levels of empathy.The research and
findings in this field are represented by the opinion of pediatric nurse Denise Daniels in Chandra
Johnson's Deseret News article Face time vs. screen time: The technological impact on communication.
According to Daniels, kids in this era, the most technologically savvy generation, lack the empathetic
skills necessary to connect to others emotionally. Through personal stories, Johnsons article emphasizes
the impact of technology on relationships typically between family members, the hindrance of screen time
on child development. According to Daniels,
[T]echnology can completely rewrite a child's brain pathways in a very different way
than how they would normally develop. A developing child is born with
[neurotransmitter] pathways that expand based on stimulation like a parent's voice,
music, touch and eventually play...But for children who spend too much time interacting
through a screen, something happens...Their neural pathways change and different ones
are created. It affects concentration, self-esteem, in many cases they dont have as deeply
personal relationships... they lose empathy (Johnson 2015).
As a child is exposed to increased amounts of technology during crucial years of brain
development, the brain is rewired and the attention span is greatly decreased, hindering the ability to
concentrate and carry a conversation (Nominet Trust). In a review of neurological research conducted by
Dr. Paul Howard-Jones of the University of Bristol for the Nominet Trust Foundation, he emphasizes the
importance of limiting technology to two hours a day for adolescents greatly reduces the possibility of
attention difficulties. Should a child spend more than two hours a day on technology, specifically through
video games and internet usage, there is increased chances of ADHD and decreased attentional
capabilities, mindfulness, and consideration in terms of social boundaries (Howard-Jones). Human
interaction and simulation is crucial to the development of emotional and conversational skills; yet
television, internet, and video games usages displaces the practice needed to form an adequate attention
span capability. This reduces the much needed developmental time for focus on attention building tasks as
opposed to those, like technology, that require rapid changes in focus (Howard-Jones). Howard-Jones
discusses a US longitudinal study of 6-12 year olds during four time points over a 13-month period that
recorded parent and child testimonies of television and video game exposure, as well as teacher reports of

noticed difficulties of staying on task or disruptions of other students work. Those children who had
exceeded the recommended American Association of Pediatrics two hour limit of daily screen time were
consistently above average in attention problems (Howard-Jones). Clearly, this exposure to technology
made social interaction and empathic abilities increasingly difficult to these children as their brains have
been rewired to be unable to carry, process and decipher the same flow as information that they have been
trained to do on a screen.
Empathy is discovered, acted upon and understood by the neural pathways in the brain based
on the personal experiences and surroundings of the child. With an increased exposure to technology,
these pathways are severely limited. As Johnson argues, technology hinders the motor skills, neurological
pathways, and social development of children in interacting with their family and peers. A lack of
connection due to a insufficient neural development leads to an inability to empathize in interpersonal
relationship.
As kids exit childhood and enter adolescence, technology impacts their brain as well. Brenda
Patoine, a science writer for The Dana Foundation, finds in her 2008 article, Brain Development in a
Hyper-Tech World, that in the adolescent years, which span from ages 10 to 19, teenagers develop social
cognition, which includes the ability to perceive others, make assumptions about others objectives, and
gauge others emotional reactions and adjust your [the teenagers] actions accordingly. This complex
skill, though, relies on the prefrontal cortex, which is the brains forward-most and last-to-develop
region. In order for teenagers brains to develop the prefrontal cortex fully and thus develop social
cognition, they must have constant practice in social situations. During the extended period of time in
which the prefrontal lobe is developing, the brain is highly adaptable to and influenced by their
environmental surroundings. Since technology has become what teens are surrounded by, in-person social
interaction is being limited and constant internet connection is stunting kids ability to exercise the
prefrontal cortex and master essential social skills. Instead of learning skills for outside the screen, we
learn how to read and become accustomed to internet communication. Our brains are developing without
the physical ability to connect with and read other people and thus build up a capacity for empathy.
Patoines article quotes Michael Friedlander, head of neuroscience at Baylor College of Medicine.
Friedlander says that over-reliance on electronic interactions, which are very often riddled with
unnatural breaks, may be wiring developing brains to interpret time differently. It becomes more awkward
interacting with people in real-life circumstances because the timing is so much different than it is
through text or social media, where people can leave a conversation and then come back later and pick it
right back up. Patoine acknowledges that these conclusions have been proven true by experimentation and
research, but only in very controlled settings, so it is difficult to say yet if technology has this exact

impact on cognitive and neural development on a real teenagers brain, or if the effects are slightly altered
outside of the lab.
III. Whats the Big Deal About Violence?
Both of us have brothers, aged 7, 12, and 13, who motivated and inspired this project because of
their addiction to video games. They all talk about violence and killing other people and each other as
though they are normal and inconsequential topics. Seeing how killing and violence had become normal
topics for conversation, we started to think about how that must be affecting our brothers empathy. We
assumed that because violence was inconsequential in their games, they probably saw fighting in school
or with people in real life in general as less of a big deal than it really is.
This definitely kept us motivated throughout the process because the effects of technology
described in our literature were happening right in front of us as we worked and drew conclusions. We felt
very much pushed to keep going because we felt like it was something that we could change even within
our own families. It wasnt something out of our control, which a lot of bigger issues do feel like to teens.
This ability to empathize is often increased with the usage of video games, as the online
community of gamers and the nature of certain video games promotes pro-social skills specifically among
adolescent youth. Lavinia McLean and Mark Griffiths of the International Gaming Research Unit,
Psychology Division at the Nottingham Trent University researched the effects of video games and found
that 89% of video games on the market contain one or more aspects of violence, desensitization,
aggressive cognition, aggressive behavior or aggressive reactions. These behaviors are dramatically
increased among children and adolescents after the use of these games (Griffiths and McLean).
In our research regarding video games, overwhelming evidence has pointed to the fact that
particularly those that are violent in nature decrease empathy significantly. This type of technology
embodies a newly defined standard of how human emotion, specifically empathy, is completely
disregarded and the ability to form and execute feasible feelings of empathy is lost through the violent
warfare that embodies these games.
However, throughout our research, it was assumed that the increased exposure to violent content
would decrease empathy. This was not surprising. What we did not anticipate was the possible benefits of
video game exposure. A study conducted by the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University
studied adolescents in Australia, China, Croatia, Germany, Japan, Romana and the United States to
determine the effects of prosocial versus violent video games on behavior (Prosocial Media). Prosocial
video games, or those that do not contain rampant violence and encourage players to share, help and

collaborate with others to strengthen social skills, have a directly positive influence over behaviour
among all cultures, despite differences and divides.
The first section of the study was dedicated to studying 3,000 students in Singapore in third,
fourth, seventh and eighth grade and asking them questions based on their media exposure. These
included their top three games played, the time they spent playing, the amount of prosocial and violent
content in these games, how they would feel if a family friend were sick, if they would spend money to
help those that are in need, and how often they engage in these helpful and caring behaviours. The second
study conducted found a correlation between those who played violent video games showing less
empathy, while those who played prosocial games were increasingly likely to become more empathetic
and helpful when dealing with others. This established link in behaviour directly showed the correlation
in our research between the amount of violent media consumed and a loss of empathy (Prosocial media).
From an early age, children are figuring out what is acceptable versus unacceptable as they begin
to learn the process of making conscious choices and being responsible for their own actions. Parental
influence on child behaviour and their social interaction becomes increasingly limited, as children begin
to form their peer networks and the temptations of technology become a huge influence on their social
and mental development (Prosocial media).
This technology, a huge influence on the younger generation, defines a negative standard for
expressing empathy. The increased amounts of violence clearly show a correlation between the use of this
technology and a decreased ability to empathize. In this case, the widespread use of violent video games
has perpetuated a culture where murder and heavy violence and brutality is considered a normal and
primary form of entertainment. McLean and Griffiths found that children aged 8-11 years old spend 12
hours a week, on average, playing video games, while 12-14 year olds play 15 hours per week. With the
widespread accessibility of videogames, this form of technology has become a prevalent part in the lives
of users. With the majority of these games that are violent, there is a direct correlation between 10-12 year
old boys who play them and clear signs of increased aggression (McLean and Griffiths). Empathy cannot
be fostered through the constant electronic role-playing of violent killing sprees that are embedded in a
large culture of violence. The acceptance of the normality of the violent culture allows users of this
technology to accept this extremely violent nature and further, imitate what they are seeing in their real
lives. One study conducted by Bushman and Anderson in 2009 in the Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology examined the short-term effects of playing violent videogames on aggressive behaviour
(considered a key element of desensitisation following exposure to violent media). 320 Undergraduate
students were assigned randomly to play either a violent or nonviolent game in a laboratory, where they
then heard a simulated fight outside the laboratory, where one person was left injured. The students
reaction times to help and respond were recorded and rated as likelihood to perform empathetic

behaviour. Students who had played violent video games took 450% longer to respond to the incident, to
hear the incident, and/or to consider the incident as serious. The biggest issue with video games is that it
results in the desensitization of human emotion (McLean and Griffiths).
IV. Digitalizing Empathy
Thus far in our research, the definition of empathy has stayed the same. However, our research
finds that the definition may be too narrow. It seems that technology may be creating new standards for
what constitutes empathy, in both positive and negative ways.
To start with the negatives, there is a new tendency to perform small displays of token support,
which are showy actions that dont bring meaningful change, for a cause and not go beyond these token
acts. This trend is called slacktivism, and it is encouraged by social media platforms (Kristofferson,
White, Peloza 2014). It can be perfectly exemplified by the recent attacks in Paris. Thousands of people
on facebook changed their profile picture to the French flag to show their support and empathy for
France. Dustin Germains article, Twitter Empathy and Hashtag Slacktivism, says that the problem is that
these token acts of support are becoming the norm for expressing empathy and demonstrating activism.
Most online public displays of empathy just cause a peer-pressure induced digital bandwagon that
accomplishes little more than providing a badge of empathy for those who click a button. The
conclusions that Germain comes to are very reasonable and supports the arguments of the other pieces of
literature we have read, but it should be noted that Germain may be biased, given the religious nature of
the site he writes for, Pulpit and Pen, and the fact that he identifies as devoutly Christian.
Its the same with Facebooks announced empathy button. It will sit right next to the like
button, and its purpose is to give people the ability to express support and understanding through a screen.
As philosopher, author, and founder of the Empathy Museum, Roman Krznaric says in his article for The
Guardian, clicking a button as an act of empathy represents the worst kind of digital slacktivism. It
substitutes authentic action in the offline world for a momentary online act that might salve the
conscience but does nothing else.
In Emotions and Digital Technologies: Mapping the Field of Research in Media Studies,
Serrano-Puche stresses the influence that social media has on the emotional expression of the user.
Actions that we take online, such as the Like button on Facebook limits the capacity of the user to
express other emotions, such a dislike, anger, grief, and empathy. The realm of online communication is
inanimate, and the feeling of expressing emotion is now summed up into this action of liking a button
(Serrano-Puche). Expressing emotions cant be taught through a screen, especially if our main outlet of
expressing our emotions teaches us to sum up our thoughts into the click of a button. According to

Serrano-Puche, the notion of liking has experienced a semiotic change through the Facebook like
button, moving from the intimate and emotional realm of the individual into the public realm. Rather than
a feeling, it is now is an action, since instead of being tied to an internal sensation that reacts tacitly to an
external stimulus, to like now becomes a conscious rationalized action that connotes an external tag of
connection between an individual, a discursive element, and a social stance (Peyton, 2014: 113)
(Serrano-Puche 13).
The prototype empathy phone being advertised on the internet is yet another example.
Supposedly, the empathy phone comes would come with a mood ring that would tell the phone how you
are feeling so the phone can offer emotional support. This is a scary concept because empathy should not
be something that can be given to a person by an electronic device. It is a human trait, and we are trying
to make it so it can be expressed digitally. So it isnt that technology is affecting peoples actual ability to
empathize in this case; its that digital media is affecting the effort people are expected to put into
empathy, because now they can supposedly do it through a computer.
However, we found that technology is redefining empathy in a positive way as well. Emojis are a
good but surprising example of a means of understanding and connecting with other peoples emotions
that no one would think constitutes empathy. The little emoticons are a substitute for having to read facial
expressions and cues in order to figure out the connotation behind someones words. They help express
emotion and allow others to empathize through digital communication better than people could solely
through text (Seiter 2015). Using emojis to empathize is putting a lower standard on empathy- instead of
giving someone a hug, it has become acceptable to show them we relate through a little icon we simply
have to click- and its definitely not as effective as a hug, yet it seems to be the norm now (Rosen 2015).
But, Ryan Kelly and Leon Watts of the University of Bath, United Kingdom, did a comprehensive study
on the effect of emojis. The study, Characterising the Inventive Appropriation of Emoji as Relationally
Meaningful in Mediated Close Personal Relationships, shows that since people have already converted to
using online communication as their go-to, and have already wounded the ability to empathize, emojis
could be seen as a help. Emojis, although not as effective as face-to-face communication, still allow us to
register and mimic others expressions and emotions. This is called emotional contagion and its how
humans learn and demonstrate empathy. Scientists for the journal Social Neuroscience found that when
we look at a smiley face online, the same parts of our brains are activated as when we look at a real
human face (Churches, Nicholls 2014).
This came as a slight surprise because wed gotten on a narrow-minded track that only looked at
how technology was destroying empathy and how we were all going to become solitary robots who were
lonely and only knew how to type, not speak. Then we found the article Found On Facebook and, after,
many more like it, that made very valid points about the positive affect social media has on expanding

and increasing empathy. This forced us to pause, go back, and remember the second part of our research
question which was: to what extent does technology decrease empathy? Because we realized it might not
have been as much as we thought.
Teddy Waynes Found On Facebook: Empathy article argues something similar about technology
and empathy. It is true that traditionally defined empathy (in-person conveyance of understanding) is
affected by the recent surge of digital media in our daily lives that replaces a lot of face-to-face interaction
and connection. However, Wayne reasonably puts forth that when we say that technology is simply
destroying empathy in youths, were defining empathy too narrowly. Social media has become a way
for people to widen their understanding and acceptance of diversity in race, gender identity and
preference, etc. People are more honest behind a screen, because it offers a sense of protection, and when
we are exposed to the wide array of people that exist on social media, we can see so many more lifestyles,
and technology gives us the chance to build up a feeling of fairness and equality because we can see
them. In 2014, the percentage of American adults who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality
rose to 49% and overtook the 40% who view homosexuality as always wrong and the 11% who gave a
different answer. Wayne takes findings from Professor Larry D. Rosen, a psychology professor at
California State University, Dominguez Hills who specializes in the effects of technology. Rosen says that
if we think as empathy as a continuum, we will see that social media and online communication isnt
depleting it. Empathy on the internet is just a different style than real-world empathy (Wayne 2015).

V. Conclusion
Thus far there has been no clearly defined link established between empathy and technology. It is
impossible to measure all of the effects of technology for one set definition of empathy. However, we
were able to measure a variety of definitions and throughout our research we discovered that the effects of
technology vary based on increased use. The more one uses technology, the more it hinders natural
abilities and tendencies of interacting face-to-face and increases the popularity of online communication,
changing many interpersonal relationships. Without this in-person interaction and exchange of human
emotion, there is a clear loss in empathy as empathetic skills are formed through the ability to understand
and share the emotions of another human being. This cannot simply be done by a screen.
But we also found the good that can come from technology. It is so important that people around
the world are exposed to an array of lifestyles and cultures that they normally wouldnt be, and social

media platforms help with this so much. People become more aware and accepting of the various people
living around them because they can see that those people are human, too. It encourages a sense of
community and helps to bring lifestyles out of isolation from each other. The problem is that this upside
of exposure to technology has to work against all the negatives we found.
Of course, technology is not the only factor that contributes to decreased empathy in our modern
culture, but it perpetuates the dehumanization of our interaction and communication. At present,
ignorance is a big part of the problem, but if more people are aware and start to make little changes like
the ones we have made, such as making family dinner a priority, technology may stop negatively affecting
our ability to empathize so much.

Works Cited
Baer, Jay. Social Media, Pretend Friends, and the Lie of False Intimacy. Convince & Convert.
Brenda, Patoine. Brain Development in a Hyper-Tech World. The Dana Foundation. 26 Aug.
2008.
Brignall, Thomas Wells and Van Valey, Thomas. The Impact of Internet Communications on Social
Interaction. Sociological Spectrum 25 (2005): 335-348. Print.
Churches, Owen, and Mike Nicholls. Emoticons in Mind: An Event-Related Potential Study.
Social Neuroscience 9.2 (2014): n. pag. Taylor & Francis. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
Griffiths, Mark and Lavinia McLean. The psychological effects of video games on young people: A
review. Aloma 30 (1) (2013): 119-133.

Howard-Jones, Paul, Dr. The Impact of Digital Technologies on Human Well Being. Nominet
Trust. July 2011.
Johnson, Chandra. Face time vs. Screen time: The technological impact on communication.
Deseret News 29 Aug. 2014
Kelly, Ryan, and Leon Watts. Characterising the Inventive Appropriation of Emoji as
Relationally Meaningful in Mediated Close Personal Relationships. University of Bath, Bath,
United Kingdom.
Kristofferson, Kirk, Katherine White, and John Peloza. The Nature of Slacktivism: How the
Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action.
Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. June 2014.
Krznaric, Roman. Facebook doesnt understand that theres no one-click shortcut to empathy.
The Guardian. 16 Sept. 2015.
McGrath, Siobhan. The Impact of New Media Technologies on Social Interaction in the
Household. Maynooth University. 19 Apr. 2012.
Prosocial Media Linked With Empathy Across Cultures. Association for Psychological Science.
26 Dec. 2013.
Rosen, Larry. Connecting Virtually Isnt like Real-World Bonding. The Wall Street Journal. 10
May 2015.
Seiter, Courtney. This Is Your Brain on Emojis. Buffer. 3 June 2015.
Serrano-Puche, Javier. "Emotions and Digital Technologies: Mapping the Field of Research in Media
Studies." Diss. London School of Economics, 2015. Print.
Turkle, Sherry. Connected, but Alone? TED: Ideas Worth Spreading. Feb. 2012. Print. Lecture
transcript.
Uhls, Yalda, et al. Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills
with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior. 387-92. Science Direct.
Wayne, Teddy. Found on Facebook: Empathy. The New York Times. 9 Oct. 2015.