Yet, according to a Swedish study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, people are more likely to empathise with groups rather than individuals.
Researchers at Linköping University demonstrated this with an experiment, in which close to 300 volunteers took part in an “empathy selection task”. Their mission was to choose between two piles of cards: one of them asking them to empathise, and the other asking them to remain objective.
Once they had their card in hand, they were presented with a photo: sometimes an isolated face, sometimes a small group. They were then asked to associate three keywords with the image, focusing either on perceived emotions or on purely visible elements.
The results show volunteers were more inclined to choose empathy when dealing with a group. On average, they opted for empathy 53% of the time when faced with a group image, compared to just 34% of the time when shown a picture of an individual.
“People were more willing to empathise with a group than an individual – although empathising was rated as more effortful and distressing compared to staying objective, for both the individual and the group,” study lead author Hajdi Moche noted.
How might this be explained? Group images offer more contextual elements (postures, interactions, varied expressions), which facilitate emotional identification. Conversely, a single face, static and without narrative framework, leaves little room for interpretation.
“The task of trying to share the internal experiences of the other requires more effort, imagination, and understanding of what the person might feel compared to describing external features like hair colour,” Moche outlined.
“To share in the internal experiences might be especially hard when the information at hand is only a neutral facial expression without any body language or background context.”
Another suggestion is that empathy with a group may seem more accessible, as it gives the impression of being able to connect emotionally with others. This sense of accomplishment boosts participants’ confidence, encouraging them to be more empathetic.
Paradoxically, although it is more difficult to describe a group than a single person, this extra effort could have made the experiment feel more stimulating.
The implications of this study are vast, as its findings could enrich our understanding of empathy in real-life contexts, such as humanitarian disasters and armed conflicts. As such, the researchers plan to further refine their understanding of the mechanisms of empathy.
“It would be interesting to test this further by directly pitting the individual and group against each other and letting participants choose which of these they would prefer to empathise with,” said Moche, “and then, in another round, which one they would prefer to stay objective in relation to.”
At its heart, this study reminds us that empathy is not an unlimited or automatic resource: it depends on what we see, how the other is presented to us, and the bond we allow ourselves to create.
By better understanding what gives rise to empathy, we can better mobilise it – whether in public policy, the media or in our daily lives – so that no one is left outside the scope of our compassion.