When a friend falls ill, most people will feel a pang of empathy. They’ll express wishes for a speedy recovery and make sure that they’re doing okay. But when a distant classmate falls ill, that same compassion often disappears. There may be an empty seat in the classroom, but for most, the day goes unchanged, and some may even jump to assumptions about why that person is gone.
This simple difference in reaction reflects a growing habit of selective empathy, which is the tendency to care for some while overlooking others. Although it may seem harmless, this mindset has weakened the way people connect with one another.
In a study published in the National Library of Medicine, researchers define empathy as the ability to share and understand another person’s emotions.
Selective empathy, on the other hand, refers to the ability to understand others’ emotions but choosing to extend that understanding only to particular individuals or groups.
In a world where time never seems to stop for anyone, many people, especially teens, have adopted a “me first” mentality that mirrors selective empathy; as a result, many have turned to prioritizing themselves over their relationships.
This mindset can present itself on a broad spectrum, ranging from something as trivial as canceling plans at the last minute to being ignorant of real-world events. But what exactly drives this kind of behavior?
According to a study from the National Library of Medicine, empathy requires both cognitive and emotional costs, meaning that some people may choose not to express empathy towards someone because it involves a state of emotional vulnerability.
The study also found that most people are more likely to empathize with those they perceive as “morally good.” Those who were associated with immoral acts, like taking advantage of others or committing a crime, received less empathy.
While it seems entirely rational to decide whether or not a person should receive empathy based on their morality, this mentality can also weaken genuine social connections. Perception is not always reality, and by limiting compassion only to those deemed “worthy,” people risk isolating themselves and becoming ignorant of others’ struggles.
It’s essential to note, however, that it is possible to understand a person’s actions and emotions fully and still choose not to act upon them. Empathy and sympathy are often misinterpreted as the same concept, when in reality, they mean two different things: according to an article by Peter J. Rosen, a psychologist, empathy is more about understanding and connecting with another’s experience, while sympathy is about feeling for the other without necessarily understanding the full significance of their suffering.
Understanding this distinction has become more critical than ever, as people are increasingly quick to judge or make assumptions based on limited information. Genuine empathy requires slowing down and taking the time to fully understand a situation before making a judgment; without this, people can risk misinterpreting others’ actions or spreading misinformation.
Beyond interpersonal relationships, selective empathy can also be seen in the way people react to real-world events. Online, many are vocal about specific issues while remaining silent about others, partly because news is often treated like a trend. People rush to support a cause when it’s popular, but once the attention fades, that same support quickly disappears.
This kind of temporary awareness reflects a growing disconnect. People may feel sympathy in the moment, but without genuine understanding, there is no real change, and people can easily become susceptible to media narratives.
So, the next time a classmate is sick or missing, challenge yourself to understand why they might be gone instead of making assumptions and judgments. Avoiding selective empathy and making an effort to understand others’ perspectives can strengthen connections and lead to a tighter-knit community.
This editorial reflects the views of the Editorial Board and was written by Chloe Chu. The Editorial Board voted 7 in agreement, 5 somewhat in agreement, 1 in disagreement, and 4 refrained from voting.
