Evidence suggests empathy deficits have a temporal relationship with substance use severity by late adolescence theorized to decrease use via recognition of social consequences. However, this has yet to be tested empirically along with differences in cognitive and affective empathy. Adolescents admitted to substance use treatment (n = 3382) were followed through treatment and 12 months after treatment. Variable trajectories were fit using growth curve models; and cross-lagged effects of cognitive and affective empathy (interpersonal reactivity index) on response to social consequences of use were tested along with how response to social consequences affected the mean trajectory of substance use. Results indicate higher cognitive empathy predicted greater response to social consequences of use and response to these consequences at the end of treatment predicted a steeper decrease in substance use. This evidence highlights the importance of cognitive empathy for responding to social consequences of use for motivating less adolescent substance use.
AndersonC.KeltnerD. (2002). The role of empathy in the formation and maintenance of social bonds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 21–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x02230010
Baron-CohenS.WheelwrightS. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00
4.
BlakemoreS. J. (2012). Development of the social brain in adolescence. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 105(3), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110221
CliffordsonC. (2002). The hierarchical structure of empathy: Dimensional organization and relations to social functioning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00268
7.
CousijnJ.LuijtenM.Feldstein EwingS. W. (2018). Adolescent resilience to addiction: A social plasticity hypothesis. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30148-7
8.
DavisM. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(85), 49.
9.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
DecetyJ.BartalI. B.-A.UzefovskyF.Knafo-NoamA. (2016). Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 371(1686), 20150077. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0077
DecetyJ.MichalskaK. J. (2010). Neurodevelopmental changes in the circuits underlying empathy and sympathy from childhood to adulthood. Developmental Science, 13(6), 886–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00940.x
14.
DennisM.ScottC. K. (2007). Managing addiction as a chronic condition. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 4(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1151/ascp074145
15.
EisenbergN. (2005). The development of empathy-related responding. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 51, 73–117.
16.
EisenbergN.FabesR. A.MurphyB.KarbonM.SmithM.MaszkP. (1996). The relations of children’s dispositional empathy-related responding to their emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.195
17.
HawkS. T.KeijsersL.BranjeS. J. T.GraaffJ. V. d.WiedM. d.MeeusW. (2013). Examining the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) among early and late adolescents and their mothers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.696080
18.
HuL. t.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
19.
HubbardR. L.CraddockS. G.FlynnP. M.AndersonJ.EtheridgeR. M. (1997). Overview of 1-year follow-up outcomes in the drug Abuse treatment outcome study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11(4), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.11.4.261
KralT. R. A.SolisE.MumfordJ. A.SchuylerB. S.FlookL.RifkenK.PatsenkoE. G.DavidsonR. J. (2017). Neural correlates of empathic accuracy in adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(11), 1701–1710. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsx099
22.
KristiansenP. L.HubbardR. L. (2001). Methodological overview and research design for adolescents in the drug abuse treatment outcome studies. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(6), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558401166002
23.
LaghiF.BianchiD.PompiliS.LonigroA.BaioccoR. (2019). Cognitive and affective empathy in binge drinking adolescents: Does empathy moderate the effect of self-efficacy in resisting peer pressure to drink?Addictive Behaviors, 89, 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.10.015
LittleT. D.RhemtullaM.GibsonK.SchoemannA. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266
26.
LuengoM. A.OteroJ. M.Carrillo-de-la-PeñaM. T.MirónL. (1994). Dimensions of antisocial behaviour in juvenile delinquency: A study of personality variables. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169408411934
27.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.HoffmanJ. M.WestS. G.SheetsV. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83
28.
MasseyS. H.NewmarkR. L.WakschlagL. S. (2018). Explicating the role of empathic processes in substance use disorders: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Drug and Alcohol Review, 37(3), 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12548
29.
McConnaughyE. A.ProchaskaJ. O.VelicerW. F. (1983). Stages of change in psychotherapy: Measurement and sample profiles. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 20(3), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0090198
30.
McHughR. K.VotawV. R.SugarmanD. E.GreenfieldS. F. (2018). Sex and gender differences in substance use disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 66, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.012
31.
MulaikS. A.JamesL. R.Van AlstineJ.BennettN.LindS.StilwellC. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430
32.
MuthénB.TamT.MuthénL.StolzenbergR. M.HollisM. (1993). Latent variable modeling in the LISCOMP framework: Measurement of attitudes toward career choice. In: New directions in attitude measurement (pp. 277–290). Festschrift for Karl Schuessler.
33.
NguyenA. B.ClarkT. T.BelgraveF. Z. (2011). Empathy and drug use behaviors among African-American adolescents. Journal of Drug Education, 41(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.2190/de.41.3.d
34.
OvergaauwS.RieffeC.BroekhofE.CroneE. A.GüroğluB. (2017). Assessing empathy across childhood and adolescence: Validation of the empathy questionnaire for children and adolescents (EmQue-CA). Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 870–870. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00870
35.
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Core Team. https://www.R-project.org/
36.
RevelleW. (2021). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Evanston, IL: The Comprehensive R Archive Network, Northwestern University. R package version 2.1.9https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
37.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
38.
SchumannK.ZakiJ.DweckC. S. (2014). Addressing the empathy deficit: Beliefs about the malleability of empathy predict effortful responses when empathy is challenging. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036738
39.
ShinH. S.ParkH.LeeY.-M. (2022). The relationship between medical students’ empathy and burnout levels by gender and study years. Patient Education and Counseling, 105(2), 432–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.05.036
40.
SingerT. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(6), 855–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.011
41.
SmithA. (2006). Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and evolution. The Psychological Record, 56(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03395534
WintersD. E.Brandon-FriedmanR.YepesG.HinckleyJ. D. (2021). Systematic review and meta-analysis of socio-cognitive and socio-affective processes association with adolescent substance use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 219, 108479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108479
44.
WintersD. E.PruittP. J.FukuiS.CydersM. A.PierceB. J.LayK.DamoiseauxJ. S. (2021). Network functional connectivity underlying dissociable cognitive and affective components of empathy in adolescence. Neuropsychologia, 156, 107832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107832
45.
WintersD. E.WuW.FukuiS. (2020). Longitudinal effects of cognitive and affective empathy on adolescent substance use. Substance Use & Misuse, 55(6), 983–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2020.1717537
46.
WuW.LangK. M. (2016). Proportionality assumption in latent basis curve models: A cautionary note. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.938578
47.
WuW.SeligJ. P.LittleT. (2012). Longitudinal data analysis. Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods, 2, 387–410.
48.
ZakiJ. (2018). Empathy is a moral force. In GrayK.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 49–58). Guildford WA: The Guilford Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
