IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0213142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Caring helps: Trait empathy is related to better coping strategies and differs in the poor versus the rich

Author

Listed:
  • Rui Sun
  • Laura Vuillier
  • Bryant P H Hui
  • Aleksandr Kogan

Abstract

Coping has been extensively studied in health psychology; however, factors influencing the usage of different coping strategies have received limited attention. In five studies (N = 3702), we explored the relationship between trait empathy and coping strategies, and how subjective socioeconomic status (SES) moderates this relationship. In Studies 1–4, we found that people with higher level of empathic concern use more adaptive coping strategies, seek more social support, and use fewer maladaptive coping strategies. Moreover, higher trait empathy related to more adaptive coping strategies among the poor, and fewer maladaptive coping strategies among the rich. In Study 5, we tested the potential biological basis of the relationship between trait empathy and coping by examining the effect of the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) rs53576 polymorphism on coping. We found that individuals with the GG phenotype—who in previous research have been found to be more empathic—were more likely to seek social support than AG or AA individuals. Furthermore, in line with findings in Studies 1–4, amongst people with low SES, individuals with GG genotype used more adaptive coping strategies than AG or AA individuals. Our results highlight the selective role trait empathy plays in influencing coping strategy deployment, depending on the SES of individuals.

Suggested Citation

  • Rui Sun & Laura Vuillier & Bryant P H Hui & Aleksandr Kogan, 2019. "Caring helps: Trait empathy is related to better coping strategies and differs in the poor versus the rich," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-29, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213142
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213142
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213142&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0213142?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Kosfeld & Markus Heinrichs & Paul J. Zak & Urs Fischbacher & Ernst Fehr, 2005. "Oxytocin increases trust in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 435(7042), pages 673-676, June.
    2. Präg, Patrick & Mills, Melinda C. & Wittek, Rafael, 2016. "Subjective socioeconomic status and health in cross-national comparison," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 84-92.
    3. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tella, Rafael Di & Rotemberg, Julio J., 2018. "Populism and the return of the “Paranoid Style”: Some evidence and a simple model of demand for incompetence as insurance against elite betrayal," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 988-1005.
    2. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    3. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    4. Kimbrough, E.O. & Vostroknutov, A., 2012. "Rules, rule-following and cooperation," Research Memorandum 053, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    5. Coustaury, Camille & Jeannot, Elias & Moreau, Adele & Nietge, Clotilde & Maharani, Asri & Richards, Lindsay & Präg, Patrick, 2023. "Subjective socioeconomic status and self-rated health in the English Longitudinal Study of Aging: A fixed-effects analysis☆☆We thank the anonymous reviewers of Social Science & Medicine for their help," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    6. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    7. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    8. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    9. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Daniel Houser & Daniel Schunk & Joachim Winter, 2006. "Trust Games Measure Trust," MEA discussion paper series 06112, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    11. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    12. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    13. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    14. Tamara Niella & Nicolás Stier-Moses & Mariano Sigman, 2016. "Nudging Cooperation in a Crowd Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    15. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano & Robbett, Andrea & Spitzer, Matthew, 2019. "A taste for taxes: Minimizing distortions using political preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    17. Holgersen, Henning & Jia, Zhiyang & Svenkerud, Simen, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 55, pages 1-4.
    18. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    20. Phillips, Duygu & Edwards, Bryan D. & Rutherford, Matthew W., 2025. "Conformity or Differentiation: Optimal distinctiveness through mediating channels," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0213142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.