CC BY
29
ВЛИЯНИЕ ЭМПАТИИ НА СОЦИАЛЬНО-ЭМОЦИОНАЛЬНОЕ РАЗВИТИЕ В ПОДРОСТКОВОМ И РАННЕМ ВЗРОСЛОМ ВОЗРАСТЕ
Волкова Анна Александровна
Кандидат филологических наук, доцент, Морской государственный университет имени адмирала Г.И. Невельского (г. Владивосток), e-mail: VolkovaAA@msun.ru
Пекарь Елена Валерьевна
Ассистент кафедры, Морской государственный университет имени адмирала Г.И. Невельского (г. Владивосток), e-mail: VolkovaAA@msun.ru
DOI: 10.24412/1029-3388-2023-1-155-167 Аннотация:
Работа представляет собой метаанализ в форме систематического обзора научных публикаций, предметом исследования которых является отношение между эмпатией и социальными действиями или эмоциональными откликами подростков и молодых людей в возрасте от 12 до 20 лет. Мы проанализировали пять эмпирических научных статей на соответствие предыдущим психологическим воззрениям в части развития эмпатии в подростковом и раннем взрослом возрасте. Помимо традиционного деления на когнитивные и эмоциональные конструкты, эмпатия исследуется с точки зрения своего проявления в речи, реально произнесенной устной или виртуальной письменной. Развитие эмпатии в подростковом и раннем взрослом возрасте положительно коррелирует с возрастом, подростки проявляют меньше эмпатии чем молодые взрослые. Эмпатия также более выражена у девушек, особенно в виде аффективной эмпатии. Данные подтверждают, что эмпатия находится в позитивной связи с аргументацией о необходимости проявлять заботу, социальную поддержку и вежливость при общении, опосредованном компьютером. Обнаружено, что письменные речевые акты в виртуальном общении часто представлены меньшим диапазоном интенсивности и когнитивной сложности, по сравнению с живой речью. В то же время есть свидетельство того, что связь между эмпатией и кибербуллингом не значимая. По этим причинам, способность к эмпатии в виртуальном пространстве Интернета требует дальнейших исследований.
Ключевые слова: эмпатия, когнитивная эмпатия, аффективная эмпатия, виртуальная эмпатия, молодые взрослые, подростки.
EMPATHY RELATIONSHIP ON SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG ADULTS
Volkova Anna Alexandrovna
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Admiral G.I. Nevelsky Maritime State University (Vladivostok), e-mail: VolkovaAA@msun.ru
Pekar Elena Valeryevna
Assistant of the Department, Admiral G.I. Nevelsky Maritime State University (Vladivostok), e-mail: VolkovaAA@msun.ru
DOI: 10.24412/1029-3388-2023-1-155-167
Abstract:
This study presents a meta-analysis in the form of a systematic review of research, rating the relationship between empathy and social actions or emotional responses of young adults. Five research articles were analyzed for consistency with the previous psychological ideas about empathy development in adulthood. Apart from traditional division into cognitive and emotional constructs, empathy is researched from the angle of discourse manifestation, either real-world or virtual. Empathy development in adulthood varies positively with age, with adolescents displaying less levels of empathy than young adults, and is more externalized for females, with girls scoring more on affective empathy. Drawn evidence consecutively addresses good relationship between empathy and care reasoning, social support and polite online communication. It is found that the speech acts in virtual written communication are somehow devoid of real-world empathy intensity and cognitive complexity. There is also evidence of an insignificant correlation between empathy and cyberbullying roles. For these reasons, the area of virtual empathy potency leaves room for further investigation.
Keywords: empathy, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, virtual empathy, young adults, adolescents.
INTRODUCTION
Empathy is the aptitude of a person to experience emotions of the other and give an emotional response to distressed people. Empathy is both one's ability and one's state. The process of empathy is launched automatically and emotional response can be directed onto the witness himself in the form of personal distress or self-oriented distress [1], or onto the person in need in the form of sympathetic neurotic arousal, that is objectivized into altruism in its turn [2, 3]. Self-forwarded emotional reaction "to converge emotionally" is called "emotional contagion" [4, p. 96], whereas the other-oriented emotional response is treated as "emotional support" [5, p. 113].
Empathy constitutes an essential part of prosocial behaviour in infancy and toddlerhood [6; 7] and makes the foundation of positive social adaptation and interaction in adolescence [8; 9]. In moral behaviour studies empathy is seen as a
factor of motivation for giving care and altruism [2; 3], but some researchers devaluate empathy as a predictor of prosocial behaviour and link "frequently used emphatic techniques" to social desirability [10, p. 552]. In psychoanalysis empathic responses are known as echo-like reactions to their child's behaviour, being evidence that the caregiver is in tune with the state and the needs of the infant [11, p. 173].
A plethora of studies is devoted to constructing empathy as a multi-dimensional set of cognitive and emotional processes that help comprehend the feelings of others and react to them [12; 13; 14]. Cognitive empathy is a process of mental representation and reconstruction of inner psychological state of a person, or "mental perspective-taking" [15, p. 3]. Emotional empathy is viewed as the ability to produce an emotional response to verbal and non-verbal stimuli from people under stress, as "a vicarious sharing of emotions" [15, p. 3]. Cognitive empathy can be also referred to under other names such as perspective-taking, role-taking, mentalizing, person perception, recognition of affect in others, and social cognition, and stands close to concepts of 'theory of mind' and 'mindfulness'. Emotional empathy and affective empathy are often used as synonyms.
Positive predictors of empathy are often family-related, such as inductive style of parenting [12], nonpunitive parental discipline practices [16], type of attachment [17], parent's style of communication (instructive with an elaborate discussion of emotional states), level of empathy of the caregivers [18], as well as language development in early age [19].
Gender differences associated with empathy are those that females are more emphatic than males [20; 21], however, boys' exposure to distress and misfortune entails approximately the same level as the girls' emphatic response [22]. With low levels of empathy found in autistic children, Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2003) position autism as an extreme male brain lacking empathy [23].
Educational developmentalists say that empathy grows with age, and adults and adolescents prove to show more empathy than toddlers, with adults also marked much higher in perspective-taking [24]. The level of parents' cognitive empathy correlates positively with sharing of things by toddlers [25]. Adolescents' empathy is associated with reduced conflict and increased problem-solving due to stronger perspective-taking [26]. Parental empathy positively affects their children's attachment security [27].
As Kohlberg puts it, moral behaviour based on empathy underlies care-based behaviour and morality of justice as compliance with rules [28]. Sympathy or perspective-taking (or both) is considered to be the precursor of prosocial moral reasoning [29], and conventional morality [28]. Lack of empathy is suggested as a predictor of children's aggression expressivity and bullying [30; 31; 32]. The mode of discourse, either real-life or virtual, seem to have little significance as low levels of empathic responsiveness in males predicted adolescents' bullying between peers at schools [33]. At the same time low empathy rates were linked to cyberbullying as well [34; 35]. As for prosocial behaviour, it considerably improves with focused training [36] or by example behaviours [37].
Pluralism about the structure of empathy resulted in various attempts to model empathy as a set of constructs. The most popular social-psychological model of empathy by Davis (1983) includes phantasy (co-feeling), perspective taking in Piaget's tradition (decentration), emphatic concern (emotional reactivity sympathy and compassion) and emphatic distress (strong negative self-oriented response to the distress of the other). His Interpersonal Reactivity Index discriminated between empathy as a process and as a result. The process takes the form of perspective-taking and fantasy which may result in empathic concern or personal distress. Though used frequently, this tool is often blamed for inconsistency and is perceived as outdated. Others verified solutions to measure empathy are as follows. The 20-item Basic Empathy Scale was designed by Jolliffe and Farrington in 2006 [38]. It employs cognitive and affective factors of empathy. The authors of the 16-item Toronto Empathy Questionnaire elaborated the measures for affective empathy and introduced such dimensions as "emotional contagion, emotion comprehension, sympathetic physiological arousal and con-specific altruism" [39, p. 68]. The Adolescent Measure of Empathy and Sympathy [40] bases itself on three factors cognitive empathy, affective empathy and sympathy to clarify the relationship between empathy and prosocial behaviour.
In light of the above, this study presents a systematic review of research, rating the relationship between empathy and social actions or emotional responses of young adults.
METHOD
In the following section, five research articles that view empathy as a predictor of specific young adults' behaviour are discussed from the perspective of developmental psychology.
Search strategy
All research results were found by the Victoria University of Wellington Library search engine - Te Pataka Korero, at the request to display articles in the English language between 2010-2020, targeting the keyword "empathy" is exact with "young adult*" in the title and not containing in any field such words as "autism", "fiction", "health", "psychiatry", "religion". This way we intentionally wanted to eliminate the possible intersection with the medical, philological or religious types of discourse. Overall, fifteen articles were identified and further calibrated as to the 'Full Text Online" and "Peer-reviewed Journals" criteria, remaining twelve results. Once the contents of the articles were reviewed for the relevance to the research question, four results were eliminated as submitted by Medline/ PubMed (NLM) database and dealing with physiological measures of empathy, one article was excluded for its concern with recidivism and offense among youngsters covering the periphery of the bulk of other studies, one result failed to provide the full text of the research, leaving us with the six items relevant to the research question. On removing the duplicate, the output yielded five eligible articles appropriate for discussion.
Limitations of this Study
The analytical approach to the selection of articles lay restrictions on the
assumptions made from this literature review. The review centred itself on recent studies of empathy with young adults beginning with 2010 of educational psychological value, leaving out other age groups, publication periods and branches of science. Furthermore, all studies appeared to be cross-sectional, and no longitudinal design research was found.
Quality review criteria
The reliability of the research under review is identified by their peer-reviewed status and good internal consistency measures in the form of Cronbach's alpha values for all studies in the selection.
RESULTS
Table 1 highlights the nature of the research articles and demographics of study participants as provided by the authors of each study. All five studies are pursued in different countries and appear to be cross-sectional surveys of young adults or adolescents of all gender to calculate the factors of empathy, the results of which were subject to regression analysis. The sampling of the cohort was drawn from university students exclusively [41; 42], from a mixture of university students and their non-university peers of the same age [43] and from young adults and adolescents [44; 45].
Table 2 consistently exhibits types of empathy in the focus of the selected studies. Apart from traditionally recognized empathy divisions into cognitive empathy and affective empathy, new types of empathy are put forward as to the focus of communication, direct or technically mediated, that is real-world empathy and virtual empathy [43], Soldatova and Rasskazova (2019) introduce the term "real-life empathy" [45]. According to the agent (actor) of empathy in virtual discourse Balakr-rishnan and Fernandez (2018) distinguish cyberbully empathy, cyber victim empathy and bystander empathy [41].
Table 1. Socio-demographic summary of studies.
№ Authors (year) Country Age, median age (MA), cohort Overall sample Method of research
1 Balakrrishnan, V., Fernandez, T. (2018). Self-esteem, empathy and their impacts on cyberbullying among young adults. Telematics and Informatics, 35(7), 2028-2037. Malaysia young adults, MA = 20.9 years, mostly university students 1263 (474 males, 789 females) self-administered survey, factor analysis (binary logistic regressions)
2 Carrier, L., Spradlin, A., Bunce, J., Rosen, L. (2015). Virtual empathy: Positive and negative impacts of going online upon empathy in young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(C), 39-48. USA young adults, MA = 23.39 years 1390 (584 males, 806 females) anonymous online survey, factor analysis (regression analysis)
3 Salas-Wright, C., Olate, R., Vaughn, M. (2013). Assessing empathy in Salvadoran high-risk and gang-involved adolescents and young adults: Spanish validation of the basic empathy scale. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 57(11), 1393-1416. Spain young adults, MA = 23.70, adolescents, MD = 16.57, high-risk and gang-involved Salvadorian youths between 13 and 34 years 208 (76 young adult males, 26 young adult females, 94 adolescent males, 12 adolescent females) self-administered survey, factor analysis and criterion-related validity analysis
4 Skoe, E. (2010). The relationship between empathy-related constructs and care-based moral development in young adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 39(2), 191-211. Norway young adults, from 20 to 42 years, MD (females) = 23.7, MD (males) = 23.3, university students 58 (28 males, 30 females) survey, interview, multiple regression analysis
5 Soldatova, G. U. Rasskazova, E. I. (2019). Tolerance, Empathy, and Aggression as Factors in Compliance with Rules of Online Communication by Russian Adolescents, Young Adults, and Parents. Psychology in Russia: State of Art, 12(2), 79-93. Russia 1,029 adolescents aged 14-17, 736 young adults aged 17-30, MD = 23.33 1765 (300 young adult males, 436 young adult females, 483 adolescent males, 546 adolescent females) Survey, factor analysis (regression-correlation analysis)
All studies operate popular self-report Likert-type instruments to assess empathy: the Basic Empathy Scale in studies 2 and 3, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index by Davis (1983) in studies 4 and 5, or the recent Toronto Empathy Questionnaire in study 1. The four of those measures unanimously discriminate between the cognitive scale of empathy and the affective scale, whereas the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire scores empathy as primarily an emotional process.
Table 2. Types of empathy measured.
№ Variable / Dependent variable Instrument to measure empathy Type of empathy Impact of empathy
1 empathy / cyberbully empathy/cybervictim empathy / bystander 20-item Toronto Empathy Questionnaire bully empathy victim empathy witness empathy no significant impact on stakeholders
2 going online /real-world empathy empathy /virtual empathy empathy / social support 20-item Basic Empathy Scale, 20-item Virtual Empathy Scale virtual empathy real-world empathy video gaming reduced real-world empathy; virtual empathy is less than real-world empathy; real-world empathy is strongly related to social support
3 empathy/ males empathy/ females empathy/ offender empathy/ non-offender 7-item Spanish validation of Basic Empathy Scale cognitive empathy affective empathy girls scored higher in affective empathy subscale
4 empathy / care reasoning perspective- taking / care reasoning sympathy / care reasoning personal distress / care reasoning 20-item Interpersonal Reactivity Index [12] cognitive empathy affective empathy women score higher than men on affective empathy; perspective taking and personal distress predict care reasoning
5 empathy / compliance with communication rules online Russian validation of Interpersonal Reactivity Index [12] real-life empathy empathy predicts polite online communication only in older adults
As to the influence of virtual discourse on empathy, three articles provide mixed research findings of virtual communication mediated by the Internet. The survey, conducted by Balakrrishnan and Fernandez (2018) proved to reveal no significant impact of high or low empathy scores and subsequent online communication strategies for any party involved, be it cyberbullies, cyber victims or bystanders of virtual bullying. However, the evidence from the second study advocates there's a decrease in virtual empathy scores as compared to real-world empathy scores [43, p.45], and the positive correlation with the general measure of social support was also weaker for virtual discourse. According to the authors of the study, habitual video gaming considerably reduces real-world empathy, which makes the only statistically significant fluctuation from the general trend of a very small negative impact of online communication upon real-world empathy. Real-world cognitive empathy should be reinforced by face-to-face communication after online activity, and unless followed by real-life interaction, it decreases. The Russian research findings relate empathy to compliance with rules of polite online communication [45].
The majority of the studies made effort to calculate gender differences for
empathic responses, bearing in mind the tradition to give females priority in affectivity. In studies 2, 3, and 4 girls scored much higher on the affective empathy subscale, but not on the cognitive one [42, p. 201; 43, p.41; 44, p. 1405). Nevertheless, some gender-relevant nuances were diagnosed by Carrier et al. (2015), going online triggered a meaningful decline in cognitive empathy in females when going online, and video gaming significantly diminished cognitive and affective real-world empathy in females and cognitive real-world empathy in males.
The developmental differences of participants also threw light onto the ontogenesis of empathy. Two studies directly compared two age cohorts of adolescents and young adults in terms of empathy intensity. Soldatova and Rasskazova (2019) point out that a higher rates of empathy are scored for young adults rather than for teenagers aged 14-17 (in adolescents P = 0.11, p < 0.01, in young adults P = 0.03, p > 0.10 [45]). Skoe (2010) observed that age was positively related to sympathy [42, p. 201]. The survey of empathy in Salvadorian youngsters, surprisingly, didn't testify that there's a valid advance in empathy scores between older adolescents and young adults.
Speaking about the empathy contribution to moral development, the third study supports that youths, systemically involved in antisocial or violent activities, crime, delinquency and gang business, display lower values of empathy unlike their more prosocial counterparts [44, p. 1406]. Another argument in favour of the beneficial output of empathy towards moral reasoning is provided by study 4: on the one hand, perspective-taking works as a predictor for good ethic of care reasoning values, on the other hand, personal distress is negatively associated with care reasoning scores [42, p. 200]. Carrier et al. (2015) managed to grasp the connection between virtual empathy and feelings of social support, although weaker than for real-world empathy.
DISCUSSION
This research literature review developed a comparative analysis of empathy as a predicting measure or resulting response of young adults' social and emotional development. Empathy variables received meaningful values in four factors: virtual discourse, gender, age and moral development.
Breakthrough expansion of the Internet determined the agenda of the three studies, concerned with new contexts for studying empathy such as cyberbullying and online virtual communication [41; 43; 45]. The study of Carrier et al. (2015) interpreted the macro factor of virtually mediated communication as discriminating between virtual empathy and real-life empathy. They construct the two-member gradual opposition according to the degree of intensity, where real-world empathy is the marked member, earning the highest scores in all subscales, and virtual empathy is a weak member, scoring less behind the screen, especially in video game activities. Moreover, girls who prefer in-person communication demonstrated higher levels of perspective-taking as compared to those who choose virtual channels of interaction. Young adults regularly involved in online gaming are marked by primitive forms of emotional empathy (empathic distress or empathic contagion), and start to lax perspective-taking skills with the shift from the real world to virtual communication. Nevertheless, a balanced
mix of interaction in instant messaging, video chatting, e-mailing and online games, followed by face-to-face dialogue seems to have nothing to do with the distortion of real-life empathy.
Gender factor in empathy development is taken into consideration in most research, following the research tradition to gender-relate affective empathy as a more prominent feature of females [21; 23]. The merging evidence of three research articles supports girls' prevalence in recognizing someone else's emotions and comforting others [42; 43; 44]. Video gaming impressively underscored affective real-world empathy in females that, in our opinion, may be explained by assuming withdrawal behaviour towards violence on the screen. Conversely, the research taken by Balakr-rishnan and Fernandez (2018) fails to appreciate the link between real-life empathy and cases of cyberbullying from the standpoints of cyber victims, cyberbullies or bystanders, the same results were previously witnessed by Ang and Goh (2010), Jolliffe and Farrington (2006). So, further research is felt to be required to validate how virtual empathy deviates from real-world one.
Two authors made age-specific changes relevant to their research [42; 45], emphasizing the fact that empathic skills tend to develop throughout life and take their finalized, more expressed form of role-taking or sympathy in adulthood, leaving adolescents on the previous stage of empathy development, very often lacking the ability to grasp the perspective of their counterparts or communicate their feelings about personal distress to the other. Their conclusions are in tune with late neurovisual research [46; 47] and psychological studies [24].
Three studies attempted to check if empathy preconditioned moral care reasoning, social support and polite online communication, and brought positive evidence in favour of the prosocial character of empathy [42; 44; 45]. Their findings are consistent with provisions of the theory of moral development [6; 28] relating helping behaviour and compassion to an upturn in care, social support and better self-regulation that mediates politeness. It should be noted that authors do not comment upon which component of empathy enhances moral decisions, if it is the effect of cognitive decentration or a purely emotional response, thus leaving room for further investigation.
CONCLUSION
The undertaken research literature review made effort to apprize the recent attempts to take new vantage points on empathy from statistically supported research in young adults' samplings. Apart from traditional division into cognitive and emotional constructs, empathy is researched from the angle of discourse manifestation, either real-world or virtual, the latter being somehow devoid of real-world empathy intensity and cognitive complexity. Empathy development in young adults varies positively with age and is more externalized for females. Traces of evidence reasonably explain good relationship between empathy and care reasoning, social support and polite online communication.
Literature
1. Young, S. K., Fox, N. A., & Zahn-Waxler, C. The relations between temperament and empathy in 2-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 1999, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1189-1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1189
2. Batson, C.D. Personal values, moral principles, and three-path model of prosocial motivation. In Eisenberg, N., Reykowski, J., Staub, E. Social and Moral Values: Individual and Societal Perspectives. Routledge. 1989, pp. 231-246. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781315534978-22
3. Hoffman, M. Is Empathy Altruistic? Psychological Inquiry, 1991, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 131-133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_6
4. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., Rapson, R. Emotional Contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1993, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953
5. Hill, C. Seeking emotional support: The influence of affiliative need and partner warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.L112
6. Eisenberg, N., Spinard, T. Multidimensionality of prosocial behavior. Rethinking the conceptualization and development of prosocial behavior. In Padilla-Walker, L., & Carlo, G. Prosocial development: a multidimensional approach. Oxford University Press. 2014, pp. 17-39. https://doi-org.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199964772.003.0002
7. Hein, S., Roder, M., Fingerle, M. The role of emotion regulation in situational empathy-related responding and prosocial behaviour in the presence of negative affect. International Journal of Psychology, 2018, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 477-485. https://doi. org/10.1002/ijop.12405
8. Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. Empathy and its development.1987. 406 p.
9. Thompson, K., Gullone, E. Prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescents: An investigation into associations with attachment and empathy. Anthrozoos, 2008, vol. 21, no. 2, 123-137. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303708X305774
10. Eisenberg-Berg, N., Lennon, R. Altruism and the assessment of empathy in the preschool years. Child Development, 1980, vol. 51(2), pp. 552-557. https://doi. org/10.2307/1129290
11. Kohut, H. The restoration of the self. International Universities Press. 1977.
368 p.
12. Davis, M. H. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.L113
13. Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., & Valiente, C. Empathy. In Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. American Psychological Association. 2019, pp. 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000138-016
14. Strayer, J. Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In N. Eisenberg
& J. Strayer (Eds.), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. Empathy and its development. Cambridge University Press.1987, pp. 218-244.
15. Smith, A. Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and evolution. The Psychological Record, 2006, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 3-21. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF03395534
16. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. Child rearing and children's prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 1979, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 319-330. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129406
17. Wei, M., Liao, K., Ku, T., Shaffer, P. Attachment, Self-Compassion, Empathy, and Subjective Well-Being among college students and community adults. Journal of Personality, 2011, vol. 79, no. 1, pp.191-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00677.x
18. Richaud de Minzi, M. Children's perception of parental empathy as a precursor of children's empathy in middle and late childhood. The Journal of Psychology, 2013, vol. 147, no. 6, pp. 563-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.721811
19. Emen, M. The relationship between perspective taking skills and language development in preschool children. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 2019, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 25-42. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v6i1.2159
20. Baron-Cohen, S. The Essential difference: Male and female brains and the truth about autism. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 2009, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 23-27.
21. Feingold, A. Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1994, vol. 116, no. 3, pp.429-456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429
22. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A. Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development. New York: Wiley. 1998, pp. 701-778.
23. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S. The friendship questionnaire: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2003, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 509-517. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025879411971
24. Underwood, B., & Moore, B. Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 1982, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 143-173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.L143
25. Williams, A., O'Driscoll, K., Moore, C. The influence of empathic concern on prosocial behavior in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 2014, vol. 5, MAY, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00425
26. Van Lissa, C., Hawk, S., Branje, S., Koot, H., Meeus, W. Common and unique associations of adolescents' affective and cognitive empathy development with conflict behavior towards parents. Journal of Adolescence, 2016, vol. 47, pp. 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.adolescence.2015.12.005
27. Stern, J., Borelli, J., Smiley, P. Assessing parental empathy: a role for empathy in child attachment. Attachment & Human Development, 2015, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2014.969749
28. Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., Hewer, A. Moral stages. A current formulation and a response to critics. Contrib Hum Dev. Basel, Karger, 1983, vol. 10, pp. 5-103. DOI: 10.1159/isbn.978-3-318-03252-9
29. Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Koller, S. Brazilian adolescents' prosocial moral judgment and behavior: Relations to Sympathy, Perspective Taking, Gender Role Orientation, and Demographic Characteristics. Child Development, 2001, vol. 72(2), pp. 518-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00294
30. Lovett, B., Sheffield, R. Affective empathy deficits in aggressive children and adolescents: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 2007, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.10167j.cpr.2006.03.003
31. Euler, F., Steinlin, C., Stadler, C. Distinct profiles of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescents: associations with cognitive and affective empathy. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 2017, vol. 1, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13034-016-0141-4
32. Zych, I., Ttofi, M., Farrington, D. Empathy and callous-unemotional traits in different bullying roles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2019, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3-21. SAGE Publications. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838016683456
33. Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoe, G. Does empathy predict adolescents' bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 2007, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 467-476. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20204
34. Ang, R., Goh, D. Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of Affective and Cognitive Empathy, and Gender. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 2010, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 387-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0176-3
35. Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 2006, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 540-550. https://doi. org/10.1002/ab.20154
36. Chalmers, J., Townsend, M. The effects of training in social perspective taking on socially maladjusted girls. Child Development, 1990, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 178-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02770.x
37. Gordon, M., Green, J. Roots of Empathy: Changing the world, child by child. Education Canada, 2008, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 34-36. http://search.proquest.com/ docview/216906476
38. Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 2006, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 589-611. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
39. Spreng, R., Mckinnon, M., Mar, R., Levine, B. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a Factor-Analytic Solution to Multiple Empathy Measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 2009, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802484381
40. Vossen, H., Piotrowski, J., Valkenburg, P. Development of the Adolescent Measure of Empathy and Sympathy (AMES). Personality and Individual Differences,
2015, vol. 74, pp.66-71. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.040
41. Balakrishnan, V., Fernandez, T. Self-esteem, empathy and their impacts on cyberbullying among young adults. Telematics and Informatics, 2018, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 2028-2037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.07.006
42. Skoe, E. The relationship between empathy-related constructs and care-based moral development in young adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 2010, 39, no. 2, pp. 191-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057241003754930
43. Carrier, L., Spradlin, A., Bunce, J., Rosen, L. Virtual empathy: Positive and negative impacts of going online upon empathy in young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015, vol. 52, pp. 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.026
44. Salas-Wright, C., Olate, R., Vaughn, M. Assessing empathy in Salvadoran high-risk and gang-involved adolescents and young adults: A Spanish validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 2013, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1393-1416. https://doi. org/10.1177/0306624X12455170
45. Soldatova, G. U., Rasskazova, E. Tolerance, Empathy, and Aggression as factors in compliance with rules of online communication by Russian adolescents, young adults, and parents. Psychology in Russia, 2019, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 79-93. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2019.0207
46. Kilford, E., Garrett, E., Blakemore, S. The development of social cognition in adolescence: An integrated perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
2016, vol. 70, no. Nov., pp. 106-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.016
47. Sebastian, C. Social cognition in adolescence: Social rejection and theory of mind. Psicologia Educativa, 2015, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pse.2015.08.004
РАННЕЕ ХРИСТИАНСТВО НА ЧЕРНОМОРСКОМ ПОБЕРЕЖЬЕ И ЕГО ЗНАЧЕНИЕ ДЛЯ СОВРЕМЕННОГО ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОГО ПРОЦЕССА1
Кизилов Андрей Сергеевич
Кандидат педагогических наук, доцент, Субтропический научный центр Российской академии наук, Международный инновационный университет (г. Сочи), e-mail: kiziloff2014@mail.ru
DOI: 10.24412/1029-3388-2023-1-4-13 Аннотация:
В статье обозначены результаты археологических и исторических исследований на побережье Большого Сочи и республики Абхазия в области изучения археологических памятников раннего христианства. Обозначено их
1 Работа выполнена в рамках ГЗ ФИЦ СНЦ РАН № ГД 0492-2021-0014
