Global dunyoda ilm-fan va ta‘limdagi innovatsion
rivojlanishning zamonaviy trendlari 15 dekabr, 2022 yil.
274
Abstract:
This article provides information on the impact of empathy in newspapers
and magazines and the norms of their application.
The phrase “empathy” is used by psychologist Edward. B was introduced by Tetchener
in 1909 in Germany as a translation of einfuhlung (meaning emotion).
So how are grief and empathy different? Depression involves more passivecommuni-
cation, but empathy usually involves a very active effort to understand the other person.
Many theories have been proposed to explain empathy. Preliminary research on the sub-
ject focuses on the concept of empathy. The philosopher Adam Smith allows us to expe-
rience things we can never feel otherwise.
Keywords:
social media, computed-mediatedcommunication, email, n traditional me-
dia, virtualcommunities, empathize, Social Activity.
INTRODUCTION
Deep systemic and functional shifts characterize the current state ofuzbekistan.
The topic of empathy and its characteristic features among young people is be-
coming increasingly relevant in this respect.
In a previous study, emotional expression in an online environment has been
noted Several research studies exploring emotion andcomputer-mediatedcom-
munication predate the development of Research teams in these research studies
equate the usage of participants’ Email, phone, and face-to-face encounters with
them. Cummings et al. for example asked Participants will score their relationships
between email, phone, and face-to-face, finding the face-to-face.
There might be some connection between utilizing web-based media and con-
necting sincerely with others. Generally, individuals who utilize the Web for social
purposes will in general be socially locked in disconnected too. The connection
between web-based media use furthermore, compassion is a generally new sub-
ject of study, there is an experimental examination demonstrating the connection
betweencompassion and PC interceded correspondence (CMC) as texting, which
is an element of online media destinations like Facebook.
Individuals who spend additional time in informalcommunities and who text
more regularly are better atcommunicating sympathy on the web, which prompts
YAQUBOV ODIL
MENGLIYEVICH
ESP teacher at Tashkent
State University of
Economics
yakubovodil893@gmail.com
IMPACT
CHARACTERISTICS
OF EMPATHY IN
NEWSPAPERS
https://doi.org/10.47689/STARS.university-pp274-280
STARS International University
275
a fascinating question with respect to the relationship of web-based media with
sympathy, which is diminished to an exploratory guarantee as he didn’t report
the proportions of sympathy utilized in arriving at his decision. Members of the
investigation were approached to take an interest in a pretending exercise, which
included perusing exchanges in four distinctive correspondence styles. Utilized
a moment informing (IM) visit box to look at how four changed correspondence
styles thought about in wording of the level of trust passed on by individuals on
the web. Four correspondence styles depended on a 2 x 2 plan, where individuals
were thought about regarding whether they were exact in theircompassion and
whether their reaction was steady. Two factors collaborated, such that discoursed
that passed on exact sympathy and steady reaction were related with essentially
higher trust scores than the other three sorts. Sympathy might be available on so-
cial media networks like Facebook, and one’s utilization of the site may anticipate
the sympathycommunicated on Facebook.
In the broadest context, empathy refers to one individual’s responses to ob-
served experiences of another that clarifycompassion in terms of a multidimen-
sional base that takes into account both another person’s intellectual and affective
states.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research on “Impact characteristics of empathy in newspapers” is reflected in
the scientific works of s ( Gosling, Augustine) [1], Vazire, Holtzman, & Gaddis, 2011)
[2]. For example, extraverts seek out social engagement online just as they do of-
fline (Gosling et al., 2011) [3]. Ivcevic and Ambady (2012), Rosen (2012) [4].
Rosen [5] distributed online surveys asking about empathy in the real world, the
empathy showed online, and their feelings of support along with the type of de-
vices they use on a day-to-day basis. Young adults in the study who were better at
expressing empathy online were also better at expressing empathy face-to-face.
In other words, social networking and instant messaging were significant predic-
tors of expressing virtual empathy, which in turn has a predictive ability of empa-
thy in the real world. Rosen concludes that empathy online, which he calls “virtual
empathy,” is a real concept and although not as significant as real-world empathy,
has a place for the relationship between onlinecommunication and the expression
of emotions and emotional support. However, these claims have not been appro-
priately validated or supported. (Kujath, 2011) [6] offering features that allow us-
ers to engage actively in interpersonalcommunication, or to be passive observers.
Based on this, I hypothesize that there will be a positive relationship between indi-
viduals’ social media network usage and their empathy ratings. That is, those who
interact more frequently with others online, and who use more Facebook features,
are predicted to have higher empathy scorescompared to those who interact less
frequently with others online, and who use fewer Facebook features.
HYPOTHESES
It was hypothesized that…
1. Individuals who score more highly in empathy, as measured using the em-
pathic concern subscale from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980),
Global dunyoda ilm-fan va ta‘limdagi innovatsion
rivojlanishning zamonaviy trendlari 15 dekabr, 2022 yil.
276
would be more likely use the engage in individual conversations using Facebook’s
chat function.
2. The amount of time a person spent online would be positively correlated with
empathy scores, as measured by the Interpersonal Reactivity Index.
3. Facebook usage, defined as emotional connectedness to Facebook and its in-
tegration into individuals’ daily activities (Ellison et al., 2007), and empathy would
be positively correlated.
4. Facebook usage, defined as emotional connectedness to Facebook and its
integration into individuals’ daily activities (Ellison et al, 2007) would predict
scores on empathic concern, even after statistically controlling for the effects of
extraversion, sociability, shyness, gender, or the number of contact methods used
when reaching out to a person in grief.
5. The type of device used to access Facebook would impact the expression of
empathy, such thatcomputer users would have higher empathy subscale scores-
compared to those primarily using phones.
METHOD
Participants
The sample included 204 students from an Introductory to Psychology par-
ticipant pool, which typically includes first- and second-year university students.
Sixty-nine percent (141) were women and 30% (63) of the participants were men.
Participants ages ranged from 19 to 39 (M =19. 5, SD = 2. 48). Over 59% (121) of
the participants were single, 38. 7% (79) were in a relationship, and two percent
(4) were married. Participants signed up for the study via an online site called the
SONA research system.
They went to the website to read the online informed consent form and, after
providing consent, were connected to the surveys in the study. Participantscom-
pleted the IRI, FBI, Social Activity and Emotional Reactivity Scale, TIPI, and the
Shyness and Sociability scale questionnaires via the Qualtrics online research sur-
vey program. Items on the FBI, IRI, TIPI, and Shyness and Sociability surveys were
randomized. Demographic information was gathered after participantscompleted
the FBI and IRI scales as well as the Social Activity and Emotional
Reactivity survey. After the surveys werecompleted, the participants were de-
briefed by reading a document explaining the study and giving providing informa-
tion if they had questions about the study. The debriefing statement read:
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics for the empathic concern subscale, self-reported likeli-
hood to chat, the Facebook intensity scale, and self-reported time spent online
each day in a week’s time (computed in minutes) are shown in Table 1. Responses
from the empathic concern subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index were
normally distributed. The participants scored above the midpoint on self-rated
warmth, compassion, and concern for others undergoing negative experiences.
Facebook intensity scale scores indicated that participants tend to incorporate.
Facebook in their daily lives regularly, scoring at about the midpoint of the
scale. Participants from the sample reported reaching out to others online be-
STARS International University
277
tween 30-50% of the times that they could have, on average. The sample also
reported spending a little over 60 minutes each day within the past week on Face-
book actively.
Table 1
also shows data regarding the number of people who used various de-
vices in order to access Facebook. More participants reported having used the
phone (N = 151) than used acomputer (N = 87) or table (N = 15) to access Facebook.
Participants were able to select more than one option, preventing chi-square anal-
ysis from being used to verify the statistical significance of this pattern. In terms of
primary device use, participants reported mainly using their phones (N = 142) to
access Facebook, whereas 46 relied on acomputer and only a small number used
a tablet device (N = 3) for this purpose, χ2 (2) = 159. 089, p <. 0001.
An additional 27 participants indicated that they did not use the chat function
of Facebook, and 13 participants did not use Facebook at all.
A correlation matrix of the continuous variables used in later analyses is shown
in.
Table 2
. As Table 2 shows, all variables correlate positively with each other.
Note. For the mode of access, participants were asked, “Which of the following
do you use to talk to people (Wallcomments, status updates, and inbox messag-
es) on Facebook?” Respondents could indicate more than one mode of access.
For the primary mode of access, participants were asked, “Which type of device
do you use the most when you are on Facebook?” Respondents chose the device
they primarily used.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Empathic Concern, Likelihood to Chat, Facebook Inten-
sity and Time Spent online. Descriptive Statistic Empathic Concern Likelihood to
Chat Facebook Intensity Time Spent Online
M 16. 80 2. 05 3. 45 2. 1
__________________________________________________________________
SD 3. 40 1. 09 9. 3 1. 26
__________________________________________________________________
Range 4. 00-27. 00 1-5 1. 00-5. 63 1-6
__________________________________________________________________
Note. N = 204
Mode of Accesscomputer Tablet Phone
N 87 15 151
Primary Mode of Accesscomputer
Tablet Phone
N 46 3 142
Note. For the mode of access, participants were asked, “Which of the following
do you use to talk to people (Wallcomments, status updates, and inbox messag-
es) on Facebook?” Respondents could indicate more than one mode of access.
For the primary mode of access, participants were asked, “Which type of device
do you use the most when you are on Facebook?” Respondents chose the device
Global dunyoda ilm-fan va ta‘limdagi innovatsion
rivojlanishning zamonaviy trendlari 15 dekabr, 2022 yil.
278
they primarily used. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Empathic Concern, Likelihood
to Chat, Facebook Intensity, and Time Spent online. Descriptive Statistic Empathic
Concern Likelihood to Chat Facebook Intensity Time Spent Online
M 16. 80 2. 05 3. 45 2. 16
__________________________________________________________________
SD 3. 40 1.09 3.34 1.26
__________________________________________________________________
Range 4. 00-27.00 1-5 1. 00-5.63 1-6
__________________________________________________________________
Note. N = 204 Mode of Accesscomputer Tablet Phone
__________________________________________________________________
N 87 15 151
__________________________________________________________________
Primary Mode of Accesscomputer Tablet Phone
__________________________________________________________________
N 46 3 142
Note. p **<.01.
Table 2
Correlations Between Empathic Concern and Likelihood to Chat, Face-
book Intensity, and Time Spent online. Measure Empathic Concern Facebook In-
tensity Likelihood to Chat Time Spent Online Empathic Concern –
183**.271**.184**
__________________________________________________________________
Facebook Intensity.
183** –.251**. 728**
__________________________________________________________________
Likelihood to Chat
.271**.251** –. 297**
__________________________________________________________________
Time Spent Online.
184**.728**. – 37
It was hypothesized that a self-rated likelihood to chat after seeing emotionally
charged information would be positively associated with empathy. A Pearson’s
correlation supported this hypothesis, which was statistically significant r(202) =.
27, p <. 01. The more an individual engages in conversation with others online, the
higher their scores of empathic concerns. The second hypothesis was that time on
Facebook would have a positive relationship with empathy. This hypothesis also
was supported. It was asked, “In the past week, on average, approximately how
much time per day have you spent actively on Facebook?” People who reported
devoting more time to Facebook also reported greater empathic concern,
r (202) =. 18, p <. 01.
STARS International University
279
The third hypothesis predicted a positive relationship between Facebook usage
and empathy. Facebook usage data was measured using the Facebook intensity
scale, and empathy was measured with the empathic concern subscale. A Pear-
son’s correlation also supported this hypothesis, showing a significant positive
relationship between Facebook usage and empathic concern, r (202) =. 18, p <.
01. Our final hypothesis was that levels of empathic concern differ based on the
electronic device used to access Facebook. An independent samples t-test was
conducted tocompare the empathic concern between phone andcomputer users
(too few tablets were used for meaningful analysis of tablet data). There was not
a significant difference in the scores of those who use thecomputer
(M = 17.72,
SD = 3.96)
and those who used phones
(M = 16.80,
SD = 2.93),
T = (61.745)
with degrees of freedom adjusted for unequal variances. Results suggest that
those who usecomputers as their primary mode of access for Facebook conversa-
tions are not significantly different, in terms of their apparent empathic concern,
from those who use a phone. The goal of this research was to examine the rela-
tionship between social media and empathy. This was broken down into several
hypotheses.
The first hypothesis, that chat is positively associated with empathy, was sup-
ported. The second hypothesis that time on Facebook is positively correlated with
empathy, was also supported.
The third hypothesis, that Facebook usage and empathy are positively correlat-
ed, also was supported.
A fourth hypothesis, that there would be a difference in empathy between those
using different devices to access Facebook was not supported. Finally, a regres-
sion analysis showed that our proposed predictor, Facebook usage, was not signif-
icant in predicting empathic concern beyond the predictive ability of sociability,
the number of contact methods, and gender.
Underlying the hypotheses examined in this study was the notion that social
media offers users an opportunity to express empathy. Overall, results suggest
that people actively involved on Facebook, also show higher ratings of empathy.
Facebook, the likelihood that one reaches out to others on Facebook, and how
involved one are on Facebook.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS:
For future studies, an expansion of the research to include individuals both in-
side and outside of the university setting may provide better generalizations to
different populations in terms of empathy and activity online. Such expansion in
the sample also could reveal possible differences in Facebook usage and empathy
due to age. Also, because there are other social media websites, one could assess
the extent to which empathy may vary across different social media websites,
such as Twitter and Pinterest.
Global dunyoda ilm-fan va ta‘limdagi innovatsion
rivojlanishning zamonaviy trendlari 15 dekabr, 2022 yil.
280
Because of its multidimensional interface and various features, expressions of
empathy would be expected to be greater on Facebook, relative to Pinterest and
Twitter.
The present data indicate that social media usage is positively correlated with
empathy. Extending this to other meaningful and socially desirable behavior would
present a morecomplete picture of the relationship between social media usage
and empathy.
References
1. Adams F. (2001). Empathy, neural imaging and the theory of mind versus sim-
ulation debate. Mind & Language, 16, 368–392.
2. Ahlqvist T., Back A., Halonen M., & Heinonen S. (2008) Social media road-
maps: Exploring the futures triggered by social media. Retrieved from http://
www. vtt. fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2008/T2454. pdf.
3. Aronson E. (1995). The social animal (7th ed.). NY: Worth/ Freeman.
4. Asendorpf J.B., & Wilpers S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–1544.
5. Askalani M. (2012). Staring at the sun: Identifying, understanding, and in-
fluencing social media users. Retrieved from http://www. aimia.com/files /doc_
downloads/Aimia_SocialMedia_Whitepaper. pdf.
6. Bargh J.A., & McKenna K.A. (2004). The Internet and Social Life. Annual Re-
view of Psychology, 573–590.
7. Bargh J.A., McKenna K.A., & Fitzsimons G.M. (2002). Can you see the real me?
Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet Journal of Social Issues,
58, 33–48.
8. Baron-Cohen S. (2011). The empathy bell curve. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 91, 10.
9. Baron-Cohen S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investi-
gation of adults with asperger’s syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal
sex differences.
10. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 34, 163–175.
11. Barr J.J., & Higgins-D’Alessandro A. (2009). How adolescent empathy and
prosocial behavior change in the context of school culture: A two-year longitudi-
nal study. Adolescence, 44, 751–772.
12. Bartat, I., Decety J., & Mason P. (2011). Empathy and pro-social behavior in
rats. Science, 334, 1427.
13. Batson C., O‘Quin K., Fultz J., Vanderplas M., & Isen A.M. (1983). Influence of
self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 706–718.
14. Cain K. (2012). The negative effects of Facebook oncommunication. Re-
trieved from http://socialmediatoday.com/kcain/568836/negative-effects-face-
book-communication.
15. Caruso D.R., & Mayer J.D. (1998). A measure of emotional empathy for ado-
lescents and adults. Unpublished Manuscript.
16. Čavojová V., Belovičová Z., & Sirota M. (2011). Mindreading and empathy as
predictors of prosocial behavior. Studia Psychologica, 53, 351–362.
17. Cummings J., Butler B., Kraut B., (2000). The quality of online social relation-
ships.
