Despite being a resource-rich global power, the U.S. continues to grapple with deeply entrenched social issues, many exacerbated by deregulated, profit-driven media. Consolidation of media ownership and emotionally exploitative content has prioritized engagement over truth, fostering ideological echo chambers, moral outrage, and polarization. As identity increasingly fuses with ideology, these dynamics threaten collective problem-solving capacity, echoing Marcuse’s (1964) warnings about the psychological impact of late capitalism. This dissertation introduces a transdisciplinary model of empathy, synthesizing existing theories and neural correlates, and reframing empathy as a perceptual process rather than a static trait or transient state with the aim of increasing the translational potential of empathy research. Using a quasi-experimental, sham-controlled design, this study investigates how low-frequency rTMS to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) affects empathy-related behavior across ideological divides. While the right DLPFC is implicated in emotion regulation and executive function, its precise role remains contested, with inhibition linked to both improvements and impairments in social-emotional processing. Procedures: Participants (N = 37) completed trait empathy, ideology, acrimony, and wellness surveys before a 60-minute lab session. In lab, they received low-frequency (1 Hz) rTMS to either the right DLPFC (experimental) or vertex (sham), determined via alternating assignment. Before and after stimulation (600 pulses), participants completed a Stroop task and wellness survey. They then viewed a video simulation involving a person in need—later revealed to have an opposing ideological stance—and decided whether or not to help. Post-simulation measures included state empathy and acrimony. Results: There were no statistically significant group differences between experimental (n = 19) and sham (n = 18) conditions in change in willingness to help, state empathy, or acrimony. However, a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = .30) emerged for Stroop performance, with only the sham group showing expected post-stimulation improvements—suggesting potential disruption of response inhibition in the experimental group. Similarly, a non-significant trend (Cohen’s d = .49) showed decreasing acrimony in the sham group and a slight increase in the experimental group. These preliminary effects warrant further exploration. The strongest finding was that ideological difference significantly decreased willingness to help across all participants (Wilcoxon p < .001, r = –.69), regardless of condition. Despite this decline, most participants still ultimately chose to help, suggesting some resilience to ideological bias in prosocial behavior. No significant differences were found on the basis of material security or trait empathy. However, trait empathy differed significantly by gender (Kruskal-Wallis p < .001, ε2 = .35), with higher scores among NB/trans*/another gender and female participants compared to males. Participants who selected “gender” as their core social issue also reported significantly higher trait empathy than those who selected “race” (p = .006, r = .65). No significant differences were found between moral vs. nonmoral motive groups across measures of empathy or helping behavior. A notable limitation was a statistically significant imbalance in handedness between groups (Fisher’s Exact p = .043), which may have influenced results due to lateralization differences in DLPFC function. Conclusions: Ideological difference substantially reduced willingness to help, suggesting that polarization may influence everyday interpersonal interactions, not just political behavior. While no significant effects were observed from rTMS, emerging trends suggest right DLPFC inhibition may affect social-cognitive control and emotional reactivity. Future studies should explore lateralization and refine methodology to account for handedness and sample size limitations. This study highlights the need for interdisciplinary approaches to understanding empathy and for interventions that mitigate ideological division in both civic and interpersonal domains.
Read
