Lower empathy predicted resistance to masks and distancing
Em meio à pandemia, pesquisadores brasileiros voltaram seu olhar não para o vírus, mas para a natureza humana que o cerca. Num estudo com 1.578 adultos acompanhados ao longo de quinze semanas, descobriram que a recusa em adotar máscaras, distanciamento e higiene estava ligada não à ignorância, mas a traços de personalidade — menor empatia, maior frieza emocional — que compõem padrões antissociais. A ciência, ao tentar compreender a resistência coletiva, encontrou no interior de cada indivíduo uma fronteira que as campanhas de saúde pública raramente conseguem atravessar.
- Enquanto autoridades sanitárias apelavam à solidariedade, uma parcela da população ignorava sistematicamente as medidas de proteção — e os pesquisadores queriam saber por quê.
- O estudo revelou dois perfis opostos: um marcado por empatia e adesão às normas, outro por frieza, hostilidade e comportamentos manipuladores associados à resistência às medidas.
- A correlação foi direta e consistente — quanto menor a empatia, menor a adesão; quanto maior a insensibilidade emocional, maior a recusa em proteger a si e aos outros.
- A resistência não era questão de desinformação ou falta de acesso: estava enraizada na própria estrutura de personalidade, tornando os apelos à responsabilidade coletiva ineficazes para esse grupo.
- O achado lança um desafio urgente à saúde pública: se as campanhas tradicionais não alcançam quem tem menor capacidade empática, como reformular as mensagens para salvar mais vidas?
Pesquisadores brasileiros decidiram investigar o que estava por trás da recusa de parte da população em usar máscaras, manter distância ou lavar as mãos durante a pandemia. O resultado, publicado no periódico Personality and Individual Differences, foi perturbador: quem resistia às medidas apresentava níveis mensuravelmente mais baixos de empatia e mais altos de frieza emocional — traços associados a padrões antissociais de personalidade.
O estudo acompanhou 1.578 adultos entre 18 e 73 anos ao longo de quinze semanas. Os participantes responderam questionários sobre adesão às medidas de contenção e completaram avaliações de personalidade que mediam empatia, insensibilidade, hostilidade e tendências manipuladoras.
Dois perfis distintos emergiram dos dados. Um grupo demonstrava maior capacidade empática e seguia as orientações sanitárias. O outro apresentava frieza emocional, atitudes hostis e comportamentos manipuladores — e era significativamente menos propenso a adotar as medidas de prevenção. A relação era direta: quanto menor a empatia, menor a adesão.
O estudo foi o primeiro do gênero na América Latina e levantou uma questão prática urgente: se a resistência está ligada à estrutura de personalidade, os apelos convencionais à responsabilidade coletiva podem ser insuficientes para alcançar esse grupo. Compreender as dimensões psicológicas que alimentam a resistência pode ser tão essencial quanto compreender o próprio vírus.
Brazilian researchers set out to understand why some people refused to wear masks, keep their distance, or wash their hands during the pandemic—measures that health authorities everywhere were urging the public to adopt. What they found, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, suggested something unsettling: those who resisted these precautions showed measurably lower levels of empathy and higher levels of callousness, traits that cluster around antisocial personality patterns.
The study tracked 1,578 adults between the ages of 18 and 73 over a fifteen-week period. Participants answered questionnaires about their adherence to containment measures—masks, social distancing, frequent hand hygiene—and completed personality assessments designed to measure empathy, insensitivity, hostility, and manipulative tendencies. The researchers were mapping the relationship between how people scored on these personality dimensions and how willing they were to follow public health guidance.
Two distinct profiles emerged from the data. One group showed what the researchers called an antisocial pattern: they scored high on callousness and insensitivity, displayed hostile attitudes, and showed signs of manipulative behavior. The other group demonstrated stronger empathetic capacity. When the researchers compared these profiles against compliance with COVID-19 measures, the differences were stark and consistent. Those with lower empathy and higher emotional detachment were significantly less likely to adopt the prevention behaviors that health systems were recommending.
The connection was direct: the lower someone's empathy, the less likely they were to follow containment protocols. The higher their callousness, the more resistant they became. It was not a matter of misunderstanding the science or lacking access to information. The resistance appeared rooted in personality structure itself—in how much someone was capable of or inclined toward considering the welfare of others.
This was the first study of its kind conducted in Latin America, examining personality traits as a predictor of pandemic compliance. The finding raised a practical question for public health officials: if resistance to prevention measures correlates with antisocial personality traits, how should messaging and policy adapt? Standard appeals to collective responsibility or shared risk might not reach people whose psychological makeup makes them less responsive to those framings. The research suggested that a one-size-fits-all approach to public health communication during a pandemic might be fundamentally limited—that understanding the personality dimensions driving resistance could be as important as understanding the virus itself.
Citas Notables
Those with the lowest levels of empathy and highest levels of callousness showed significantly lower adherence to containment measures— Study findings in Personality and Individual Differences
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
So the study found that people who wouldn't wear masks had lower empathy. But couldn't that just mean they were skeptical of the science, or didn't trust the government?
That's the natural first question. But the researchers weren't just asking whether people believed the virus was real or whether they trusted authorities. They were measuring personality traits—empathy, callousness, hostility. These are deeper patterns in how someone relates to other people. The correlation held across the board.
What does it mean that this is the first study like this in Latin America? Wasn't this being studied elsewhere?
Yes, but apparently not in a systematic way in that region. The pandemic was global, but the research response wasn't uniform. This team in Brazil decided to look at personality as a variable, and they found something worth publishing. It matters because Latin America was hit hard by COVID, and understanding local resistance patterns could have shaped how public health campaigns were designed.
If someone scores high on callousness, does that mean they're a bad person? Or is this more neutral—just how their brain is wired?
The study doesn't make moral judgments. It's describing a trait: some people have lower capacity for empathetic response. Whether that's genetic, developmental, or situational, the study doesn't say. What it does say is that this trait predicted behavior during the pandemic. That's useful information for public health, not a character assessment.
Could this finding be used to target messaging differently to different personality types?
In theory, yes. If you know that appeals to collective welfare won't move someone with low empathy, you might frame prevention differently—around self-interest, or practical benefit. But that's speculative. The study shows the correlation exists. How to use that knowledge ethically and effectively is a separate question.