On altruism, empathy and perspective taking Niezink, Lidewij Welmoed

27 Pages·2008·0.43 MB·English

University of Groningen

Considering others in Need: On altruism, empathy and perspective taking
Niezink, Lidewij Welmoed
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2008
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Niezink, L. W. (2008). Considering others in Need: On altruism, empathy and perspective taking. [Thesis
fully internal (DIV), University of Groningen, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences]. s.n.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.
More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-
amendment.
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 15-02-2023
CHAPTER 4
WWWWhhhhaaaatttt hhhhaaaappppppppeeeennnneeeedddd ttttoooo PPPPaaaannnnddddoooorrrraaaa’’’’ssss BBBBooooxxxx::::
RRRReeeeccccoooonnnnssssiiiiddddeeeerrrriiiinnnngggg tttthhhheeee MMMMeeeeaaaassssuuuurrrreeeemmmmeeeennnntttt ooooffff SSSSttttaaaatttteeee EEEEmmmmppppaaaatttthhhhyyyy

Research on empathy has a long tradition in psychology, and has been closely linked
with research on altruism. However, already twenty-five years ago, Batson and Coke
(1981) mentioned that even raising the question of altruism opens a Pandora’s Box of
complex issues and conceptual traps. A major issue of debate has been whether ‘true’
altruism does indeed exist that is in the end not driven by self-interest. According to a
number of authors, humans are capable of empathy that stems from a real concern for
the fate of the other, and this constitutes the basis of ‘true’ altruism. Hoffman (1981) was
one of the first psychologists to propose that empathy, defined as “an affective response
appropriate to someone else’s situation rather than one’s own” (p. 44), is the basis for an
altruistic motive that is independent of egoistic motives. In line with this, Daniel Batson
(1991) proposed the empathy-altruism hypothesis, stating that “empathic emotion evokes
altruistic motivation” (p. 14). According to Batson (1991), adopting another person’s
perspective leads to a unique internal response: a feeling of empathy. This feeling of
empathy evokes altruistic motivation directed toward the ultimate goal of reducing the
needy person’s suffering. Although this hypothesis may seem initially quite simple,
demonstrating it empirically appeared rather complex (see Batson & Shaw, 1991; Cialdini
et al., 1997, Batson et al., 1997b and Neuberg, Cialdini, Brown, Luce, & Sagarin, 1997 for
a full discussion). One of the reasons for this is that the theoretical- and operational
definitions of empathy vary widely across studies. In this paper we argue that a closer
look at the concept of empathy in terms of both its theoretical basis as well as its
operational content is important to better understand the link between the empathic
response and helping. More specifically, we propose to make a clear distinction between
two affective components within the original measure of empathy (Batson, 1991) i.e.
sympathy and tenderheartedness.
First, we will review the definitions of empathy within the existing literature.
Specifically, we will focus on the use of state empathy within psychology over the past
four decades. We will describe how the most commonly used measure of state empathy
46 Chapter 4
proposed by Coke et al. (1978) has come into existence, what it consists of and how it is
used within mainly social psychological research. Secondly, we will review the status of
empathy measurement, discussing factor analyses reported in the existing literature.
Thirdly, we will report nine factor analysis conducted on our own datasets. Fourthly, we
will determine the discriminatory power of the sympathy and tenderheartedness scales to
see if they are differently related to other variables. Finally, we will consider limitations
and implications for future research.
Defining Empathy within Psychology
The term empathy was first coined by Titchener (1909) as a translation of the
German word “Einfühlung”. The concept of empathy grew out of earlier works on
aesthetics, most importantly by Lipps (1903), who introduced this term to refer to the
tendency of perceivers to project themselves into the objects of perception (Wispe, 1986).
Titchener (1915) considered empathy either as the subject’s awareness in imagination of
the emotions of another person as well as a kind of social-cognitive bonding. Within a
clinical context, empathy was initially viewed as a cognitive process referring to accurately
and dispassionately understanding the client’s point of view concerning his or her
situation (Dymond, 1949). Rogers (1951, p.29) referred to empathy as the focus of the
therapist to try to “live the attitudes of the other”. Eventually, definitions of empathy, and
with it the empathy measures, shifted from cognition-based to emotion-based (Stotland,
1969; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972; Coke et al. 1978; Hoffman 1987). That is, empathy was
increasingly viewed as an emotional response including either feeling a vicarious emotion,
feeling the same emotion as another person feels, or feeling a vicarious emotion that is
congruent with but not necessarily identical to the emotion of another (Stotland, 1969;
Krebs, 1975; Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987; Batson & Coke, 1981).
In the late sixties and beginning seventies of the twentieth century, several
researchers began to empirically explore the motivational and behavioural consequences
of empathy, specifically its relation with the willingness to help others in need. Yet, there
did not exist an agreement on how empathy should be defined. Amongst others, Clark
(1980) in his discussion of empathy noted that “the literature does neglect a clear
definition and a comprehensive theoretical approach” (p. 187). The concepts of empathy,
sympathy and compassion were used interchangeably, indicating more or less the same
construct. This confusion in the interchangeable use of the terms was noted by several
psychologists in the eighties (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Olinick, 1984). To tackle this
problem, Wispé (1986) gave an extensive explanation of the differences between empathy
What Happened to Pandora’s Box 47
and sympathy, stressing that they are two different psychological processes which
shouldn’t be called by the same word. According to Wispé (1986), “in empathy, the
empathizer “reaches out” for the other person. In sympathy, the sympathizer is “moved
by” the other person” (p.318). Although a number of psychologists agree with this point
of view (Batson et al., 1987; Eisenberg, 2000; Bierhoff, 2002), since Wispé’s review, these
concepts are still used interchangeably in the literature.
Within the social psychological debate on “true” altruism, state empathy is defined
and measured as an instant emotional response when confronted with the suffering of
someone else. Batson (1991) describes empathy as “an emotional response, elicited by and
congruent with, but not necessarily identical to, the perceived welfare of someone else” (p. 86). The term
congruence as used by Batson refers only to a congruence in valence (a positive emotion
when the other is in a positive state; a negative emotion when the other is in a negative
state), not to a matching of emotions. Most researchers in social psychology now use
more specific definitions of state empathy (Bierhoff, 2002). These definitions have in
common that they contain a recapitulation of the adjectives used in those studies to
measure empathy. For example, Sturmer et al. (2006) describe empathy as “an emotional
reaction including feelings of compassion, concern and tenderness”, Fincham Paleari and
Regalia (2002) refer for a definition to Batson and Shaw (1991) and add that “empathy
includes concepts such as sympathy, compassion, tenderness and caring”.
Emotional Response Questionnaire
The most widely used measure for state empathy is the Emotional Response
Questionnaire (ERQ) developed by Coke et al. (1978). According to Batson, Darley &
Coke (1978), emotions caused by awareness of another’s distress fall into two
conceptually different categories: empathy and personal distress. Personal distress is a
self-focused negative emotional response (Batson et al., 1987) an its experience leads to
the motivation to have it reduced (Batson, 1991, p.78). The magnitude of this arousal-
reduction motivation is a direct function of the magnitude of the distress (Gaertner &
Dovidio, 1977; Piliavin et al., 1981). In other words, whereas empathy was thought to
direct one to reduce the other person’s distress, feelings of personal distress directed one
to reduce the own distress (Batson, Cowles, & Coke, 1979).
The first ERQ consisted of 23 adjectives and was developed in an earlier study
(Batson, McDavis, Felix, Goering, & Goldman, unpublished document) to assess both
empathic concern as well as personal distress. The adjectives in the Emotional Response
Questionnaire were chosen for their apparent face validity. When conducting factor
48 Chapter 4
analyses, the criterion was set that to be included, an adjective had to load highly (>.60)
on the relevant factor in both the earlier study and the current one (Coke et al., 1978).
The empathy adjectives used were moved, softhearted, sorrowed, touched, empathic, warm, concerned
and compassionate. Of these, only moved, sorrowed and touched did not meet the criterion. The
distress adjectives were alarmed, perturbed, disconcerted, bothered, irritated, disturbed, worried,
uneasy, distressed, troubled, upset, anxious and grieved. Only three of these, i.e., alarmed, troubled
and upset, did indeed meet the criterion set by Coke et al. (1978). Two filler adjectives also
used in the list were intent and intrigued.
Since then, this initial Emotional Response Questionnaire has been used and
tested extensively by many researchers to assess state empathy and distress. This has been
done within four different research paradigms1. In the first paradigm, participants listen to
a radiobroadcast where a student explains the difficulties of finding participants for her
master research (Coke et al. 1978; Archer, Diaz-Loving, Gollwitzer, Davis, & Foushee,
1981; Fultz et al., 1988; Dovidio, Allen, & Schroeder, 1990), or where a student misses a
lot of classes due to a car accident and has to stop introductory psychology if she can’t
find anyone to go over the lecture notes with her (Toi & Batson, 1982; Cialdini et al.,
1987 study 2; Fultz, et al. 1988). Besides this, researchers developed a second paradigm,
i.e. the story of Katie Banks, a senior at university who recently lost her parents and a
sister in a car accident. Because her parents did not have a life insurance, Katie was
struggling to take care of her surviving younger brother and sister as well as finishing her
last year of college (Coke et al., 1978; Batson et al., 1991; Batson et al., 1997a; Mikulincer
et al., 2001). In the third paradigm participants watch another participant (actually a video)
performing a sequence of 2 minute digit-recall trials while receiving mild electric shocks
after wrong recalls or at random intervals, showing obvious signs of discomfort (Batson,
O’Quin, Fultz, Vanderplas & Isen, 1983; Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Neuringer-Benefiel,
1986; Fultz et al. 1988; Batson et al. 1996; Bierhoff & Rohmann, 2004). The fourth
paradigm consists of either a video or a letter with a student expressing loneliness in his
or her life as a student and pressure by the father to perform well (Fultz et al. 1988;
Smith, Keating, & Stotland, 1989; Batson et al., 1991 Study 2).
After almost a decade of research, Batson et al. (1987) proposed six adjectives to
measure empathic concern (sympathetic, moved, compassionate, tender, warm and
softhearted) on the basis of six studies (Batson et al., 1979; Batson et al., 1983; Coke,

1 To keep an overview of these paradigms in the rest of this chapter we’ve been categorizing them as
described in the introduction: a) a radiobroadcast where a student tries to find participants for her master
research or to find anyone to go over the lecture notes with her. b) The Katie Banks type of scenario. c) a video
type paradigm, receiving mild electric shocks after wrong recalls or at random intervals d) a video or letter type
paradigm of a student expressing loneliness in his/her student life and pressure by the father to perform well.
What Happened to Pandora’s Box 49
1980; Coke et al., 1978; Fultz, 1982; Toi & Batson, 1982). In these studies, the empathy
component received high loadings (> .60) of ‘moved’, ‘compassionate’, ‘warm’ and
‘softhearted’ in all six studies and of’ sympathetic’ and ‘tender’ in four out of five studies
(Batson et al., 1987). Since then, several published studies using the paradigms described
above have presented factor analyses. These additional studies provide an opportunity to
examine whether the two dimensions proposed by Coke et al. (1978) and refined by
Batson et al. (1987) are robust and stable. In the next section, we discuss the studies
reporting factor analyses on the empathy and distress scales.
Review of Factor Analyses
Since its development, over fifty-five studies have been using the Emotional
Response Questionnaire. Only twenty of these studies examined the factorial structure of
the adjectives used and applied one of the the four research paradigms described above2.
Table 1 provides a schematic overview of these studies and their factor analytical reports.
All studies used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation. PCA is an
exploratory factor analytic technique. This implies that decisions have to be made about
the number of factors to extract, the type of rotation to use, the criteria for acceptable
loadings of items on a factor, and the labeling of the factors. Therefore, we examined the
various studies asking the following questions: Which adjectives were used in the factor
analyses? Do the studies report whether the conducted analysis included all adjectives
measured in the questionnaires? Was the criterion for the amount of factors to extract
mentioned in the article? What criterion was used for rotation of the factors? Do the
studies find only the two factors for empathy and distress or were there more factors
found?
Some essential properties of the studies made comparison between these studies
possible: all studies have been conducted among students; all studies, except one, used
(among others) the eight distress and six empathy adjectives originally proposed by
Batson and colleagues (1987); most studies used 7-point scales to measure the adjectives;
all studies asked the question whether empathy is separable from distress and, crucially, all
studies reported their factor analytical data to answer this question.
Adjectives included in PCA and selected for further analyses. Comparing the first studies of
Batson and colleagues with all other studies in Table 4.1 reveals a wide diversity of

2 Four other articles also reported factor analysis on the adjectives used but have not been included in this
overview because they used completely different research paradigms (Shaw, Batson, & Todd, 1994; Mc
Cullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997) and only five of the initial 23 adjectives (Fincham et al., 2002; Paleari,
Regalia, & Fincham, 2003).
50 Chapter 4
choices with regard to the adjectives included in the factor analyses as well as outcomes of
adjectives disclosed by these analyses. Many studies do not provide any information on
the content of the adjectives which were included in the questionnaires. Half of the
studies used in their factor analyses the same six empathy adjectives proposed by Batson
et al. (1987; see table 4.1B). Only four of these reported the same pattern of loadings as
Batson et al. (1987) did (Toi & Batson, 1982; Dovidio et al., 1990; Batson, et al, 1991,
study 1 and 2). Moreover, five studies did not construct their scales on the basis of the
outcomes of their factor analysis; three studies used a criterion of loadings higher than .40
instead of .60, as Batson et al. (1987) did; three studies either did not report which
empathy adjectives were used in the factor analysis or did not report how high the
loadings of these adjectives were. Finally, only six out of these 20 studies actually used in
their final empathy scale the specific six adjectives proposed by Batson and colleagues
(see Table 4.1B). Of course, the choices about the number and content of adjectives
included will have affected the results of the factor analysis.
Table 4.1 (Part A)
Nineteen studies reporting factor analyses on the Emotional Response Questionnaire
Characteristics and Alpha Number of Number of
Number of Factors Paradigm
Authors Number of Empathy Adjectives in Adjectives in Factor
extracted used in Study
Participants Scale Study Analysis

Batson et al., 1976 48 F S unknown 23 23 4 a)
Coke et al. 1978 study 2 33 F S unknown 23 23 unknown a)
Archer et al. 1981 123 F S 0,82 22 22 3 a)
W
Toi & Batson, 1982 84 F S 0,82 28 14 2 a) h
a
Batson et al, 1983 88 F/M S 0,79 28 unknown minimal 2 c) t H
Batson et al. 1986 60 F S 0,82 28 14 2 c) ap
p
Cialdini et al. 1987, study 2 35 F S 0,92 20 unknown minimal 2 a) en
e
Fultz et al. 1988, study 1 91 F S 0,88 24 24 3 c) d to
Fultz et al. 1988, study 1 91 F S 0,88 24 24 3 a) P
a
Fultz et al. 1988, study 1 91 F S 0,88 24 24 3 d) nd
o
Smith et al. 1989 64 F/M S 0,86 24 unknown ## 2 d) ra
’s
Dovidio et al. 1990 96 F 96 M S 0,89 29 unknown minimal 2 a) B
o
Batson et al. 1991 study 1 72 F S 0,93 24 18 2 (*) b) x
Batson et al. 1991 study 2 72 F S 0,91 28 18 4 d)
Batson et al. 1991 study 3 54 F 54 M S unknown 24 18 3 (*) b)
Batson et al. 1996 study 1 24 F 24 M S 0,92 24 14 # 2 forced c)
Batson et al. 1997a 30 F 30 M S 0,85 26 14 3 (*) b)
Mikulincer et al, 2001, study 1 44 F 25 M S 0,94 14 14 2 b)
Mikulincer et al, 2001, study 5 66 F 84 M S 0,86 unknown 8 2 b)
Bierhoff & Rohmann, 2004 59 F S 0,69 21 21 3 c)

Note. F=female, M=male, S=student, (*)= one-factor solution fits better according to a scree test. All studies used 7-point scales except # = 9-point scale and ## = 6 cm line.
5
1
Table 4.1 (Part B) 5
2
Twenty studies reporting factor analyses on the Emotional Response Questionnaire

Authors Empathy

Sympathetic Compassionate Softhearted Tender Warm Moved Touched Empathic Kind Concerned
Batson et al., 1976a # * x # * x # * x # * # * # * x # * x
Coke et al. 1978 # * x # * x # * x # # # * x # * x
Archer et al. 1981 # * x # * x # * x # * # * # * x
Toi & Batson, 1982 # * x # * x # * # * # * # * x
Batson et al. 1983 # * x # * x # # # # * x
Batson et al. 1986 # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # x
Cialdini et al. 1987, study 2 x x x
Fultz et al., 1988, study 1 # x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # C
h
Fultz et al., 1988, study 1 # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * a
p
Fultz et al., 1988, study 1 # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * te
r 4
Smith et al. 1989 # ** x # ** x # ** x # ** x # ** x # ** x # ** x # ** x
Dovidio et al 1990 # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x
Batson et al. 1991 study 1 # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x
Batson et al. 1991 study 2 # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x
Batson et al. 1991 study 3 # * x # * x # * x # # # * x
Batson et al. 1996 study 1 # x # * x # * x # * x # * x # * x
Batson et al. 1997a # x # x # x # x # # x
Mikulincer et al, 2001, study 1 # ** x # ** x # ** x # ** x # ** x # ** x
Mikulincer et al, 2001, study 5 # ** x # ** x # ** x # ** x
Bierhoff & Rohmann, 2004 * x * x * x
Note. # = Adjectives included in factor analyses *= adjectives loading on Empathy factor with loading >.60 and no split loadings. **= adjectives loading on Empathy factor with loading > .40. x= adjectives used in Empathy index.
Studies without * do not report all adjectives loading on the Empathy factor. a One more adjective was used in this study which loaded >.60 on the Empathy factor: intent. Because this adjective was not used in any of the other studies we
did not add it to table 4.1.
What Happened to Pandora’s Box 53
Number of Factors. A second conclusion based on Table 4.1A is that the choice for a two
factor solution might not have been the most optimal choice because in many studies
more than two factors were found. Nevertheless, most studies provide clear support for
the claim that empathy and personal distress are two different latent variables. That is, in
all studies, two factors were found that represented these two variables. Batson and
colleagues (1978, 1987) compared a one component factor solution with a two
component factor solution, with the aim of separating empathy from distress. This
approach was adopted by subsequent researchers. Yet, Table 4.1A indicates a lack of
consistency between the number of factors extracted, and the number of factors
discussed in the articles. Many of these factor analyses reported more than two factors
(i.e. 4 factors in Batson, et al 1991, study 2; 3 factors in Bierhoff & Rohmann, 2004). This
is a logical result if the other adjectives did indeed measure another latent variable than
empathic concern or personal distress. Although two studies purposely included
additional items to measure a sadness factor, most of the articles did not mention whether
they included items to measure another factor (i.e. sadness). Because the additional
adjectives were not discussed in the factor analyses, it is difficult to assess whether a two
factor solution was most optimal. It stays unclear how many of the adjectives were
intended to measure empathy and personal distress and how many adjectives were
intended to measure other concepts. Also, we do not know whether the empathy- and
distress adjectives resulted indeed in two factors, or whether the additional factors that
were reported showed a pattern of loadings in which the adjectives intended to measure
empathy and distress were split up between more factors. Part of the explanation for this
phenomenon comes from the fact that the debate within these studies turned around
explicitly distinguishing empathy from distress. By focusing on this distinction of two
empirically different constructs (empathy and personal distress), little attention was paid
to the operational definitions that were chosen within these two constructs. The
consequent search for a two factor solution trying to differentiate empathy from distress
might have been obscuring other, more optimally fitting, factor solutions.
Comparing the alpha’s reported in Table 4.1A, we have to conclude that,
apparently, all studies have reliably measured their constructs. Yet, these constructs were
not the same because they were built on different adjectives. For instance, while Batson et
al. (1983) measured empathy with compassionate, sympathetic and moved, Bierhoff and
Rohmann (2004) measured empathy with softhearted, warm and tender. As a consequence of
the lack of consensus on the operational definitions of empathy, the use of different
adjectives to measure empathy became widely accepted. Although researchers agreed that
a certain set of adjectives was supposed to measure empathy and another set of adjectives