More Evidence That Empathy Is a Source of Altruistic Motivation

Transcription

1 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982, Vol. 43, No. 2, Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc /82/ S00.75 More Evidence That Empathy Is a Source of Altruistic Motivation Miho Toi and C. Daniel Batson University of Kansas Additional evidence is provided that empathic emotion can evoke altruistic motivation to help. To provide this evidence, we employed Stotland's (1969) technique for manipulating empathy; subjects were exposed to a person in distress and instructed either to observe the victim's reactions (low empathy) or to imagine the victim's feelings (high empathy). As in previous research testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis, this empathy manipulation was crossed with a manipulation of ease of escape without helping (easy vs. difficult) to form a 2X2 design. Results patterned as predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Subjects in the low-empathy condition helped less when escape was easy than when it was difficult. This pattern suggested that their helping was directed toward the egoistic goal of reducing their own distress. Subjects in the highempathy condition, however, displayed a high rate of helping, even when escape was easy. This pattern suggested that their helping was directed toward the altruistic goal of reducing the distress of the person in need. Finally, analyses of subjects' self-reported emotional response provided additional support for the hypothesis that feeling a predominance of empathy rather than distress on witnessing someone in need can evoke altruistic motivation. Evidence for the empathy-altruism hypothesis continues to mount, Is the motivation to help ever, in any degree, truly altruistic? That is, is a helper's ultimate goal ever to increase the victim's welfare, or is the motivation underlying helping always egoistic, designed to increase the helper's own welfare? This question, carrying as it does implications for one's view of human nature (Hoffman, 1981), was a central question for many 18th and 19th century social philosophers (e.g., Comte, 1875; Mill, 1863; Smith, 1759). By around 1920, however, theories of motivation based on behaviorism or psychoanalysis were sufficiently sophisticated to provide an egoistic account of any behavior that might appear to be altruistically motivated. As a result, the question of the existence of altruism was shelved by mainstream psychologists; it was assumed We would like to thank Margaret Hancks, Karen O'Quin, Bobbie Pomonis, and Susan Winslow foi their assistance in making the audiotapes used in this experiment. Virginia Pych, Patricia Schoenrade, and Jack Brehm made helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to C. Daniel Batson, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas to be either clearly answered in the negative or clearly unanswerable. Continued dominance of psychology by modern descendants of these early egoistic theories of motivation may explain why when social psychologists became interested in helping behavior in the 1960s, they showed little interest in the classic question of whether helping might ever be altruistically motivated. Of course, the egoistic orientation of modern psychology should not be dismissed lightly. It has prevailed for decades, and it can easily account for helping that appears to be altruistically motivated: Acting to increase another's welfare is simply an instrumental egoistic response designed, ultimately, to increase the helper's own welfare either by reducing the helper's pain caused by witnessing the victim's suffering (as suggested by Piliavin & Piliavin, Note 1) or by increasing the helper's pleasure through resultant material, social, or self-rewards (see Batson & Vanderplas, in press). This straightforward egoistic answer notwithstanding, several social psychologists (Aronfreed, 1970; Batson, Darley, & Coke, 1978; Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; 281

2 282 MIHO TOI AND C. DANIEL BATSON Hoffman, 1975, 1981; Krebs, 1975) have recently resurrected the question of the existence of altruism, and moreover, they have proposed an answer in the affirmative. Specifically, these researchers have suggested that the motivation to help is altruistic to the degree that it is evoked by an empathic emotional response to the victim's distress (feeling sympathy, compassion, softheartedness, etc.). This suggestion has produced the empathy-altruism hypothesis: Feeling empathic emotion can lead to altruistic motivation to help. But although these researchers have been able to present consistent and varied evidence that an empathic emotional response increases the motivation to help, they have not been able to present any clear evidence that the nature of this motivation is altruistic, as the empathy-altruism hypothesis claims, for they have not been able to show that the resulting helping is directed toward the ultimate goal of increasing the victim's rather than the helper's welfare. More recently, Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, and Birch (1981) have introduced an experimental procedure that permits a more direct test of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. To determine whether the motivation to help resulting from increased empathic emotion was egoistic or altruistic, they first manipulated empathy. They did this differently in two separate experiments. In Experiment 1 they varied the similarity between subjects (female undergradutes) and a confederate, Elaine, whom subjects observed receiving electric shocks; in Experiment 2 they used a misattribution technique to vary the nature of subjects' perceived emotional response empathy versus personal distress to seeing Elaine take the shocks. Subjects in both experiments were then given an unanticipated opportunity to help Elaine, by taking the remaining shocks in her stead. Half of the subjects in each experiment were easily able to escape seeing Elaine suffer, even if they did not help; when given a chance to take her place, they were not expecting to watch her take the remaining shock trials. For the other half, escape without helping was difficult; if they did not help, they were expecting to watch Elaine take the remaining shocks. Thus, in each experiment a 2 (low vs. high empathy) X 2 (easy vs. difficult escape) design was used. Batson et al. reasoned that within these 2X2 designs, the ease-of-escape manipulation should produce different effects on helping, depending on whether the motivation to help was egoistic or altruistic. When escape is easy, the personal costs of guilt and shame for not helping should be relatively low; but when escape is difficult, these costs should be high. By definition, concern about these costs is a major determinant of whether an egoistically motivated individual will help; so if the motivation were egoistic, then there should be less helping under easy than under difficult escape. But also by definition, these costs are not a determinant of altruistically motivated helping; so if the motivation were altruistic, then there should be as much helping under easy as under difficult escape. Applying this logic, if experiencing relatively high empathic emotion could induce altruistic motivation, as the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts, then the rate of helping across the four cells of a 2 (low vs. high empathy) X 2 (easy vs. difficult escape) experimental design should conform to a 1- cell versus 3-cell pattern; the rate should be low in the low-empathy-easy-escape cell but high in the other three. Batson et al. found precisely this 1 versus 3 pattern in each of their two experiments. Although Batson et al. interpreted their results as evidence that empathic emotion can evoke altruistic motivation to help, they readily admitted that two experiments do not provide sufficient evidence to justify acceptance of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. For, to accept this hypothesis carries broad implications, since few if any current theories of motivation even allow, for the possibility of altruism (see Bolles, 1975, for a review of the current theories). Before acceptance can be considered justified, it is only prudent to require that the evidence be strong and varied. Accordingly, the present research was undertaken to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis once again. Our strategy was to employ the same general logic developed by Batson et al. comparing the rates of helping across a 2 (low vs. high empathy) X 2 (easy vs. difficult escape) factorial design but to do so using a different method of manipulating empathy and a different need situation.

3 EMPATHY AND ALTRUISM 283 The Present Research Batson et al. (1981) manipulated empathy either by varying similarity between the subject and the victim or by leading subjects to misattribute their empathic emotion to a placebo. But probably the best-known procedure for experimentally manipulating empathy is the one developed by Stotland (1969). Stotland demonstrated that varying the perceptual set with which persons observe someone in distress can influence their level of empathic emotion. Persons instructed to imagine how the victim feels (an imagine set) become more physiologically aroused than persons instructed to observe the victim's movements (an observe set). Moreover, self-reports by participants in Stotland's research indicate that the arousal experienced in the imagine-set condition is labeled in a manner congruent with the perceived state of the victim; that is, the experienced emotion is empathic. In the present research we employed a modification of Stotland's (1969) procedure for manipulating empathy. We varied the perceptual set of subjects as they listened to an audiotape describing the plight of another introductory psychology student. The audiotape was supposedly a pilot for a new, more personalized news program being considered by the local university radio station. On the tape, a freshman at the university, Carol Marcy, was interviewed. The interview revealed that both of Carol's legs had been broken in an automobile accident and that she had spent the last month in the hospital. Now she was out, but because she had missed so many classes, Carol was faced with having to drop introductory psychology, which would put her a whole year behind in her program in elementary education. After listening to the tape, subjects were given an unexpected chance to help Carol by volunteering to spend time going over their introductory psychology class notes with her, which would enable her to remain in the course. To manipulate empathy, some subjects were instructed to attend carefully to the information presented on the tape (observe-set condition); others were instructed to imagine how the person interviewed felt about what had happened (imagine-set condition). In order to assess the impact of this manipulation on subjects' empathic emotion, all subjects were subsequently asked to complete a questionnaire concerning their emotional response to the tape. Subjects completed this questionnaire before knowing that they would have a chance to help Carol. As in the Batson et al. experiments, ease of escape was manipulated by varying whether subjects could anticipate seeing Carol in the future. In the easy-escape condition, subjects learned that because both of her legs were still in casts, Carol was studying at home but could easily arrange transportation if the subject wished to help. Subjects in this condition who did not help had no reason to expect to see or hear of Carol ever again. In the difficult-escape condition, however, subjects learned that Carol was in the same discussion section of introductory psychology as they (discussion sections contained about students) and that she would be back in class next week, easily recognizable in her wheelchair and casts. So, if subjects in the difficult-escape condition did not help, they could anticipate being reminded in the future of Carol's unmet need. (Since Carol did not know that she and the subject were in the same section, the subject did not have to fear verbal recriminations or knowing stares, only recollection of Carol's unmet need and knowledge that she would probably have to drop the course.) Hypotheses We tested the following three hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. We predicted, first, that subjects in the imagine-set condition would report experiencing more empathic emotion while listening to the tape than subjects in the observe-set condition. This hypothesis was a statement that the set manipulation would affect empathic emotion, as claimed by Stotland (1969). Hypothesis 2. We predicted, second, that subjects in the observe-set condition would display an egoistic pattern of helping, whereas those in the imagine-set condition would display an altruistic pattern. That is, across the four cells of the 2 (observe vs. imagine set) X 2 (easy vs. difficult escape) design, a 1 versus 3 pattern of helping was predicted; the rate of helping would be lower in the observe-easy-escape cell than in the

4 284 MIHO TOI AND C. DANIEL BATSON other three. This prediction was a statement of the empathy-altruism hypothesis, expressed in terms of the present experimental design. Hypothesis 3. We predicted, third, that a similar 1 versus 3 pattern would be observed across the four cells of a 2 (predominant distress vs. empathy) X 2 (easy vs. difficult escape) design created by classifying subjects according to whether they reported a relative predominance of feelings of personal distress (e.g., alarmed, upset, disturbed) or feelings of empathy (e.g., sympathetic, moved, compassionate) while listening to the tape. It was predicted that helping would be lower in the distress-easyescape cell than in the other three. This prediction was based on a second version of the empathy-altruism hypothesis, namely, that feelings of personal distress lead to egoistic motivation to reduce one's own distress, whereas feelings of empathy lead to altruistic motivation to reduce the other's distress (see Coke et al., 1978). Batson, O'Quin, Fultz, Vanderplas, and Isen (Note 2) had recently reported support for this prediction by using the same research paradigm used by Batson et al. (1981). We wished to put it to the test again, using our different research paradigm. Were we to find consistent support for all three of these hypotheses, we would have strong additional evidence that empathic emotion leads to altruistic motivation to help. Subjects Method Eighty-four female introductory psychology students at the University of Kansas participated in the experiment, partially fulfilling a class requirement. Only female subjects were used because the person in need was female, and it was assumed that the potential for empathy would be greater if both the person in need and the potential helper were of the same sex. Twenty-one subjects were assigned to each condition of the 2 (observe vs. imagine set) X 2 (easy vs. difficult escape) experimental design. Assignment was by a randomized block procedure. 1 Procedure Subjects were run individually by a female experimenter. On arrival, each subject was seated in a small cubicle and asked to read an introduction to the study, sign a consent form, and fill out a Department of Psychology survey. The introduction presented the experiment as part of an ongoing project for pilot testing new programs for the local university radio station. Subjects were to listen and report their reactions to one of the available pilot tapes for each of two proposed programs: Bulletin Board, a program of announcements of upcoming events at the University, and News From the Personal Side, a program attempting a more personalized approach to news events. The introduction explained that all the pilot tapes were based on real events, but none of the tapes had or would be aired. The introduction also explained that subjects would be asked to adopt. a specific listening perspective while listening to the second tape because how people listen can influence their reactions to broadcast material. The Department of Psychology survey was ostensibly unrelated to the pilot-testing project. It concerned students' reactions to their introductory psychology course and was being administered by the Department in an effort to make the course maximally responsive to the needs and interests of students. Among other questions, the survey asked subjects to indicate their instructor's name and the meeting time of their discussion section. This information was later used to create the escape manipulation. Listening to the Bulletin Board tape. When subjects had finished reading the introduction and filling out the departmental survey, the experimenter returned, checked to be sure that all instructions were clear, and informed subjects that they would be listening to the "Bulletin Board tape first. (The order of tapes had supposedly been determined by chance.) The experimenter then had subjects select the particular pilot they would hear from the five available Bulletin Board tapes. Although all five tapes were the same, subjects believed that each was different and that each would be heard only by the one subject who selected it. After the subject made her selection, she was left alone to listen to the tape. It consisted of a rather bland SS-sec announcement of an upcoming lecture series in anthropology. At the conclusion of the tape, the experimenter returned with two reaction questionnaires for the subject to complete. The first was an emotional response questionnaire; it consisted of 28 adjectives describing different emotional states, The subject was asked to indicate on 7-point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) how much she experienced each emotion while listening to the tape. Included in the list were adjectives that reflected feelings of empathy (e.g., sympathetic, moved, 1 Thirteen additional students were deleted from the design, 2 because of procedural errors and 11 because of suspicion (3 from the observe-easy-escape condition, 2 from the imagine-easy-escape condition, 1 from the observe-difficult-escape condition, and 5 from the imagine-difficult-escape condition). The proportion of suspicious subjects did not differ reliably across conditions, X 2 (3) = 2.76, p >.40. Moreover, the same, albeit somewhat weaker, pattern of significant effects was observed when the data were analyzed including all suspicious subjects.

5 EMPATHY AND ALTRUISM 285 compassionate) and personal distress (e.g., alarmed, grieved, upset, disturbed). Consistent with the cover story, the second questionnaire was a Bulletin Board evaluation form. It asked the subject to indicate how interesting, informative, and worthwhile she felt the broadcast was. Having subjects listen to and evaluate the Bulletin Board tape served to familiarize them with the questionnaires and to strengthen the cover story; responses to the Bulletin Board questionnaires were not analyzed. Manipulation of listening perspective. After subjects had completed the Bulletin Board questionnaires, the experimenter returned with written instructions describing the perspective they should adopt while listening to the News From the Personal Side tape. The experimenter remained blind to this manipulation. Subjects in the observe-set condition read: While you are listening to the broadcast, try to listen carefully to the information presented. Try to be as objective as possible, carefully attending to all the information presented about the situation and about ~ the person who is being interviewed. Try not to concern yourself with how the person being interviewed feels about what has happened. Just concentrate on trying to listen objectively to the information presented in the broadcast. Subjects in the imagine-set condition read: While you are listening to the broadcast try to imagine how the person in the news feels. Try to take the perspective of the person who is being interviewed, imagining how he or she feels about what has happened and how it has affected his or her life. Try not to concern yourself with attending to all the information presented. Just concentrate on trying to imagine how the person interviewed in the broadcast feels. Following Stotland (1969), we expected the imagine set to lead to a more empathic emotional response to Carol's plight than the observe set. Listening to the News From the Personal Side tape. After reading and rereading the listening-perspective instructions, subjects were again allowed to select their particular tape from the five available. As before, all five tapes were the same, but subjects believed that each was different and that each would be heard only by the one subject who selected it. After the subject made her selection, she was left alone to listen to the tape. On this tape a female announcer explained that she wished to get behind cold statistics about auto accidents and consider effects of an accident on the life of a particular individual. She then interviewed Carol Marcy, a freshman at the University who recently had both legs broken in an auto accident. In response to the interviewer's questions, Carol explained that missing classes had been the most tragic consequence of the accident; she had missed a whole month of school because of her long hospitalization. Although she was behind in all her classes, she was especially concerned about introductory psychology. She had learned that she would have to drop the course if she could not find another student in the class to go over the lecture notes with her. And if she had to drop, then she would be an entire year behind in her program of study in elementary education. Carol ended by saying that it had always been her dream to be an elementary school teacher, but now it appeared that this dream might not -be realized. At the conclusion of the tape, the experimenter returned with another copy of the emotional response questionnaire and with an envelope addressed to the "student listening to the Carol Marcy pilot tape." The experimenter gave the questionnaire and envelope to the subject and explained in a somewhat flustered manner that the News From the Personal Side evaluation form had apparently been misplaced. The experimenter would have to go get another copy; while she was gone, the subject should first complete the emotional response questionnaire and then open the envelope and read its contents. The experimenter stated that she knew nothing about the contents of the envelope but had been asked by the professor in charge of the research to give it to the student listening to the Carol Marcy tape. Carol's request for help. The envelope contained a typewritten letter from the professor in charge, a handwritten letter from Carol, a slip of paper, and an envelope marked "Carol Marcy." The letter from the professor explained why Carol's letter was enclosed: When I was previewing the pilot tapes for the News From the Personal Side program, I noticed that Carol Marcy needs the help of an Introductory Psychology student so that she can catch up on the material she missed while in the hospital. It occurred to me that since you are an Introductory Psychology student, you might be able to help her. Therefore, I contacted Carol and asked her if she would like to write you a letter explaining her situation and asking for your help. At first she was reluctant to do so, because she did not want to impose on you. But since she still has not found anyone to help her and the deadline is fast approaching, she at.last agreed to write. Her letter is enclosed. I would like to ask you to read it carefully, and to respond or not as you wish. Of course, your participation in this study in no way obligates you to help Carol; it is entirely up to you. Although the assistant conducting this study knows nothing about Carol's situation, if you wish to help you should fill out the enclosed card, place it in the envelope marked "Carol Marcy," and ask the assistant to give the envelope to me. The handwritten letter from Carol outlined her need and asked the subject to help her by agreeing to go over the introductory psychology lecture notes for the past month. Carol added: "My instructor said that it's not important how well you are doing in the class or what section you are in, what's important is that you are willing to take the time to help me out." Carol's letter also included the escape manipulation. Manipulation of ease of escape. In the easy-escape condition, subjects read: Since I'm still in this wheelchair, the instructor told me that I could get the material for the remaining classes to study at home. That way I won't have, to come to school in my wheelchair. But, of course, I'll be happy to meet you wherever you want to go over the notes.

6 286 MIHO TOI AND C. DANIEL BATSON In the difficult-escape condition, this passage was replaced by: I'm starting back to class next week. I'm in the [time] o'clock section on [day] with [instructor's name]. I know there are lots of different sections, but if you're in the same one, I'm sure you won't have any trouble picking me out. I doubt if there are many students in wheelchairs with both legs in casts. The time, day, and instructor information was the same as that given by the subject on the Department of Psychology survey. Thus, subjects in the difficult-escape condition thought that they would see Carol in the future, even if they did not help; subjects in the easyescape condition did not. Dependent measure: Agreeing to help Carol. The dependent variable was whether the subject rilled out the slip and gave the envelope to the experimenter, indicating a commitment to help by going over the lecture notes with Carol. Responses were coded dichotomously: 1 if the subject agreed to help, 0 if she did not. Ancillary measures: Ratings of severity of need, liking for Carol, and checks on the set manipulation. When the experimenter returned, she gave the subject the News From the Personal Side evaluation form to complete. This form was the same as the Bulletin Board evaluation form, with the addition of four questions: How great is the need of the person interviewed in the broadcast? In your opinion, how likable was the person interviewed in the broadcast? While listening, to what extent did you concentrate on listening to the information presented in the broadcast? To what extent did you concentrate on imagining how the person being interviewed felt? Debriefing. After completing this evaluation form, the subject was fully and carefully debriefed, thanked for her participation, and excused. Results and Discussion Effectiveness of the Set Manipulation To assess the effect of the listening-perspective instructions, subjects were asked on the News From the Personal Side evaluation form to rate the extent to which they concentrated (a) on the information presented and (b) on imagining how the person interviewed felt. As expected, the set manipulation affected responses to each of these questions. On the 9-point response scale (1 = not at all, 9 = a great deal), subjects in the observe-set condition reported concentrating on the information presented to a significantly greater extent (M = 7.63) than subjects in the imagine-set condition (M = 6.62), F(l, 79) = 9.52, p <.003, whereas subjects in the imagine-set condition reported imagining how the person interviewed felt to a significantly greater extent (M = 7.60) than subjects in the observe-set condition (M=6.22), F(l, 79) =11.44, p<.001. (One subject was excluded from these analyses because she failed to answer these two questions.) Neither the ease-of-escape main effect nor the interaction approached significance for either question (all Fs < 2). These results suggested that the set manipulation was effective; subjects attended to and reported success in implementing the listening-perspective instructions. Although we were not able to think of a direct way to check the effectiveness of the escape manipulation, the experimenter questioned subjects during debriefing about their anticipated future exposure to Carol. Responses indicated that the escape manipulation had the desired effect; subjects in the difficult-escape condition consistently mentioned that they would see Carol in class, while subjects in the easy-escape condition did not. Perception of Carol's Need and Likability On the News From the Personal Side evaluation form, subjects were also asked to indicate the magnitude of Carol's need (1 = very little, 9 = very great) and how likable she was (1 = not al all, 9 = extremely). As intended, subjects in all four conditions perceived Carol's need to be great (overall M = 7.38), with no reliable differences across conditions (all Fs < 1). Nor were there any reliable differences across conditions in Carol's likability (all Fs < 1.70); she was seen as moderately likable in all conditions (overall M = 5.87). It appeared, then, that any differences we might observe in emotional responses to Carol's plight or in helping could not be attributed to differences in the perceived severity of Carol's need or in liking for Carol. Hypothesis 1: Imagine Set Leads to Greater Empathic Emotion Turning to our hypotheses, Hypothesis 1 predicted that subjects in the imagine-set condition would report greater empathic emotion as a result of hearing about Carol's plight than subjects in the observe-set condition. Previous research (Archer, Diaz-Lov-

7 EMPATHY AND ALTRUISM 287 ing, Gollwitzer, Davis, & Foushee, 1981; Batson & Coke, 1981; Coke et al, 1978; Batson et al., Note 2) has suggested that there are at least two qualitatively distinct emotional reactions to witnessing another person in need: reactions of empathy and of personal distress. Following Batson et al. (Note 2), we averaged subjects' responses to three adjectives (sympathetic, moved, and compassionate) to form an empathy index (Cronbach's alpha =.82) and averaged responses to six other adjectives (alarmed, grieved, upset, worried, disturbed, and perturbed) to form a distress index (Cronbach's alpha =.88). 2 Averaging meant that scores on each index were calibrated to the original 7-point response scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Next, again following Batson et al. (Note 2), we created a single index of emotional response by subtracting each subject's score on the distress index from her score on the empathy index. This difference score seemed to be a theoretically meaningful measure of emotional response for two reasons. First, the logic underlying Hypothesis 3 was that if personal distress leads to egoistic motivation and empathy leads to altruistic motivation, then under easy escape, empathic feelings should lead to helping, whereas distress feelings should not. But what if ah individual were feeling a fairly high degree of both empathy and distress? Presumably, such an individual would be in conflict, feeling some pressure to help and some to escape. Under these conditions, it seemed reasonable to expect that the person's behavior would be determined by the predominant emotional response. The difference measure provided an index of this relative predominance. A second, related reason for employing a difference measure was that even though the adjectives contributing to the empathy and distress indexes loaded on different factors in a factor analysis (see Footnote 2), scores on these indexes were positively correlated, r(81) =.63, p <.001, two-tailed. This relationship presumably reflected individual differences in either response set or general emotionality. But whatever its source, by taking the difference between each subject's score on the distress and empathy index, we could obtain a measure of predominant emotional response adjusted for these individual differences. Creation of the empathy, distress, and predominant emotional response indexes enabled us to assess not only whether the set manipulation affected self-reported empathy, as Hypothesis 1 predicted, but also whether it affected self-reported distress. To claim that listening-perspective instructions influence empathy clearly implies a specific effect that should not include other vicarious emotions, such as distress. We could check for this specificity by examining the effect of the set manipulation on self-reported distress and on the index of predominant emotional response. As expected, the set manipulation had a significant effect on subjects' responses to the 2 Previous research using similar but not identical emotional response questionnaires (see Batson & Coke, 1981; Batson et al., 1981) had revealed a consistent tendency for six adjectives thought to reflect empathy (sympathetic, moved, compassionate, warm, softhearted, and tender) and eight adjectives thought to reflect distress (alarmed, grieved, upset, worried, disturbed, perturbed, distressed, and troubled) to load highly on separate, orthogonal factors. Consistent with this previous research, a varimax-rotated, principalcomponent factor analysis of our subjects' responses to these 14 adjectives (collapsed across experimental conditions) produced a clear two-factor solution (accounting for 67% of the variance and all eigenvalues above 1.0).-All six of the empathy adjectives loaded most highly on one factor, and all eight of the distress adjectives loaded most highly on the other, orthogonal factor Ẏet we did not use all 14 of these adjectives in creating our indexes of empathy and distress. Instead, we used the shorter three-item empathy and six-item distress indexes employed by Batson et al. (Note 2). They had introduced these shorter indexes because a number of subjects in their studies did not have time to rate all 28 adjectives on the emotional response questionnaire. This resulted in many missing observations on the later adjectives and rendered these later adjectives unusable. Since the Batson et al. (Note 2) research had involved a test of Hypothesis 3 using a different research paradigm, it seemed desirable to be able to compare our results with theirs. Therefore, we decided to employ the same shorter indices of empathy and distress that they had employed. Our factor analysis provided reassurance that these shorter indexes reflected the same two qualitatively distinct emotions as the longer indexes. Loadings for the three adjectives composing the empathy index were all.69 or above on the empathy factor; loadings for the six adjectives composing the distress index were all.69 or above on the distress factor.

8 288 MIHO TOI AND C. DANIEL BATSON Table 1 Proportion of Subjects Helping in Each Experimental Condition base-ot -escape condition Easy Difficult Listening-perspective condition Observe.33 (21).76 (21) Imagine.71 (21).81 (21) Note, Numbers in parentheses are the number of subjects in each cell. adjectives on the empathy index, F(\, 79) = 6.36, p <.02; reported empathy was higher in the imagine-set condition (M = 4.67) than in the observe-set condition (Af = 3.88). (One subject had to be eliminated from this analysis because she failed to rate all three empathy adjectives.) The effect of the set manipulation on the distress index was not significant, F(l, 77) =1.51, although reported distress was slightly higher in the imagine-set condition (M = 2.80) than the observe-set condition (M = 2.45). (Three subjects, including the one eliminated previously, were eliminated from this analysis because they failed to rate all six distress adjectives.) Finally, the set manipulation had a marginally significant effect on the index of predominant emotional response; as expected, the imagine set produced a relative predominance of empathy over distress, F( 1, 77) = 3.24, p <.08. For each of these measures, there were no other reliable effects (all other Fs < 1.30). Overall, this pattern of results seemed quite supportive of Hypothesis 1. As predicted, subjects in the imagine-set condition reported experiencing more empathic emotion than subjects in the observe-set condition. Moreover, the effect seemed specific to empathy. The manipulation did not reliably affect reported personal distress, and even though responses on the empathy and distress indexes were positively correlated, there was a marginally significant difference in scores on the index of predominant emotional response; subjects in the imagine-set condition reported more empathy relative to distress. Hypothesis 2: Imagine Set Leads to Altruistic Motivation Hypothesis 2 predicted that subjects in the observe-set condition would display an egoistic pattern of helping, whereas those in the imagine-set condition would display an altruistic pattern. That is, across the four cells of the 2 (observe vs. imagine set) X 2 (easy vs. difficult escape) design, a 1-versus-3 pattern of helping would be observed; the rate of helping would be lower in the observeeasy-escape cell than in the other three. Table 1 presents the proportion of subjects who volunteered to help Carol in each cell of the 2 X 2 design. As can be seen, the helping rates patterned very much as predicted. To provide a statistical test of this pattern, cell proportions were first converted to a normal approximation using an arc sin transformation (see Langer & Abelson, 1972; Winer, 1971, pp ). Then a planned comparison was made, contrasting the observe-easy-escape cell with the other three. As predicted, this contrast was highly significant, x 2 (0= 12.58, p<.001, and the residual variance did not approach significance, x 2 (2) =.53. Moreover, between-cell comparisons revealed that as predicted, the rate of helping in the observe-easy-escape cell was lower than the rate in each of the other three cells, all zs > 2.50, all ps <.01, one-tailed; there were no reliable differences among the other three cells, all zs < 1. This was precisely the pattern of significant effects that we would expect if the observe set led to egoistic and the imagine set to altruistic motivation to help, as predicted by Hypothesis 2. But was the effect of the set manipulation on the rate of helping when escape was easy a result of the effect of this manipulation on self-reported empathic emotion, as the empathy-altruism hypothesis implies? Two additional analyses were performed in order to shed some light on this question; First, we computed partial correlations (point biserials) between scores on the empathy index and helping, controlling for scores on the distress index, and between scores on the distress index and helping, controlling for scores on the empathy index. (Partial correlations were used to adjust for the previ-

9 EMPATHY AND ALTRUISM 289 Table 2 Comparison of Effect of Set Manipulation on Helping When Entered Into Regression Equation Before and After Indexes of Self-Reported Emotional Response (Easy-Escape Condition, N = 40j Variable(s) entered into regression equation first Set manipulation Indexes of self-reported emotion Source df ''partial MS F P df ''partial MS F P Set manipulation 1, , Indexes of self-reported emotion Empathy index Distress index 1,36 1, J ns 1, 37 1, ns ously noted positive correlation between the empathy and distress indexes.) Consistent with the empathy-altruism hypothesis, these correlations revealed a significant positive correlation between self-reported empathy and helping for subjects in the easy-escape condition, / pvtul (37) =.32, p <.025, onetailed, and a nonsignificant negative correlation between self-reported distress and helping, r partia, (37) =-.20, p<.\2, onetailed. As expected, these same partial correlations for subjects in the difficult-escape condition were very close to zero (both rs =.03). Second, using multiple regression, we conducted a simple path analysis similar to the one reported by Coke.et al. (1978, Experiment 2). This involved performing two stepwise multiple regression analyses on the helping responses of subjects in the easy-escape condition. In one, the set manipulation was entered as the sole predictor on the first step, and the empathy and distress indexes were entered on the second step. In the other, these two steps Avere reversed. These two regression analyses, summarized in Table 2, allowed us to assess the degree to which the effect of the set manipulation on helping was mediated by subjects' self-reported emotional response. For to enter the set manipulation into the regression equation after the empathy and distress indexes would exclude any mediated effect from the mean square for the set manipulation. The difference between the mean square for the set manipulation when entered first and when entered second would, then, provide some indication of how much of the effect of the set manipulation on helping was mediated by the indexes of self-reported emotional response. As can be seen in Table 2, entering the emotional response indexes into the regression equation first caused a substantial reduction (from to.720) in the mean square for the set manipulation, suggesting that self-reported emotional response did serve a mediating role. Moreover, supplemental analyses revealed that 89% of this reduction could be attributed to mediation by self-reported empathy. At the same time the regression analyses revealed that the set manipulation had a marginally significant effect on helping that could not be attributed to this mediation, F(l, 36) = 3.14, p < Apparently, either measurement error obscured the extent of the mediation, or the set manipulation had some effect on helping that was independent of its effect on selfreported emotional response. (As expected, parallel regression analyses on the responses of subjects in the difficult-escape condition produced no reliable effects all Fs < 1.0.) Hypothesis 3: Feeling a Predominance of Empathic Emotion Leads to Altruistic Motivation To summarize thus far, we have evidence that as predicted, subjects in the imagine-set condition reported experiencing more empathic emotion than subjects in the observe- 3 This result was quite similar to that observed by Coke et al. (1978), who reported F(l, 30) = 3.18 for their arousal feedback manipulation when it was entered into a regression equation after self-reported empathy.

10 290 MIHO TOI AND C. DANIEL BATSON set condition (Hypothesis 1). Also as predicted, the pattern of helping in the imagineset condition suggested that the motivation to help was altruistic, whereas the pattern in the observe-set condition suggested that the motivation was egoistic (Hypothesis 2). But a path analysis revealed that the effect of the set manipulation on the helping of subjects in the easy-escape condition, although mediated in part by the effect of this manipulation on self-reported empathic emotion, could not be entirely attributed to this mediation. The set manipulation appeared to have some effect on helping, independent of its effect on empathy. In light of this path analysis, it became all the more important to test Hypothesis 3, namely, that feelings of personal distress lead to egoistic motivation, whereas feelings of empathy lead to altruistic motivation to help. For to find that the effect of the set manipulation appeared to be only partially mediated by its effect on subjects' self-reported empathy raised the possibility that the imagine-set condition produced altruistic motivation that was not a result of empathy. If this were true, then the support for Hypothesis 2 could not also be considered support for the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Hypothesis 3 allowed us to address directly the question of whether a predominance of empathic emotion produced an altruistic pattern of helping. To test Hypothesis 3, a new 2X2 design was created by performing a median split in each escape condition on the index of predominant emotional response (empathy index minus distress index), permitting us to identify those subjects who reported being relatively distressed and those who reported being relatively empathic. Then these two types of self-reported emotional response (predominant distress vs. predominant empathy) were crossed with the two levels of ease of escape (easy vs. difficult) to produce a 2 X 2 design. As it turned out, this classification of subjects based on self-reported emotion was not at all redundant with the original classification produced by the set manipulation. Twenty-two subjects from the observe-set condition reported a relative predominance of feelings of distress, and 18 reported a relative predominance of empathy; 22 subjects from the imagine-set condition reported predominant distress, and 19 reported predominant empathy. The lack of relationship between the original set manipulation and classification according to predominant emotional response may seem to contradict the previously noted marginal effect of listening perspective on scores on the emotional response index. Actually, it does not; it only suggests that the marginal effect was due primarily to effects within the lower and upper halves of the distribution rather than to movement across the median. It also suggests that much of the between-subject variance in emotional response was not a result of the set manipulation. More positively, the lack of relationship suggests that the pattern of results observed for the new 2X2 design cannot be dismissed as an artifact of the pattern in the original 2X2. Table 3 presents the rate of helping in each cell of the new 2X2 design. As can be seen, the pattern is very much as predicted by Hypothesis 3. The planned comparison contrasting the distress-easy-escape cell with the other three (arc sin transformation) was highly significant, x 2 (l) = 8.61, p <.001, and the residual variance did not approach significance, x 2 = -60. Between-cell comparisons revealed that as predicted, the rate of helping in the distress-easy-escape cell was lower than the rate in each of the other three cells, all zs > 2.04, ps <.02, one-tailed, and there were no reliable differences among the other three cells, all zs < 1. Subjects who reported a relative predominance of empathic feelings for Carol were very likely to help even when escape was easy, suggesting that their motivation for helping was altruistic. But subjects who reported a relative predominance of distress were significantly less likely to help when it was easy for them to escape without helping, suggesting that their motivation was egoistic. This pattern of results was entirely consistent with Hypothesis 3. It also provided reassurance that empathic emotion of the sort produced by the set manipulation did indeed evoke altruistic motivation. Implications The purpose of the present research was to test again the empathy-altruism hypoth-

11 EMPATHY AND ALTRUISM 291 esis, using the logic proposed by Batson et al. (1981) but using a different technique for manipulating empathy and a different need situation. We employed a modification of Stotland's (1969) technique to manipulate empathy, varying the listening perspective of subjects as they heard about another person's need. Consistent with Stotland's earlier research, we found that subjects who were instructed to imagine how the person felt reported feeling more empathic emotion than subjects who were instructed to concentrate on the information provided. We also found that this increase in emotional response was specific to empathic emotion; there was no significant increase in feelings of personal distress, and even though selfreports of empathy and distress were positively correlated, there was a marginally significant increase in relative empathy (selfreported empathy minus distress). These findings supported Hypothesis 1. By crossing this listening-perspective manipulation with a manipulation of ease of escape without helping, we were able to assess the nature of the motivation underlying helping in the observe-set and imagine-set conditions. The pattern of helping provided clear support for the hypothesis that focusing on the feelings of a person in need leads to altruistic motivation to reduce that person's need. Subjects in the observe-set condition helped less when escape without helping was easy than when it was difficult. This pattern suggested that the motivation of these subjects was directed toward the egoistic goal of reducing their own distress. Subjects in the imagine-set condition, however, displayed a high rate of helping even when escape was easy. This pattern suggested that the motivation of these subjects was directed toward the altruistic goal of reducing the distress of the person in need. These findings supported Hypothesis 2. Under easy escape, (a) the imagine-set condition was associated with increased helping, and (b) partial correlations revealed a positive association between self-reported empathy and helping. But a path analysis suggested that this effect of the set manipulation on helping was only partially attributable to the mediating role of self-reported empathy, raising some question as to whether the support for Hypothesis 2 should be taken Table 3 Proportion of Helping Among Subjects Reporting Low- and High-Empathic Emotion in Each Escape Condition Ease-of-escape condition Easy Difficult Self-reported relative empathy Low.39 (23).81 (21) High.71 (17).75 (20) Note. Numbers in parentheses are the number of subjects in each cell. as support for the empathy-altruism hypothesis. To reassure ourselves that those subjects who experienced a relatively high degree of empathy were altruistically motivated, subjects in the two escape conditions were classified into those reporting a relative predominance of either distress or empathy, and this classification was crossed with the ease-of-escape manipulation. The rate of helping in this new 2X2 design conformed to the predicted l-versus-3 pattern, suggesting that the motivation of those reporting a predominance of distress was egoistic, whereas the motivation of those reporting a predominance of empathy was altruistic. These findings supported Hypothesis 3 and provided evidence that empathic emotion of the sort produced by the set manipulation did indeed evoke altruistic motivation. In combination, the evidence for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 seems quite supportive of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. And when the present results are considered in conjunction with the results of the two experiments reported by Batson et al. (1981), in which other techniques were used to manipulate the level of empathic emotion, and the studies reported by Batson et al. (Note 2), in which subjects' naturally occurring levels of empathic emotion were measured, the evidence begins to look strong indeed. The results of each of those studies were also supportive of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Whether one considers the evidence now strong enough to justify the conclusion that empathic emotion can indeed evoke altruistic motivation will likely depend, on one's