Empathy

Davis (1994) multidimensional approach:

Perspective taking (PT): adopt the viewpoint of others (“I sometimes attempt to understand my friends by imagining how things look from their perspective”)

Emotional concern (EC): experience compassion for unfortunate others (“I have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me”)

Personal distress (PD): experience distress in response to distress in others (“Being in a tense emotional situation scares me”)

Fantasy (F): imaginatively transpose oneself into fictional situations (“When reading an interesting story, I imagine how I would feel if the events were happening to me”)

Empathy and Values

(Perspective taking): +UN (BEN), - POW, SEC (Riska, 2003,Finnish adults (Red Cross volunteers), SVS, IRI; the same for both sexes)

(Emotional:)+ BEN (UN), - POW, (ACH), (SEC), HED, SD (above sample; Myyry & Helkama, Educ. Psychol. 2001, SVS, QMEE (university students); Kallionpää (13-16-year-olds): strong for men, weak for fem.)

Guilt , Shame and Values

Guilt: negative evaluation of specific behaviour + tendency to take reparative actions

Shame: negative evaluation of global self + desire to escape or hide

Tangney TOSCA (1992): scenarios, e.g. ”You make a big mistake on an important project at work. People were depending on you and your boss criticizes you” Rate the likelihood of reacting with:

-”I want to hide” (shame) - ”I should have done a better job” (guilt)

guilt, shame and values (cntd)

TOSCA guilt : consistently correlated with perspective taking and empathic concern (Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Silfver, submitted, Finnish university and high school students)

TOSCA shame: + personal distress, - other oriented empathy

TOSCA guilt and values: + BEN, UN, CONF, - POW (???) (Silfver, submitted, Finnish high school students, PVQ, adolescent TOSCA)

Problem with TOSCA guilt: most scenarios involve consequences for human beings. How about norm violations without such (immediate) consequences?

Norm-related guilt

Add scenarios with actions having no immediate consequences to others (crossing against red, not paying TV licence)

Hypotheses

Perspective-taking is related: + UN (BEN), - others Empathic concern is related: + BEN (UN), - others TOSCA guilt is related: + UN, BEN, CONF, - others Norm guilt is related: + CONF, TRAD, SEC, - ST, HED

Connections are weaker in countries where conformity is more important (high hierarchy, power distance)

Cross-cultural variation

Countries: Finland, Bulgaria, Portugal Schwartz Hierarchy: High: Bulgaria (2.7), Low: Finland (1.8),

Portugal (2.1) (M= 2.3) Hofstede Power Distance: High: Bulgaria (70), Portugal (63), Low:

Finland (33)

METHOD

Samples

Social science/psychology students, women

Helsinki, n=131, Sofia, n=111, Coimbra n= 176

Measures

Schwartz PVQ

Davis IRI

Tangney TOSCA

-plus norm guilt:

Means and standard deviations in values

Finland Bulgaria Portugal p-value

Universalism 1.24 (0.19) 1. 1.04 (0.14) 6. 1.13 (0.14) 3. <.001

Benevolence 1.21 (0.14) 2. 1.08 (0.16) 4. 1.17 (0.13) 1. <.001

Self-direction 1.20 (0.18) 3. 1.18 (0.17) 1. 1.16 (0.16) 2. ns.

Hedonism 1.08 (0.24) 4. 1.11 (0.27) 3. 1.07 (0.23) 4. ns.

Security 1.01 (0.18) 5. 1.01 (0.17) 7. 1.02 (0.14) 5. ns.

Stimulation 0.97 (0.22) 6. 1.08 (0.29) 5. 0.98 (0.24) 6. <.01

Achievement 0.95 (0.22) 7. 1.14 (0.21) 2. 0.98 (0.20) 7. <.001

Conformity 0.89 (0.20) 8. 0.86 (0.17) 9. 0.89 (0.18) 8. ns.

Power 0.72 (0.20) 9. 0.88 (0.26) 8. 0.70 (0.20) 10. <.001

Tradition 0.71 (0.19) 10. 0.69 (0.23) 10. 0.80 (0.19) 9. <.001

Means and standard deviations in guilt, shame and empathy

Finland Bulgaria Portugal p-value

TOSCA-guilt 4.31 (0.40) 4.29 (0.46) 4.16 (0.43) <.01

TOSCA-shame 2.86 (0.71) 2.92 (0.66) 2.75 (0.50) ns.

Norm-related guilt 3.18 (0.68) 3.18 (0.81) 3.32 (0.61) ns.

Empathic concern 2.88 (0.54) 2.88 (0.58) 3.10 (0.49) <.001

Perspective-taking 2.56 (0.56) 2.43 (0.64) 2.64 (0.55) <.05

Personal distress 1.83 (0.60) 2.28 (0.74) 2.34 (0.72) <.001

Fantasy 2.80 (0.61) 2.44 (0.82) 2.66 (0.74) <.01

Correlations between TOSCA-guilt and values

TOSCA-guilt

Finland Bulgaria Portugal

Universalism .11 .21* .04

Benevolence .13 .30** .05

Tradition .04 .10 -.14

Conformity .12 .16 -.01

Security .03 .18 -.07

Power -.19* -.30** .06

Achievement -.15 -.07 .04

Hedonism -.05 -.34*** .06

Stimulation -.06 -.24* .02

Self-direction -.09 -.15 .01

Correlations between norm-related guilt and values

Norm-related guilt

Finland Bulgaria Portugal

Universalism .01 .06 -.02

Benevolence .06 .28** .00

Tradition .12 .35*** .08

Conformity .29** .36*** .21**

Security .06 .22* -.01

Power -.08 -.30** -.02

Achievement -.11 -.14 -.03

Hedonism -.29** -.46*** -.15*

Stimulation -.29** -.35*** -.20**

Self-direction -.12 -.30** -.21**

Correlations between shame and values

Tosca-shame

Finland Bulgaria Portugal

Universalism -.02 .08 .08

Benevolence -.09 .04 .15

Tradition .29** .13 -.08

Conformity .20* .12 -.02

Security .05 .07 .00

Power -.19* .02 .01

Achievement -.02 .06 .13

Hedonism -.01 -.31** -.04

Stimulation -.08 -.16 -.02

Self-direction -.20* -.15 -.15*

Correlations between empathic concern and values

Empathicconcern

Finland Bulgaria Portugal

Universalism .26** .13 .09

Benevolence .24** .46*** .23**

Tradition .10 .21* .13

Conformity .02 .18 .12

Security .09 .19* .03

Power -.20* -.39*** -.11

Achievement -.30** -.32** -.20**

Hedonism -.06 -.13 -.05

Stimulation -.01 -.18 -.02

Self-direction -.16 -.19* -.23**

Correlations between perspective-taking and values

Perspective-taking

Finland Bulgaria Portugal

Universalism .14 .37*** .20**

Benevolence .22* .31** .25**

Tradition -.01 .10 -.01

Conformity .09 .07 .12

Security .23** .14 -.13

Power -.28** -.39*** -.19*

Achievement -.23** -.33*** -.10

Hedonism -.15 -.20* -.11

Stimulation -.01 -.05 -.05

Self-direction -.14 -.06 -.03

Correlations between personal distress and values

Personal distress

Finland Bulgaria Portugal

Universalism -.06 .01 -.10

Benevolence -.10 .11 -.07

Tradition .26** .41*** .21**

Conformity .09 .40*** .06

Security .07 .29** .12

Power -.22* -.25** .00

Achievement .04 -.22* .07

Hedonism .07 -.23* .03

Stimulation -.08 -.41*** -.17*

Self-direction -.21* -.32** -.30***

Conclusions

Support for two motivational systems: (1) UN, BEN associated with empathy (perspective-

taking & empathic concern), However, not so clearly with guilt (empathy-based guilt in particular; problems with measure)

(2) CONF, TRAD associated with guilt over norm violations, and also with shame (in Finland only)

Unexpected: TRAD predicted personal distress (TRAD as a means of coping with distress?)

Conclusions continued

Contrary to hypotheses, associations stronger in a high hierarchy country (Bulgaria) and weaker in low hierarchy countries (Finland, Portugal). However, the 3 countries showed no differences on conformity. Possible (speculative) explanations: Bulgaria the most ”individualistic” sample (high ACH), where UN & BEN non-normative); Portugal highest scoring on Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance -> traditional gender roles, not value priorities, regulate reports on empathy and guilt