Empathy
18
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”)
description
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”) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Empathy
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
