Altruism in Humans

Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further

Oxford Universitys objective of excellence
in research, scholarship, and education.

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Copyright 2011 by Oxford University Press, Inc.

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.

198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
www.oup.com

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Batson, C. Daniel (Charles Daniel), 1943-Altruism in humans / C. Daniel Batson.

p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-19-534106-5 (hbk.: alk. paper) 1. Altruism. I. Title.
BF637.H4B387 2011
155.2'32dc22 2010021456

ISBN-13: 978-0-19-534106-5

ISBN-10: 0-19-534106-6

987654321
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper

iv
 Contents

Introduction 3
Part I A Theory of Altruistic Motivation 9
1 The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis 11
2 Antecedents of Empathic Concern 33
3 Behavioral Consequences of Empathy-Induced Altruism 59
Part II Empirical Evidence 81
4 Turning to Experiments 83
5 Testing the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis 110
6 Two Further Challenges 135
Part III Altruism in Action 161
7 Benefits of Empathy-Induced Altruism 163
8 Liabilities 188
9 Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Motivesand a More Humane
Society 207

v
Summary and Conclusion 228
 References 235
Appendix A Cross-cutting Independent Variable(s), Dependent
Variable(s), and Competing Predictions that Can Test the
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis Against Each Egoistic
Alternative 269
Appendix B Tests of the Aversive-Arousal-Reduction Hypothesis 275
Appendix C Tests of the Social-Evaluation Version of the Empathy-
Specific-Punishment Hypothesis 281
Appendix D Tests of the Self-Evaluation Version of the Empathy-
Specific-Punishment Hypothesis 285
Appendix E Tests of the General Empathy-Specific-Reward Hypothesis
289
Appendix F Tests of the Empathic-Joy Version of the Empathy-Specific-
Reward Hypothesis 293
Appendix G Tests of the Negative-State-Relief Version of the Empathy-
Specific-Reward Hypothesis 297
Author Index 303
Subject Index 317

vi
Introduction

What is the role of altruism in human life? To answer this question, it is necessary first to
know whether altruisma desire to benefit someone else for his or her sake rather than
ones owneven exists in humans. The existence of altruism has been debated, often
hotly, for centuries. One reason for heated debate is that if altruism exists, it has profound
implications. Its existence speaks not only to how we should direct our energies but also
to a fundamental question about human nature: Is everything we humans do, no matter
how noble and seemingly selfless, actually directed toward benefiting ourselves?
Those who carefully ponder the human condition often conclude that self-interest
underlies all our actions. The wise and witty Duke de la Rochefoucauld did: The most
disinterested love is, after all, but a kind of bargain, in which the dear love of our own
selves always proposes to be the gainer some way or other (Maxim 82, 1691). Many
philosophers and scientists, both before and since, have reached similar conclusions. If
they are right, then it is important that we recognize this fact about human nature, lest
fanciful dreams of altruism seduce us into counterproductive sentimentality and doomed
efforts at social reform.
But there is reason to think that they are not right. I wish to make a case that altruism does
exist in humans. The case includes outlining a theory of altruistic motivation, reviewing
evidence obtained from direct tests of the central tenet of the theory, reviewing evidence
relevant to related issues, and considering the implications of the theory at both a
conceptual and a practical level.
Not only do I wish to make a case that altruism exists; I also wish to present evidence that
altruism is an important force in human affairs. Indeed, the evidence suggests that
altruism is far more pervasive and powerful than has been recognized. Failure to
appreciate its importance has handicapped attempts to understand why we humans act as
we do and wherein our happiness lies. This failure has also handicapped efforts to
promote better interpersonal relations and a more caring, humane society.
Many, especially within religious traditions, have said that we humans ought to be
altruistic. I shall not engage this issue, at least not directly. As a scientist, my concern is
with what is, not what ought to be. Philosophers would say my goal is descriptive, not
normative. Of course, ought and is are not totally unrelated. We can only be expected
to do what is within our capacity.

3
Where to Look for Evidence
A second reason for heated debate over altruism is that clear evidence for its existence is
not easily found. Advocates of altruism typically appeal to dramatic examples of heroism,
rescue, and self-sacrifice to make their case. These examples highlight the possibility that
we can care for others, not simply for ourselves. But even the most stirring examples of
heroic helpfulness fail to provide clear and convincing evidence of altruism. As la
Rochefoucauld suggested, the possibility remains that the hero or saint acted to benefit the
self some way or other.
It may seem tasteless to scrutinize the motives of a person who risked his or her life to
shelter those trying to escape from the Holocaust, of firemen who died while directing
others to safety after the attack on the World Trade Center, or of a person who pulls an
injured child from shark-infested waters. But if we really want to know whether humans
can be altruistically motivated, such scrutiny is necessary. And under scrutiny, we must
admit that even heroes and saints may have done their good deeds for other than altruistic
reasons: Perhaps they felt compelled to act in order to avoid having to live with the
knowledge that they did nothing. Perhaps they were seeking the rewards of seeing
themselvesor being seen by othersas a good person. Perhaps they sought rewards in
an imagined life to come. Perhaps they were simply reacting to situational pressure
without any clear goal in mind. What else could I do? is a common response when
rescuers are asked why they risked life and limb to save a stranger. Although this
response may reflect modesty, it may also be an accurate depiction of what was seen as a
lack of other options at the time.
The altruistic motivation for which I wish to make a case is not the exclusive province of
heroes and saints. It is neither exceptional nor unnatural. Rather, I shall argue that
altruism is a motivational state that virtually all of us frequently visit. Although its origins
are not yet fully understood, I suspect they lie at least in part in the nurturant impulse of
human parents to care for their young. This impulse has been strongly selected for within
our evolutionary history. Without it, our species would have vanished long ago. Perhaps
because altruism based on nurturance is so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our lives,
is so commonplace and so natural, its importance has failed to be recognized. As long as
we assume that altruism, if it exists at all, is rare and unnatural, we are likely to seek it on
the edges of our experience in acts of extreme self-sacrifice. We are not likely to look at
the everyday experience of people like you and me. I wish to argue that it is in such
experience that we can find the clearest evidence of the role altruism plays in human life.
Yet we cannot see this evidence through simple observation.

Using Experiments
Evidence of the existence and importance of altruism can be most clearly seen, I believe,
by observing the responses of ordinary people in carefully contrived experiments
designed to tease apart possible motives for acting to benefit another. These experiments
come out
4
of a tradition of laboratory research on the nature of human motives that has developed in
social psychology over the past seventy years. The artificiality and trickery of the social-
psychology laboratory may seem unlikely tools to use in the search for altruism.
However, once the issues are clearly laid out, I think it will become apparent that
contrived and deceptive laboratory experiments offer an ideal way to unearth evidence,
pro and con, regarding altruism. Such experiments have the potential to provide much
clearer evidence than is provided either by (a) natural observationwhether observation
of humans, even heroic humans, or of other speciesor by (b) theoretical deduction
even deduction from such powerful theories as the theory of natural selection or the
theory of rational choice.
Armchair speculation about the motives behind heroic acts or about theoretical
possibilities is both fun and popular. Over the past several decades, it has produced a
number of books and articles about altruism in humans. This speculation has not provided
satisfactory answers to our questions about the existence of altruism and about the role
altruism plays in human life. It has not because it cannot. Questions about the existence
and role of altruism are not questions about possibility; they are about reality. They are
not questions about what might be or what ought to be; they are about what is. A careful,
controlled look at what isat when and, more importantly, at why people act to benefit
someone elseis the only way to provide satisfactory answers. Addressing these
questions by use of experiments is not the easiest way; it is not the most popular way. But
if we want to find answers that go beyond speculation and possibility, I think use of
experiments is the best way.
Before seeking answers, however, we must understand more clearly what we are looking
for. To this end, Part I of this book offers a theory of altruistic motivation. Then Part II
provides a summary of the empirical evidence for the existence of altruism. Finally, Part
III considers the role of altruism in human life.

Audience
When colleaguesor publishershear that you are writing a book, one of the first
questions is about audience. Given that this book is about altruism, I am embarrassed to
admit that I wrote it primarily for myself. Having read about, thought about, and
researched altruism for over thirty years, I wanted to record where my thinking and the
empirical evidence has led me, and to do so before drifting off into my dotage. My goal
was to provide as complete and accurate a record as possible. Of course, a detailed record
has the painful virtue of exposing gaps. I tried to resist hiding or glossing over these,
leaving them bare and exposed for future work.
In spite of writing mainly for myeslf, I very much hope others will be interested in
reading over my shoulder. To this end, I have tried to make the book accessible to a range
of readersnot only colleagues, graduate students, and advanced undergraduates in social
psychology but also those interested in altruism from other academic disciplines,
including philosophy, biology, economics, sociology, anthropology, and theology, as well
5
as from applied fields such as business, law, nursing, medicine, and ministry. Of course,
one need not fit a disciplinary niche to have an interest in the role of altruism in human
life. So I have written with the nonprofessional reader in mind too. Altruism is not an easy
topic; there are many conceptual subtleties, inferential complexities, and empirical
challenges that cannot be usefully addressed by oversimplification. But neither can they
be usefully addressed by obfuscation. Throughout, I have tried to be as clear and direct as
possible, while not shying away from complexity.
One implication of writing for myself is that I have cited a lot of other peoples work to
remind meand to inform readersof sources I have found useful along the way. For
the most part, these citations are done parenthetically so as not to slow down the through-
reader who wishes to forego side trails. I have also tried to highlight points of difference
and disagreement where such points exist, and to state as clearly as possible why I favor
the position I do. As will be apparent, I have benefited greatly from the ideas and research
of those with whom I disagree. In turn, I hope they also may find some of my ideas and
research useful.
For readers familiar with my earlier book, The Altruism Question (1991), let me say how
this book relates to it. First, even though the two books share a focus on the empathy-
altruism hypothesisthe claim that empathic concern produces altruistic motivation
there are important conceptual differences. The empathy-altruism hypothesis is explicated
in far more detail here, providing the basis for a more comprehensive theory of human
altruism (Chapters 13) that includes a revised formulation of the antecedents of empathic
concern (Chapter 2). Second, although the research designed to test the empathy-altruism
hypothesis available at the time of the earlier book is reviewed here as well, so is much
new research. Because the body of research testing this hypothesis is now quite large, it is
presented in summary form in Chapter 5 and in appendices to provide easy access and
assessment. Third, several important challenges to the empathy-altruism hypothesis have
come to the fore since the earlier book, and research relevant to these challenges is
reviewed here for the first time (Chapter 6). Fourth, in recent years, research has moved
beyond the question of the existence of empathy-induced altruism to consider theoretical
and practical implications of its existence. That research is reviewed in Chapters 79.
Finally, the earlier book was rather narrowly focused on research in experimental social
psychology designed to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Although that research is
central here as well, the broader theoretical perspective of this book includes attention to
recent work in philosophy, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, primatology, behavioral
economics, sociology, and anthropology.

Appreciation
Over the almost fifteen years I have worked on this book, many colleagues, students, and
friends provided valuable input, for which I am profoundly grateful. Naming them here
does not do justice to their various contributions. (Nor does naming them mean that they
agree with my conclusions.) And doubtless, I have failed to think of everyone who
6
should be listed, for which I apologize. With those provisos, sincere thanks to: Nadia
Ahmad, Monica Biernat, James Blair, Jack Brehm, Sarah Brosnan, Stephanie Brown, Sue
Carter, Bob Cialdini, Nancy Collins, Mark Davis, Karen Dawson, Jean Decety, Frans de
Waal, Nancy Eisenberg, Jakob Eklund, Nick Epley, Ernst Fehr, Jim Fultz, Lowell
Gaertner, Adam Galinsky, Omri Gillath, Maria Guibert, Eddie Harmon-Jones, Grit Hein,
Tom Insel, Claus Lamm, Mel Lerner, David Lishner, Sam McFarland, Heidi Maibom,
Josh May, Mario Mikulincer, Jason Mitchell, Luis Oceja, Lou Penner, Alicia Prez-
Albniz, Jane Piliavin, Stephen Post, Daniel Povinelli, Stephanie Preston, Adam Powell,
Pete Richerson, Dave Schroeder, Phil Shaver, Laura Shaw, Joan Silk, Tania Singer,
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Elliott Sober, Steve Stich, Eric Stocks, Karsten Stueber,
Michael Tomasello, Jo-Ann Tsang, Felix Warneken, and Carolyn Zahn-Waxler.
Special thanks to Jack Dovidio, Martha Nussbaum, and Matthieu Ricard, each of whom
provided insightful and extremely helpful comments on the manuscript as a whole.
Special thanks also to Lori Handelman and Abby Gross of Oxford University Press for
their enthusiasm, encouragement, and support throughout the publication process. For
about ten years, my research on altruism benefited greatly from National Science
Foundation support. Speaking of support, this book probably would not be without Ben.
Finally, special thanks to my wife Judy for her involvement from start to finishher
readiness to talk altruism over drinks again and again, her exceptional insight as a pilot
research participant, her care and dedication assisting with data collection, her comments
on chapter drafts, her editorial skill, and her overall patience, understanding, and support.
Who could ask for more?

7
8
Part I A Theory of Altruistic Motivation

Part I presents a theory of altruistic motivation. Two points should be made at the outset.
First, the indefinite article in the title above deserves emphasis. The theory I present
specifies one source of altruistic motivation, empathic concern. There may be other
sources. The most frequently suggested other source is a personal disposition sometimes
called the altruistic personality (Oliner & Oliner, 1988). In putting forward the present
theory, I in no way wish to discourage the proposal of theories of altruistic motivation
based on that or other sourcesor even of other theories based on empathy.
Second, the basic idea of the theory is not original with me. A relationship between
empathic concern and altruism was proposed earlier by social psychologist Dennis Krebs
(1975) and by developmental psychologist Martin Hoffman (1976), much earlier by
psychologist William McDougall (1908), and even earlier by philosophers David Hume
(1740/1896) and Adam Smith (1759/1853). Of course, no one but I should be saddled
with the burden of endorsing or defending the particular theoretical formulation that
follows.
Although the proposed theory forms a coherent whole, it is presented in three chapters.
The core of the theory, the empathy-altruism hypothesis, is presented and explicated in
Chapter 1. Chapters 2 and 3 extend the analysis backward and forward from this core.
Necessary and sufficient conditions for a person to feel empathic concern are considered
in Chapter 2. Behavioral consequences of experiencing altruistic motivation are
considered in Chapter 3. The empathy-altruism core, antecedents, and consequences
comprise the present theory of altruistic motivation. Specification of relations between the
core and its antecedents and consequences also provides the conceptual framework for the
empirical tests of the theory that are described in Part II, and for derivation of
implications that are discussed in Part III.

9
10
1 The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

Empathic concern produces altruistic motivation. This is the empathy-altruism hypothesis, the
central proposition of the present theory. To understand this deceptively simple hypothesis, it
is necessary to know what is meant by empathic concern, by altruistic motivation, and
even by produces. Over the years, the terms empathy and altruism have each been used to
refer to a number of different psychological states. Depending on how these terms are
defined, a claim that empathy-induced altruism exists can be either quite profound or quite
trivial. Therefore, it is important at the outset to be clear about how these terms are being
used, and to distinguish the present use from other common uses.

Empathic Concern
I shall use the term empathic emotion to refer to other-oriented emotions elicited by and
congruent with the perceived welfare of someone else. I shall use empathic concern and, as a
shorthand, empathy to refer to other-oriented emotion elicited by and congruent with the
perceived welfare of someone in need. Four points may help clarify this usage. First,
congruent here refers not to the specific content of the emotion but to the valencepositive
when the perceived welfare of the other is positive, negative when the perceived welfare is
negative. For example, it would be congruent to feel sad or sorry for someone who is upset
and afraidor, like the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:33), to feel compassion for the
unconscious victim of a mugging. Second, although my definition of empathic emotion is
broad enough to include feeling empathic joy at anothers good fortune (Smith, Keating, &
Stotland, 1989; Stotland, 1969), not all empathic emotion is hypothesized to produce
altruistic motivation, only the empathic concern felt when another is perceived to be in need.
Without this perception, there is no impetus for change.
Third, as defined, empathic concern is not a single, discrete emotion but includes a whole
constellation. It includes feelings of sympathy, compassion, softheartedness, tenderness,
sorrow, sadness, upset, distress, concern, and grief. Fourth, empathic concern is other-
oriented in the sense that it involves feeling for the otherfeeling sympathy for, compassion
for, sorry for, distressed for, concerned for, and so on. Although feelings of

11
sympathy and compassion are inherently other-oriented, we can feel sorrow, distress, or
concern that is not oriented toward someone else, as when something bad happens directly to
us. Both other-oriented and self-oriented versions of these emotions may be described as
feeling sorry or sad, upset or distressed, concerned or grieved. This breadth of usage invites
confusion. The relevant psychological distinction is not made by the emotional label used but
by whose welfare is the focus of the emotion. Is one feeling sad, distressed, concerned for the
other, or is one feeling this way as a result of what has befallen oneselfincluding, perhaps,
the experience of seeing another suffer?
The other-oriented emotional response to perceiving another in need that I am calling
empathic concern has often gone by other names. It has been called pity and compassion
(Blum, 1980; Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010; Hume, 1740/1853; Nussbaum, 2001;
Smith, 1759/1853), the tender emotion (McDougall, 1908), genuine sympathy (Becker,
1931), sympathetic distress (Hoffman, 1981a, 1981b, 2000), and simply sympathy (Bain,
1899 Blum, 1980; Darwall, 1998; Darwin, 1871; de Waal, 1996; Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987;
Gruen & Mendelsohn, 1986; Heider, 1958; Preston & de Waal, 2002b; Wisp, 1986, 1991). It
has also been called reactive affect (Davis, 1994), and reactive empathy (Stephan &
Finlay, 1999). At issue for the empathy-altruism hypothesis is the other-oriented emotion, not
the specific label. If someone prefers to use a different term for this emotional response, there
need be no disagreement.
It is, however, important to distinguish empathic concern from a number of related
psychological states, each of which has also been called empathy. There are at least seven
other such states.

Seven Other Uses of the Term Empathy

An example may help make the distinctions clear. Imagine that you meet a friend for lunch.
She seems distracted, staring into space, not very talkative, a bit down. Gradually, she begins
to speak, then to cry. She explains that she just learned she is losing her job because of
layoffs. She says that she is not angry but hurtand a bit scared. You feel very sorry for her,
and say so. In addition, you are reminded that there has been talk of job cuts where you work
as well. Seeing your friend so upset makes you feel anxious and uneasy. You also feel brief
flashes of reliefThank God it wasnt me!
Defined as other-oriented emotion elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of
someone in need, empathic concern applies to only one specific part of this interchange:
feeling sorry for your friend. But the term empathy has been applied to no less than seven
other aspects of the example.

1. Knowing Another Persons Internal State, Including His or Her Thoughts

and Feelings
Some clinicians and researchers have called knowing another persons internal state empathy
(e.g., Brothers, 1989; Damasio, 2002; de Waal, 1996; Dymond, 1950; Freud, 1922; Kohler,
1929; Levenson & Ruef, 1992; Preston & de Waal, 2002b; Wisp, 1986).

12
Others have called this knowledge being empathic (Rogers, 1975), cognitive empathy
(Eslinger, 1998; Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, & Emde, 1992), accurate empathy (Truax &
Carkuff, 1967), or empathic accuracy (Ickes, 1993). Still others speak of understanding
(Becker, 1931), accuracy of social perception (Cronbach, 1955), perceiving accurately
(Levenson & Ruef, 1992), or affective role taking (Davis, 1994). Knowing anothers
thoughts and feelings has been a focus of the research on theory of mind in primates and
humans (e.g., Adams, 2001; Goldman, 1993; Gordon, 1995; Meltzoff & Decety, 2003;
OConnell, 1995; Povinelli, Bering, & Giambrone, 2000; Premack & Woodruff, 1978;
Ravenscroft, 1998; Tomasello & Call, 1997).
Sometimes, to ascertain what someone else is thinking and feeling can pose quite a challenge,
especially when you have only limited clues. In our example, knowing your friends internal
state seems relatively easy. Once she explains, you may be confident that you know what is
on her mindlosing her job. From what she says, and perhaps even more from how she acts,
you may also think you know how she feelshurt and scared. Of course, you could be
wrong, at least about some nuances.
It might appear that accurate knowledge of the others thoughts and feelings is a necessary
condition for the other-oriented emotional response that the empathy-altruism hypothesis
claims produces altruistic motivation. But it is not. Even if you are quite wrong about what
your friend is thinking and feeling (not likely in our example), to feel sorry for her is to
experience empathic concern. Empathic concern requires that one think one knows the others
state because it is based on a perception of the other as in need. It does not, however, require
that this perception be accurate. It does not even require that this perception match the others
perception of his or her internal state, which is often the standard used to determine accuracy
in research on empathic accuracy (e.g., Ickes, 1993). (In this research, the possibility that the
other might fail to accurately identify his or her internal state tends to be ignoredsee
Thomas & Fletcher, 1997. Is it really true in our example that your friend is not angry?) A
person can experience real empathic concern based on a false perception of the others
internal state. Of course, action prompted by concern based on a false perception, even
altruistically motivated action, is apt to be misguided.
Any attempt to help a person in need is more likely to be beneficial if one has an accurate
perception of the others need. So it is not surprising that clinicians, whose primary concern
is to help their clients, tend to emphasize accurate perception of a clients feelings rather than
other-oriented feeling for the client (Kohut, 1959; Rogers, 1975; Wiesenfeld, Whitman, &
Malatesta, 1984). So do physicians (MacLean, 1967).

2. Adopting the Posture or Matching the Neural Response of an Observed

Other
Adopting the posture or expression of an observed other is a definition of empathy in many
dictionaries. Among psychologists, adopting anothers posture is more likely to be called
motor mimicry (Bavelas, Black, Lemery, & Mullet, 1987; Dimberg, Thunberg, & Elmehed,
2000; Hoffman, 2000), physiological sympathy (Ribot, 1911), or

13
imitation (Allport, 1937; Becker, 1931; Lipps, 1903; Meltzoff & Moore, 1997; Titchener,
1909; but also see Murphy, 1947). The philosopher Gordon (1995) used the term facial
empathy.
Preston and de Waal (2002b) have proposed what they claim is a unified theory of empathy
that focuses on mimicked neural representations rather than mimicked motor activity. Their
theory is based on a perception-action model (PAM). According to this model, perceiving
another in a given situation automatically leads one to match the others neural state because
perception and action rely in part on the same neural circuits. As a result of the matched
neural representation, which need not produce either matched motor activity or awareness,
one comes to feel something of what the other feels and, thereby, to understand the others
internal state. (The PAM is, in turn, based on the work of Prinz, 1987, 1997; however, Prinzs
original depiction of the link between perception and action was far less automatic than
Preston & de Waal imply.) In subsequent years, de Waal (2006, 2008, 2009) has embellished
the PAM with a Russian doll metaphor, claiming that, as in a set of Russian dolls, affective
resonance (Concept 3 below) based on perception-action mimicry lies at the core and is the
basis for all more complex empathic processes, including empathic concern:
Perception of the emotional state of another automatically activates shared representations
causing a matching emotional state in the observer. With increasing cognition, state-matching
evolved into more complex forms, including concern for the other and perspective taking. (de
Waal, 2008, p. 279)
Preston and de Waals PAM is an interesting proposal, and it is quite possible that the role of
response matching and imitation in social perceptionespecially perception of another
persons emotional statehas been underestimated over the last fifty years (but see
Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Dimberg et al., 2000; Hoffman, 2000; Niedenthal, 2007; hman,
2002; Vaughan & Lanzetta, 1981). At the same time, the suggestion that either neural
response matching or motor mimicry is the unifying source of all empathic feelings seems to
considerably overestimate their role, especially among humans. Perceptual neural
representations do not always and automatically lead to feelings, whether matched or
unmatched (de Vignemont & Singer, 2005; Singer & Lamm, 2009), nor do emotional
reactions to the state of another require perceptual cues or a shared response to the others
state (Danziger, Faillenot, & Peyron, 2009; Lamm, Meltzoff, & Decety, 2010). There is
growing evidence that the neural representation of ones own feelings and feelings based on
perception of others, although related, are distinct (Morrison & Downing, 2007; Zaki,
Ochsner, Hanelin, Wager, & Mackey, 2007), and increasing doubt has been cast on claims
about the role of mirror neurons in understanding and responding to anothers plight (Decety,
2010a; Hickok, 2008; Jacob, 2008).
At a motor level, neither humans nor other species mimic all actions of others. To find
oneself tensing and twisting when watching someone balance on a tightrope is a familiar
experience; it is hard to resist. Yet we can watch someone file papers with little inclination to
mimic the action. Something more than automatic mimicry must be involved to select those
actions that are mimicked and those that are not (see Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Tamir,
Robinson, Clore, Martin, & Whitaker, 2004; Zentall, 2003, for
14
discussions of this point). It is possible that rather than copying the tightrope walkers action,
we are trying to control or correct it, as when we twist our torso to bring an errant putt back
on line.
Moreover, it has been found that mimicry, when it occurs, may not be as reactive and
automatic as has been assumed. Meltzoff and Moore (1997) presented much evidence that
mimicry or imitation is an active, goal-directed process even in infants. And in adults,
mimicry often serves a higher-order communicative function. In the words of Bavelas, Black,
Lemery, and Mullett (1986), I show how you feel in order to convey fellow feeling or
support (also see Buck & Ginsburg, 1991). Rather than automatic mimicry, parallel bodily
expression of emotion may be part of a more controlled, higher-level cognitive process of
recognizing and labeling emotion in another (Niedenthal, 2007; Niedenthal, Winkielman,
Mondillon, & Vermeulen, 2009).
Instead of relying solely on response matching or mimicry to provide clues to the internal
states of others, humans can also use memory and general knowledge to infer what others
think and feel in various situations (Singer, Seymour, ODoherty, Kaube, Dolan, & Frith,
2004; Tomasello, 1999). The problem of anthropomorphism arises precisely because we
humans have the abilityand inclinationto make such inferences, even about other
species. And as already noted, we can rely on direct communication from others to learn
about their internal states. Your friend told you what she was thinking and feeling.
Matching neural representations or mimicking anothers posture may at times facilitate
feeling empathic concern, but neither is a necessary or sufficient condition. Your friends
tears may have caused you to cry too. It seems unlikely, however, that matching her neural
state or mimicking her crying was necessary for you to feel sorry for her. More likely, her
tears told you how upset she was, and you cried because you were sorry that she was so
upset, not simply because she cried.

3. Coming to Feel as Another Person Feels

Coming to feel the same emotion that another person feels also is a common dictionary
definition of empathy. And it is a definition used by some philosophers (Darwall, 1998;
Goldman, 1992; Nichols, 2001; Sober & Wilson, 1998), neuroscientists (Damasio, 2003;
Decety & Chaminade, 2003; Eslinger, 1998), and psychologists (Barnett, 1987; Berger, 1962;
Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987; Englis, Vaughan, & Lanzetta, 1982; Feshbach & Roe, 1968;
Freud, 1922; Gruen & Mendelsohn, 1986; Preston & de Waal, 2002b; Stotland, 1969). Often,
those who use this definition qualify it by saying that the empathizer need not feel exactly the
same emotion, only a similar one (e.g., Eisenberg, 2000; Hoffman, 2000). However, what
determines whether an emotion is similar enough is never made clear.
Key to this use of the term empathy is not only emotion matching but also emotion catching
(Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). To have evidence of matching and catching, more is
required than that one person has a physiological response of roughly the same magnitude at
roughly the same time as anotherwhat Levenson and Ruef (1992) call shared physiology.
Rather than a match to the targets emotion, the observers

15
physiology could reflect a qualitatively different emotion. Rather than being caught from the
targets emotional state, the observers physiology could reflect a parallel response to a
common situation, perhaps one to which the targets emotional state drew attention.
In Scottish Enlightenment philosophy, coming to feel as the other feels was called
sympathy, not empathy (Hume, 1740/1896; Smith, 1759/1853). Scientistsincluding
psychologistsinfluenced by enlightenment philosophy also typically refer to this state as
sympathy (Allport, 1924; Cooley, 1902; Darwin, 1871; McDougall, 1908; Mead, 1934;
Spencer, 1870; Wundt, 1897). In addition, this state has been called fellow feeling (Hume,
1740/1896; Smith, 1759/1853), emotional identification (Freud, 1922), emotional
contagion (Becker, 1931; de Waa 2009, 2010; Hatfield et al., 1994; Heider, 1958),
emotional resonance (Thompson, 1987), affective reverberation (Davis, 1985),
perceptually induced resonance of emotive circuits (Panksepp, 1986), empathic distress
(Hoffman, 1981b), affective empathy (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1992), parallel affect (Davis,
1994), parallel empathy (Stephan & Finlay, 1999), and automatic emotional empathy
(Hodges & Wegner, 1997).
In one of the most frequently cited studies of the developmental origins of empathy, Sagi and
Hoffman (1976) presented 1- to 2-day-old infants either with tape-recorded sounds of another
infant crying, with sounds of a synthetic non-human cry, or with no sounds. Those infants
presented with another infants cry cried significantly more than those presented with a
synthetic cry or with silence. Sagi and Hoffman (1976, p. 176)and many others since
interpreted this difference as evidence of an inborn rudimentary empathic distress reaction,
that is, as evidence of one newborn infant catching and matching anothers affective state.
Martin and Clark (1982) replicated this result (but not the marginal sex difference reported by
Sagi & Hoffman) and provided evidence of even more specificity. Martin and Clark found no
increased crying by infants to a recording of (a) their own cry, (b) an older childs cry, or (c)
the cry of an infant chimpanzee.
To interpret this research as evidence of an inborn rudimentary empathic distress reaction
seems premature. There are rather obvious alternative explanations for crying in response to
another infants cry, alternatives that have been rarely recognized in the literature (but see
Dondi, Simion, & Caltran, 1999). For example, such crying may be an inborn competitive
response that increases the chances of getting food or comfort (Soltis, 2004; Zeifman, 2001).
(The infants in the Sagi & Hoffman study were tested 1-1 hours before feeding time).
Imagine that we did a similar study with baby birds in the nest. We would not likely interpret
the rapid spread of peeping and open-mouth straining once one baby bird started peeping and
straining as a rudimentary empathic response. We would likely interpret it as competitive. A
second alternative is that another infants distress cry may elicit alarm or fear. Third, perhaps
crying in response to another infants cry reflects a general inborn capacity and inclination to
imitate the actions of others (Meltzoff & Moore, 1997). If so, it would not be a response to
the others feeling of distress, only the others behavior of crying. The rudimentary-empathy
interpretation of infants reactive cries has, I think, been accepted too quickly, without
sufficient consideration of plausible alternatives.

16
Coming to feel as the other feels may at times serve as a stepping-stone to empathic concern.
But research suggests that this step is neither necessary nor sufficient (Batson, Early, &
Salvarani, 1997). Returning to your friend, to feel sorry for her you need not feel hurt and
afraid too. It is enough to know that she is hurt and afraid. Indeed, feeling as another feels
may actually inhibit empathic concern if it leads us to become focused on our own emotional
state (Mikulincer, Gillath, Halevy, Avihou, Avidan, & Eshkoli, 2001). Sensing the
nervousness of other passengers on an airplane in rough weather, I too may become nervous.
If I then focus on my own nervousness, I am not likely to feel for them. Emotional contagion
of this sort is quite different from the empathic concern claimed to produce altruistic
motivation.

4. Intuiting or Projecting Oneself into Anothers Situation

Listening to your friend, you might have asked yourself what it would be like to be a young
woman just told she is losing her job. Imaginatively projecting oneself into anothers
situation is the psychological state referred to by Lipps (1903) as Einfhlung and for which
Titchener (1909) originally coined the English word empathy. This state has also been called
projective empathy (Becker, 1931; Scheler, 1913/1970), imaginative projection
(Goldman, 1992), and reenactive empathy (Stueber, 2006). Originally, empathy in this
sense was intended to describe an artists act of imagining what it would be like to be some
specific person or, more often, some inanimate objectsuch as a gnarled, dead tree on a
windswept hillside.
This original definition of empathy as aesthetic projection often appears in dictionaries, and it
has appeared in recent philosophical discussions of simulation as an alternative to theory-
theories of mind (Stueber, 2006). But projection is rarely what is meant by empathy in
contemporary psychology. Wisp (1968), however, included such projection in his analysis
of sympathy and empathy, calling it aesthetic empathy.
Intuiting or projecting ourselves into anothers situation may give us a lively sense of what
the other is thinking and feeling and may, thereby, facilitate other-oriented empathic concern.
But when the state of the other is obvious because of what has happened or been said,
projection is not necessary. And when the others state is not obvious, projection runs the risk
of imposing an interpretation of the others state that is quite inaccurate, especially if we do
not have a precise understanding of relevant self-other differences (see Neyer, Banse, &
Asendorpf, 1999).

5. Imagining How Another Is Thinking and Feeling

Rather than imagine how it would feel to be a young woman just told she is losing her job,
you might imagine how your friend is thinking and feeling. Imagining her thoughts and
feelings can be based not only on what she says and does but also on your knowledge of her
character, values, and desires. Stotland (1969) spoke of this particular form of perspective
taking as an imagine him perspective. More generally, it has been called an imagine
other perspective (Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1997).

17
Wisp (1968) called imagining how another is feeling psychological empathy to
differentiate it from the aesthetic empathy described previously. Davis (1994) called it
cognitive role taking or cognitive empathy; Darwall (1998) called it proto-sympathetic
empathy. Regan and Totten (1975) simply called it empathy, as did Nussbaum (2001).
Adolphs (1999) called it both empathy and projection; Ruby and Decety (2004) called it
both empathy and perspective taking.
In a perceptive analysis from a therapeutic perspective, Barrett-Lennard (1981) spoke of
adopting an empathic attentional seta process of feeling into, in which Person A opens
him- or herself in a deeply responsive way to Person Bs feelings and experiencing but
without losing awareness that B is a distinct other self (p. 92). At issue is not only the
conception one forms of the feelings and thoughts of the other but also how one is affected by
this conception. It is a process of responsively knowing (Barrett-Lennard, 1981, p. 92), in
which one is sensitive to the way the other is affected by his or her situation.
Instructions to imagine how the other is thinking and feeling have often been used to induce
empathic concern in participants in laboratory experiments (see Batson, 1991; Davis, 1994,
for reviews). Still, this imagine-other perspective should not be confused or equated with the
empathic concern it evokes; there is clear evidence that they are distinct (Coke, Batson, &
McDavis, 1978).

6. Imagining How One Would Think and Feel in the Others Place
Adam Smith (1759/1853) colorfully referred to the act of imagining how one would think and
feel in another persons situation as changing places in fancy. Mead (1934) sometimes
called it role taking and sometimes empathy; Becker (1931) coined the term
mimpathizing. Kohut (1959) called it vicarious introspection; Povinelli (1993),
cognitive empathy; and Darwall (1998), projective empathy or simulation (also see
Goldman, 1992; Nickerson, 1999; Van Boven & Lowenstein, 2003). Nichols (2001) called it
perspective taking. In the Piagetian tradition, imagining how one would think in the others
place has been called perspective taking, role taking, or decentering (Piaget,
1932/1965; also see Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004; Krebs & Russell, 1981;
Steins & Wicklund, 1996).
Stotland (1969) spoke of an imagine-self perspective to distinguish this state from the
imagine-other perspective described previously. To adopt an imagine-self perspective is in
some ways similar to the act of projecting oneself into anothers situation (Concept 4 above).
Yet these two concepts were developed independently in very different contexts, one
aesthetic and the other interpersonal, so it seems best to keep them separate. Here, the focus
is more clearly on ones own thoughts and feelings rather than on what one would feel if one
were the other.
The imagine-self and imagine-other forms of perspective taking have often been confused or
treated as equivalent, despite research evidence suggesting that they should not be. When
attending to someone in distress, imagining how that person is thinking and feeling can
stimulate empathic concern. Imagining how you would think and feel

18
in that situation can too. However, in addition to stimulating empathic concern, an imagine-
self perspective is likely to elicit self-oriented feelings of distress, whereas an imagine-other
perspective is not (Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1997; Batson, Lishner et al., 2003; Jackson,
Brunet, Meltzoff, & Decety, 2006; Lamm, Batson, & Decety, 2007; Stotland, 1969).
If the others situation is unfamiliar or unclear, then imagining how you would feel in that
situation may provide a useful, possibly essential, basis for understanding the others plight.
But once again, if the other differs from you, then focusing on how you would think and feel
may prove misleading (Hygge, 1976; Jarymowicz, 1992). And if the others situation is
familiar or clear, then imagining how you would think and feel in that situation may actually
inhibit empathic concern (Nickerson, 1999). As you listened to your friend talk about losing
her job, your thoughts about how you would feel if you lost your own job led you to become
self-concerned, to feel anxious and uneasyand lucky by comparison. These reactions likely
dampened your empathic concern.

7. Feeling Distress at Witnessing Another Persons Suffering

A state of distress evoked by witnessing anothers distressyour feelings of anxiety and
unease evoked by seeing how upset your friend washas been given a variety of names. It
has been called sympathetic pain (McDougall, 1908), promotive tension (Hornstein,
1982), unpleasant arousal occasioned by observation (Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark,
1981), empathic distress (Hoffman, 1981b), personal distress (Batson, 1987), and
empathy (Krebs, 1975).
This state does not involve feeling distressed for the other (a form of empathic concern) or
distressed as the other (Concept 3 above). It involves feeling distressed by the state of the
other. Unfortunately, the for, as, by distinction is rarely considered in current neuroimaging
studies of empathy, rendering the meaning of results unclear.
The importance of distinguishing this self-oriented distress from other-oriented (empathic)
distress is underscored by evidence that parents at high risk of abusing a child are the ones
who more frequently report distress at seeing an infant cry. Those at low risk report increased
other-oriented empathic feelingssympathy and compassionrather than increased distress
(Milner, Halsey, & Fultz, 1995).

Implications
I have listed these seven other psychological states to which the term empathy has been
applied for two reasons. First, I hope to reduce confusion by recognizing complexity. It
would simplify matters if the term empathy referred to a single object and everyone agreed
what that object was. Unfortunately, as with many psychological terms, it does not. Both
empathy and sympathy (the term with which empathy is most often contrasted) have been
used in a variety of ways. Indeed, with remarkable consistency, exactly the same state that
some scholars have labeled empathy others have labeled sympathy. In spite of frequent
claims that ones own use of these terms is best (e.g., Wisp, 1986),

19
I know no clear basiseither historical or logicalfor favoring one labeling scheme over
another.
In such a circumstance, I believe the best one can do is recognize the different phenomena,
make clear the labeling scheme one is adopting, and use it consistently. Accordingly, I shall
reserve the terms empathic concern and empathy for the other-oriented emotion described
initially. My labels for the other seven states are: (1) knowing anothers internal state, (2)
adopting anothers posture (motor mimicry) or matching anothers neural responses, (3)
coming to feel as the other feels, (4) projecting oneself into anothers situation, (5) adopting
an imagine-other perspective (or perspective taking), (6) adopting an imagine-self
perspective, and (7) feeling vicarious personal distress.
The second reason for listing these other seven phenomena is to consider how each relates to
the empathic concern claimed to be a source of altruistic motivation. As described, most of
the other phenomena are cognitive or perceptual states that are potential precursors to and
facilitators of empathic concern (Concepts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6). Two are alternative emotional
states: feeling as the other feels (Concept 3) and feeling vicarious personal distress as a result
of witnessing the others suffering (Concept 7). Feeling as the other feels may serve as a
stepping-stone to empathic concern and, hence, to altruistic motivation; it may also lead to
self-focused attention and thereby inhibit other-oriented feelings. Feeling personal distress is
not likely to be a stepping-stone to altruism. Instead, it is likely to evoke egoistic motivation
to relieve ones own distress (Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987; Piliavin et al., 1981).
Although distinctions among the various states in the empathy cluster are sometimes subtle,
there seems little doubt that each of these states exists. Most are familiar experiences.
However, their familiarity should not lead us to ignore their significance. The processes
whereby one person can apprehend the cares and wishes of another are truly remarkable, as
are the range of emotions that these processes can arouse. Some great thinkers, such as
philosopher David Hume, have suggested that these processes are the basis for all social
perception and interaction. Empathic processes are certainly key elements of our social
nature.

Altruistic Motivation
Altruism is at least as slippery a concept as empathy. In the Introduction, I spoke loosely of
altruism as a desire to benefit someone else for his or her sake rather than ones own. More
formally, by altruism I mean a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing
anothers welfare. (For a history of early use of the term altruism, see Dixon, 2008.) Altruism
can be juxtaposed to egoism, which is a motivational state with the ultimate goal of
increasing ones own welfare. In each of these definitions there are three key phrases.
1. ... a motivational state...
The type of motivation that I have in mind is not simply a drive or impulsea push from
withinbut a goal-directed force (Lewin, 1938). Goal-directed motivation has the following
four features: (a) The individual desires some imagined change in the

20
experienced world (neither the desire nor the imagined change need be conscious). This is
what is meant by a goal. (b) A force of some magnitude exists, drawing the individual toward
the goal. (c) If a barrier prevents direct access to the goal, alternative routes will be sought.
(d) The force disappears when the goal is reached. Goal-directed motivation of this kind is
not within the repertoire of many species. To set and seek goals requires high-level
perceptual and cognitive processes generally associated with a developed neocortex like that
found in higher mammals (MacLean, 1990; Tomasello, 1999).
Note that I have defined altruism and egoism as motivational states, not as dispositions.
Following Lewin (1938, 1951) instead of Murray (1938), the motives at issue are goal-
directed psychological forces in a given situation rather than relatively stable aspects of
personality such as a need for achievement or for affiliation. I shall use the terms motive
and motivation to refer to these situational forces, not to dispositions. Accordingly, I shall
not speak of altruists and egoists but of altruism and egoism. I want to know whether altruism
is within the motivational repertoire of most humans.
2. ... with the ultimate goal...
An ultimate goal is an end in itself, not just an instrumental means for reaching some other
goal. If a goal is an instrumental means for reaching another goal and a barrier arises, then
alternative routes to the ultimate goal will be sought, routes that bypass the instrumental goal.
Should the ultimate goal be reached without the instrumental goal being reached, the
motivational force will disappear. If, however, a goal is ultimate, it cannot be bypassed in this
way (Lewin, 1938). Note that the terms instrumental and ultimate here refer to means-end
relations in the current situation; ultimate is not used in the metaphysical sense of a first or
final cause. Both instrumental and ultimate goals should be distinguished from unintended
consequences, those results of an actionforeseen or unforeseenthat are not the goal of the
action. Each ultimate goal defines a distinct goal-directed motive.
3. ... of increasing anothers welfare or ... of increasing ones own welfare
These phrases identify the specific ultimate goal of altruistic and egoistic motivation,
respectively. Increasing anothers welfare is an ultimate goal if an individual (a) imagines
some desirable change in the others world and (b) experiences a force to bring about that
change as (c) an end in itself. Increasing ones own welfare is an ultimate goal if an
individual (a) imagines some desirable change in his or her own world and (b) experiences a
force to bring about that change as (c) an end in itself.
Altruism and egoism, as defined here, have much in common. Each refers to a goal-directed
motive; each is concerned with the ultimate goal of that motive; and, for each, the ultimate
goal is to increase someones welfare. These common features provide the context for
highlighting the crucial difference: Whose welfare is the ultimate goal? Is it another persons
or ones own?
One frequently heard argument against the existence of altruism is that, logically, increasing
anothers welfare cannot be an ultimate goal. The argument is as follows. Even if it were
possible for a person to be motivated to increase anothers welfare, such a person would be
interested in attaining this desired goal and would experience pleasure on doing so; therefore,
even this apparent altruism would have ones own welfare as its ultimate goal.
21
Philosophers have shown that this argument, which invokes the general principle of
psychological hedonism, is flawed. They have pointed out that it involves confusion between
two different meanings of self and two different forms of hedonism. Concerning the self, the
meaning at issue is not self as agent (Who has the desire?) but selfand otheras object
(Whose welfare is desired?). Concerning hedonism, a strong form of psychological
hedonism asserts that attainment of personal pleasure is always the goal of human action; a
weak form asserts only that goal attainment always brings pleasure. The weak form is not
inconsistent with the possibility that the ultimate goal of some action is to benefit another
rather than to benefit oneself. The pleasure obtained can be a consequence of reaching the
goal without being the goal itself. The strong form of psychological hedonism is inconsistent
with the possibility of altruism. But to affirm this form is to assert that altruistic motivation
does not exist, not that it logically cannot exist. This affirmation is about matters of fact that
may or may not be true. (Kitcher, 2010; MacIntyre, 1967; and Milo, 1973, review these
philosophical arguments.) One can accept the weak form of psychological hedonism, as I do,
and still postulate the existence of a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing
anothers welfare i.e., altruistic motivation.

Eight Implications of These Definitions

As is true of most definitions, these definitions of altruism and egoism have some
implications that are not apparent at first glance. Some follow from what is said, others from
what is not said.
1. The distinction between altruism and egoism is qualitative, not quantitative. It is the
ultimate goal, not the strength of the motiveor even the relative strength of altruistic and
egoistic motivesthat distinguishes altruistic from egoistic motivation.
2. A single motive cannot be both altruistic and egoistic. To seek to benefit both self and
other implies two ultimate goals (as long as self and other are perceived to be distinct),
and each new ultimate goal defines a new goal-directed motive.
3. Both altruistic and egoistic motives can exist simultaneously within a single individual.
An individual can have more than one ultimate goal at a time, and so more than one
motive. That is, an individual can be pursuing more than one desired state. (Remember,
ultimate is not meant metaphysically.) If both altruistic and egoistic goals exist, are of
roughly equal attractiveness, and lie in different directions (i.e., behaviors leading toward
one lead away from the other), then the individual will experience motivational conflict.
4. As defined here, altruism and egoism apply only to the domain of goal-directed
motivation. If an individual acts reflexively or automatically without any goal, then no
matter how beneficial to another or to self the result may be, the act is neither altruistically
nor egoistically motivated.
5. A person may be altruistically motivated and not know it, may be egoistically motivated
and not know it, may believe that his or her motivation is altruistic when it is actually
egoistic, and vice versa. This is because we do not always knowor reportour true
motives (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). We may have a
22
 goal and not be aware of it, or we may mistakenly believe that our goal is A when it is
actually B. Self-reports cannot be trusted to reveal a persons motives, especially such
value-laden motives as those for benefiting another.
6. There may be motives for benefiting another that are neither altruistic nor egoistic. For
example, a person might have an ultimate goal of upholding a principle of justice. This
motive could lead the person to act to redress some injustice. Doing so might well benefit
others; it might also benefit the self. But these benefits would be unintended
consequences, not the ultimate goal. And if the ultimate goal is neither benefit to another
nor benefit to self, the motive is neither altruistic nor egoistic as defined here.
7. Both altruistic and egoistic motives may evoke a variety of behaviors, or no behavior at
all. Motives are goal-directed forces. Whether a force leads to action will depend on the
behavioral options available in the situation, as well as on other motivational forces
present at the time.
8. As defined, altruistic motivation need not involve self-sacrifice. Pursuing the ultimate goal
of increasing anothers welfare may involve cost to self, but it also may not. Indeed, it
may even involve self-benefit and the motivation still be altruistic as long as obtaining this
self-benefit is an unintended consequence of benefiting the other, not the ultimate goal.
Some scholars assume that altruism requires self-sacrifice. They cite as examples of altruism
cases in which one person benefits another when the cost of doing so is very high, possibly
even loss of life. These scholars apparently believe that in such cases the cost to self must
outweigh the reward, so the helpers goal could not be self-benefit.
There are at least two problems with including self-sacrifice in the definition of altruism.
First, it shifts attention from the crucial question of motivation to consequences. What if an
actor had no intention of risking death, but things got out of hand? Was the motivation
altruistic? Or what about a cost-free comforting hug for a grieving friend? It may involve no
self-sacrifice, but the ultimate goal may still be to increase the friends welfare. Goals, not
consequences, must be used to distinguish altruism from egoism.
Second, a definition based on self-sacrifice overlooks the possibility that some self-benefits
increase as the costs of benefiting another increase. The cost of being a hero, martyr, or saint
may be very great, but so may the anticipated reward. To avoid these two problems, I think it
best to define altruism in terms of benefit to other, not cost to self.

Four Other Uses of the Term Altruism

The term altruism has been used in four other ways from which the present conception should
be distinguished.

1. As Helping Behavior, Not Motivation

Some scholars set aside the issue of motivation, simply equating altruism with helping
behavior, i.e., with acting in a way that benefits another. This definition of altruism has

23
frequently been used by developmental psychologists, especially those studying children
from a social-learning perspective (see Rushton, 1980, for a review). Adopting such a
definition often reflects the influence of behaviorism, which excluded goal-directed motives
from consideration as unscientific speculation about unobservable internal states. The focus is
instead on observable behavior and on classical and operant conditioning of responses (for a
sophisticated example of this approach, see Aronfreed, 1968). Adopting such a definition
may also reflect a desire to avoid the methodological challenges involved in studying
motives. It is far easier to assess behavior than to assess motives. This is, however, poor
justification for adopting a research strategy. It is reminiscent of the strategy of the drunk
who made the search for his car keys easier by looking under the streetlight, even though that
was not where he dropped them.
Equating altruism with helping behavior has also been common among evolutionary
biologists, who have applied the term altruism across a very broad phylogenetic spectrum
from the social insects to humans (Alexander, 1987; Dawkins, 1976; Hamilton, 1964;
Trivers, 1971, 1985; Wilson, 1975). To illustrate this approach, consider the definition of
altruism offered by Ridley and Dawkins (1981):
In evolutionary theory, altruism means self-sacrifice performed for the benefit of others. In
everyday speech the word altruism carries connotations of subjective intent.... We do not
deny that animals have feelings and intentions, but we make more progress in understanding
animal behavior if we concentrate on its observable aspects. If we use words like altruism at
all, we define them by their effects and do not speculate about the animals intentions. An
altruistic act is one that has the effect of increasing the chance of survival (some would prefer
to say reproductive success) of another organism at the expense of the altruists.... It
follows that an indubitably unconscious entity such as a plant, or a gene, is in principle
capable of displaying altruism. (pp. 1920, italics in original)
I admire the clarity with which Ridley and Dawkins state their definition. But to use the term
altruism in the manner they propose strikes me as roughly equivalent to using the term
psychokinesis in a manner that includes changing TV channels with a remote. One could find
much evidence for psychokinesis so defined; yet the more intriguing question of the existence
of psychokinesis as ordinarily defined would remain. So too with the more intriguing
question of whether helpful behavior is ever directed toward benefiting another as an ultimate
goal.
To clarify matters, Sober and Wilson (1998) distinguished evolutionary altruism from
psychological altruism. Evolutionary altruism refers to behavior by one organism that
reduces its reproductive fitnessits potential to put its genes in the next generationrelative
to the reproductive fitness of one or more other organisms (i.e., Ridley & Dawkinss, 1981,
reproductive success). Psychological altruism refers to a motivational state with the
ultimate goal of increasing anothers welfare (i.e., altruism as I have defined it). Sober and
Wilson pointed out that there is no necessary connection between these two concepts.
Evolutionary altruism is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce psychological altruism.
I once heard Dawkins (1979) provocatively but accurately remark that a genetic alternative
or allelethat produces bad teeth in horses is altruistic by his evolutionary
24
definition. His reasoning was that horses with this allele would graze less effectively and so
leave more grass for others, which would reduce the relative reproductive fitness of the
afflicted horses. A parallel argument might be made for bad breath in humans. An allele
producing halitosis could be considered an example of evolutionary altruism if those who
have bad breath are less likely to mate and so to put their genes in the next generation.
As I am using the term, altruism does not refer to bad teeth in horses or bad breath in humans.
It refers to a specific kind of goal-directed motivation or intention for benefiting others
Sober and Wilsons psychological altruism. In the words of philosopher Philip Kitcher
(1998), The altruism that matters to us is not typically measured in the Darwinian currency
of reproduction;... it has everything to do with the intentions of the agent (p. 283).
Why have evolutionary biologists chosen to refer to behavior that reduces ones reproductive
success as altruism? The reason is not entirely clear, but the result is. Whether intentionally
or accidentally, this usage has traded on the psychological connotations of the term, leading
many non-biologists to think that evolutionary arguments for the existence of inclusive
fitness (Hamilton, 1964), reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971; 1985), or group selection (Sober
& Wilson, 1998) address the question of the existence of psychological altruism. Yet they do
not. Under certain circumstances and for certain species, each of these evolutionary processes
likely exists. But to know this tells us precisely nothing about the existence of psychological
altruism. Egoism and altruism as I have defined these terms could conceivably exist either in
the presence or in the absence of each of these evolutionary processes.
Unfortunately, using altruism to refer to helping behavior without concern for whether the
underlying motivation is egoistic or altruistic remains prominent among evolutionary
biologists and comparative psychologists (see, for example, de Waals, 2008, concept of
directed altruism). To illustrate, research demonstrating that laboratory rats will, at times,
help another rat in distress has been claimed to provide evidence of altruism in rats. It is true
that rats will bar press to lower another rat suspended in mid-air (Rice & Gainer, 1962) or to
remove a rat stranded in a tank of water (Rice, 1965). It is also true that rats will prefer the
turn in a maze that does not lead to another rat being shocked (Evans & Braud, 1969). And
rats will suppress a bar-press response for food when that response also shocks another rat
(Church, 1959; Greene, 1969). However, adding proper comparison conditions to research
designs reveals that the helping behavior of rats is a product of a desire to avoid a noxious
stimulus (the other rats squeals), especially after sensitization, and of conditioning, not of
either innate or acquired concern for the other rats welfare (Lavery & Foley, 1963; Lucke &
Batson, 1980). Similarly, research demonstrating that rhesus monkeys will respond to prevent
a shock being delivered to another monkey they can see and hear has been claimed to provide
evidence of altruism in monkeys (de Waal, 2008, 2009; Masserman, Wechkin, & Terris,
1964; Miller, 1967; Miller, Banks, & Ogawa, 1963; Wechkin, Masserman, & Terris, 1964).
Once again, however, desire to avoid noxious stimuli, sensitization, and conditioning can
readily account for these results.

25
Use of altruism to refer to helping behavior without concern for whether the underlying
motivation is egoistic or altruistic also remains prominent among behavioral economists, as
Fehr and Zehnder (2009) point out. Fehr and Gchter (2002), for example, referred to their
finding that a person monetarily harmed by another will retaliate by reducing that others
payoff even at monetary cost to self as altruistic punishment. Fortunately, some behavioral
economists have begun to give attention to motives that may underlie several forms of
helping behavior (e.g., Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004; Harbaugh, Mayr, & Burghart, 2007; Ribar
& Wilhelm, 2002).

2. As Acting Morally
Another use of the term altruism focuses on a specific set of helpful acts, those that meet
some standard for goodness or morality. This usage has also been common among
developmental psychologists, especially those who study moral development (e.g., Eisenberg,
1986, 1991, 2000; Hoffman, 1987, 1989, 2000). The link between altruism and morality
appears to be based on the juxtaposition of each to self-interest (cf., Mansbridge, 1990). Self-
interest is often equated with selfishness, which is in turn often considered to be the epitome
of immorality (Campbell, 1975; Wallach & Wallach, 1983). Altruism as typically defined
and as I have defined itinvolves other-interest rather than self-interest. It may seem to
follow logically that if self-interest is not moral, and altruism is not self-interest, then altruism
is moral. This logic is flawed, however. Quite apart from whether self-interest should be
equated with immoralityRawls (1971) and many others have challenged this equationto
say that A (self-interest) is not B (moral) and that C (altruism) is not A does not mean that C is
B. To say that apples are not bananas and that cherries are not apples does not mean that
cherries are bananas.
Altruistic motivation as I have defined it can be considered moral (as it was by the Scottish
philosophers David Hume, 1740/1896, and Adam Smith, 1759/1853), amoral (as it was by
Immanuel Kant, 1785/1889), or immoral (as it was by Ayn Rand, 1964). Similarly, egoistic
motivation for helping can be considered moral, amoral, or immoral.
Often, the morality of an action is decided on the basis of its consequences. Feeding the
hungry, housing the homeless, rescuing a drowning person, and comforting the sick are all
likely to be judged morally good, regardless of the underlying motive (although not by Kant,
1785/1889). Such goodness may lead us to question the nature of the underlying
motivationcould it be altruistic?but it does not answer this question. To keep
motivational concepts distinct from moral concepts, I think it wise to avoid using the moral
terms unselfish and selfish as synonyms for altruism and egoism. As we shall see in Part
III, altruism is not necessarily good. At times, it can lead people to violate their own moral
principles.

3. As Helping in Order to Gain Internal Rather Than External Rewards

Two other uses of altruism do address the issue of motivation for benefiting others. However,
rather than treating altruistic motivation as an alternative to egoistic motivation,

26
these approaches treat altruism as a special form of egoism. The third approach, which has
been common among social psychologists, defines altruism in a way that includes benefiting
another as a means to benefit oneselfas long as the self-benefits are internally rather than
externally administered.
For example, Cialdini and his associates (Cialdini, Baumann, & Kenrick, 1981; Cialdini,
Darby, & Vincent, 1973; Cialdini & Kenrick, 1976) spoke of an internalization process
through which by adulthood altruism... comes to act as self-reward (Cialdini et al., 1981, p.
215). Bar-Tal and his associates (Bar-Tal, 1976; Bar-Tal, Sharabany, & Raviv, 1982) also
focused on self-rewards for altruismfeelings of self-satisfaction and... a rise in... self-
esteem (Bar-Tal et al., 1982, p. 387). For them, altruism is helping that is (a) self-chosen
rather than chosen in compliance to external authority and (b) self-reinforced rather than
externally reinforced. Schwartz and his associates (Schwartz, 1977; Schwartz & Howard,
1982) viewed altruism as motivated by personal norms, defined as situation-specific
behavioral expectations generated from ones own internalized values, backed by self-
administered sanctions and rewards (Schwartz & Howard, 1982, p. 329). Grusec (1981)
defined altruism as the development of consideration for others which no longer depends on
external surveillance (p. 65); instead, it depends on internalized values (also see Grusec,
1991). Staub (1978, 1979) presented a similar but more differentiated view:
A prosocial act may be judged altruistic if it appears to have been intended to benefit others
rather than to gain either material or social rewards. Altruistic prosocial acts are likely to be
associated, however, with internal rewards (and the expectation of such rewards) and with
empathic reinforcing experiences. (1978, p. 10)
None of these views describes altruism as I am using the term because in each the ultimate
goal is some form of self-benefit. Benefiting the other is an instrumental means to reach this
egoistic ultimate goal. As a result, the considerable empirical evidence for altruism
presented by those who use the term in this way does not permit an affirmative answer to the
question of whether altruism as I am defining it exists. Rather than demonstrating altruism,
the evidence only serves to document some of the subtle, non-material, egoistic motives for
benefiting another.

4. As Benefiting Another in Order to Reduce Aversive Arousal Caused by

Witnessing the Others Suffering
A final alternative assumes that altruism is motivation to benefit another as a means to reduce
ones own distress caused by witnessing the others distress. The idea that acting to reduce
anothers distress might be motivated by the desire to reduce vicarious personal distress has a
long history in Western thought. It was expressed by Thomas Aquinas (1270/1917), Thomas
Hobbes (1651), Bernard Mandeville (1714/1732), and William McDougall (1908). But none
of those thinkers considered such motivation to be altruistic.
The best-known contemporary expression of this idea is the arousal-reduction model
originally developed by Jane and Irving Piliavin (1973) and later revised by Piliavin,

27
Dovidio, Gaertner, and Clark (1981, 1982; see also Dovidio, Piliavin, Gaertner, Schroeder, &
Clark, 1991, and Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio, and Piliavin, 1995). Although its authors were
careful to call the arousal-reduction model a model of bystander intervention or
emergency intervention rather than of altruism, it has often been adopted as an account of
altruistic motivation by others (e.g., Karylowski, 1982). The heart of the Piliavin model is
summarized in two propositions:
(a) In general, the arousal occasioned by observation of an emergency and attributed to the
emergency becomes more unpleasant as it increases, and the bystander is therefore
motivated to reduce it.
(b) The bystander will choose that response to an emergency that will most rapidly and most
completely reduce the arousal, incurring in the process as few net costs (costs minus
rewards) as possible. (Piliavin et al., 1982, p. 281)
One way for a bystander to reduce his or her unpleasant arousal is to relieve the others
distressi.e., helpbecause doing so removes the stimulus causing the bystanders own
distress.
Variations on the theme of altruism as aversive-arousal reduction have been provided by
Hornstein (1976, 1978, 1982), Reykowski (1982), and Lerner (1970). Hornstein suggested
that when certain others are in needspecifically, those whom one cognitively links to self
as us and we rather than them and theyone experiences a state of promotive
tension, in which one is aroused by anothers needs almost as if they were ones own
(Hornstein, 1982, p. 230, italics in original). Once so aroused, one is motivated to reduce this
tension:
In some circumstances human beings experience others as we, not as they. When this
happens, bonds exist that permit one persons plight to become a source of tension for his or
her fellows. Seeking relief, they reduce this tension by aiding a fellow we-grouper.... Self-
interest is served and tension is reduced when one acts on the others behalf. (Hornstein,
1978, p. 189)
Reykowski (1982) proposed a quite different source of motivation to benefit the other, but
one that still involves reduction of ones own aversive tension state: The sheer discrepancy
between information about the real or possible state of an object and standards of its normal
or desirable state will evoke motivation (p. 361). So, if one perceives a discrepancy between
the current and expected or ideal state of anothers welfare, one will experience motivation to
reduce the upsetting inconsistency. Reykowski called this intrinsic prosocial motivation.
Lerners (1970) just-world hypothesis led him to a view similar to, but more specific than,
Reykowskis. Lerner suggested that most of us believe in a just worlda world in which
people get what they deserve and deserve what they getand that the existence of a victim of
innocent suffering is inconsistent with this belief. In order to reduce aversive arousal
produced by the inconsistency, we may helpor may derogatethe victim.
According to each of these arousal-reduction approaches, the potential helpers ultimate goal
is to reduce his or her own unpleasant arousal or tension. Increasing the others
28
welfare is simply an instrumental means to reach this egoistic goal. None refers to altruistic
motivation as I have defined it.
In sum, most of the rather vast literatures in biology, primatology, behavioral economics, and
developmental and social psychologyas well as anthropology, sociology, and political
sciencethat claims to provide data on altruism will be of little use to us. These literatures
rarely even aspire to address the motivational issues that are our concern.
Empathic Concern Produces Altruistic Motivation
With this explication of the terms empathic concern and altruistic motivation, we can
return to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. The hypothesis states that feeling other-oriented
emotion elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of another person in need (i.e.,
empathic concern) produces a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing that
persons welfare by having the empathy-inducing need removed (i.e., altruistic motivation).
The more empathy felt for the person in need, the more motivation to have the need removed.
As stated at the outset, the hypothesis does not claim that empathic concern is the only source
of altruistic motivation. Rather, it claims that empathic concern is a source of altruistic
motivation, remaining agnostic about other sources. The empathy-altruism hypothesis is
represented pictorially in Figure 1.1.
Looking at this simple figure, note that it depicts a strong form of the empathy-altruism
hypothesis rather than a weak form. The strong form claims not only that empathic concern
produces altruistic motivation but also that all motivation produced by empathic concern is
altruistic. The weak form claims that empathic concern may produce other forms of
motivation as welle.g., egoistic motivation or moral motivation. I shall focus on the strong
form of the empathy-altruism hypothesis not because it is logically or psychologically
superior but because, first, it makes clearer predictions and, second, the research to date
designed to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis has addressed this form.
To claim that empathic concern produces only altruistic motivation, as does the strong form
of the empathy-altruism hypothesis, is not to claim that an individual feeling empathic
concern is only altruistically motivated. This individual may also experience egoistic motives
arising from sources other than empathy. Indeed, the conditions identified

Figure 1.1 The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis: Empathic Concern Produces Altruistic Motivation

29
in the next chapter as necessary to produce empathic concern, and hence altruistic motivation,
are likely also to produce egoistic motives. Perception of another as in need is one necessary
condition for the empathic concern that produces altruism. But perception of need may also
arouse a desire to gain social and self-rewards for helping, as well as a desire to avoid social
and self-punishments for failing to help. These egoistic motives and the altruistic motive
produced by empathic concern are distinct because they have different ultimate goals, but
they may co-occur. Moreover, to the extent that the goals of these motives are compatible,
their magnitudes should sum.

Why Does Empathic Concern Produce Altruistic Motivation?

The empathy-altruism hypothesis is descriptive rather than explanatory. It states that
empathic concern produces altruistic motivation but gives no reason why this is so.
Identifying the antecedent conditions that lead one to feel empathic concern, which I shall do
in the next chapter, sheds some light on the question of why empathic concern produces
altruistic motivation. Additional light comes from considering the general relationship
between emotion and motivation, especially goal-directed motivation. Why do humans have
emotions, including empathic emotions? What function or functions do they serve? I would
suggest that emotions serve two proximal functions (as distinct from possible evolutionary
functions), an information function and an amplification function (see Batson, Shaw, &
Oleson, 1992).

Information Function of Emotions

Emotions are typically felt when a person experiences some change in his or her relation to a
valued state. A valued state is one that is preferred relative to possible alternatives. If I obtain
a valued state (e.g., achieve a goal), I feel happy. If I lose a valued state (e.g., fail to achieve
the goal), I feel sad. If I obtain an especially valued state, I do not simply feel happy; I feel
elated. And so on. Given this relationship between emotions and valued states, the quality
and intensity of my emotional response to an event reflects whether and how much I value
that event.
Sometimes, I am either unaware of or deceived about how much I value some state. To
discover that I feel elated rather than simply happy tells me that I value the new state more
highly than I thought. (We can, of course, be fooled when arousal from another source, such
as a drug, is misattributed to our emotional responseSchachter, 1964). Returning to the
example presented at the beginning of the chapter, to find that you feel very sorry for your
friend who has lost her job reflects how much you value her welfare. To find that you also
feel anxious and uneasy tells you that you value your own welfare too. This is the
information function of emotion. (For a considerably more developed view of the information
function that also considers the relevant neurophysiology, see Damasios, 1994, 1999, 2003,
somatic-marker hypothesis; for related empirical research,

30
see Batson, Engel, & Fridell, 1999; Gottfried, ODoherty, & Dolan, 2003; Naqvi, Shiv, &
Bechara, 2006; Sanfey, Rilling, Aronson, Nystrom, & Cohen, 2003.)

Amplification Function of Emotions

Many emotions (but by no means all) arise in response to perceived needs. Need-state
emotions include feelings of fear, anxiety, anticipation, yearning, and the like. They arise
when we perceive a negative discrepancy between the current state of affairs and the state we
desirewhen we either value some state that is not currently ours or perceive that we may
lose a valued state that is currently ours. Moreover, emotions and motives employ, in part, the
same physiology; that is, many of the neurological and somatic systems involved in the
experience of emotion are also involved in the arousal of the organism for activity to address
needs (Buck, 1985; Damasio, 1994, 2003). As a result, the physiological arousal component
of an emotion can increase the intensity of goal-directed motivation to eliminate the
perceived need. It might be said that emotions help turn potential energy (potential
motivation) into kinetic energy (actual motivation). This is the amplification function of
emotion (also see Tomkins, 1982). (Need-state emotions that amplify motivation should be
distinguished from end-state emotions that arise when we either have obtained or have lost a
valued state, such as happiness or sadness. End-state emotions serve the information function
but do not amplify goal-directed motivation. For more detail, see Chapter 9 and Batson et al.,
1992.)
These two functions of emotions are found in the empathy-altruism relationship. First, the
definition of empathic concern as other-oriented emotion elicited by and congruent with the
perceived welfare of a person in need reflects the information function of this need-state
emotion. The strength of ones empathic concern provides information about the amount of
value one places on the others welfarespecifically, on having the others need removed.
Second, the definition of altruism as a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing
anothers welfare reflects the amplification function. Empathic concern activates the desire to
reach the goal of eliminating the perceived need of the person for whom the empathy is felt.
That is, empathic concern produces altruistic motivation.
The proposed empathy-altruism relationship is, then, a special case of the general
amplification function of emotion evoked by a perceived need or discrepancy between what
is observed and what is desired (valued). The case of empathic concern producing altruistic
motivation is special because the discrepancy at issue concerns someone elses welfare, not
ones own.

Antecedents and Consequences

With the empathy-altruism hypothesis before us, it is time to broaden our perspective. First,
we need to consider the psychological antecedents of empathic concern. Clearly, we do not
always feel empathic concern for others in need. Under what conditions do we?

31
This question is addressed in Chapter 2. Second, we need to consider the psychological
consequences of experiencing altruistic motivation. I have already noted that altruistic
motivation does not always lead to action to benefit the other. When does it? What are the
other possibilities? These questions are addressed in Chapter 3. Answers provide a
conceptual framework for empirical tests of whether the motivation evoked by empathic
concern is altruistic, as the empathy-altruism hypothesis claims. Empirical tests are
considered in Part II.

32
2 Antecedents of Empathic Concern

If empathic concern produces altruistic motivation, as the empathy-altruism hypothesis

claims, then what produces empathic concern? Think back to your experience at lunch
described in Chapter 1. What caused you to feel so sorry for your friend? First, she had just
lost her job, and was hurt and scared. Second, she was a close friend; you cared what
happened to her and how she felt. More generally, in everyday life two conditions seem
necessary to feel empathic concern: (a) perceiving the other as in need and (b) valuing the
others welfare. The relationship of these antecedents is specified in Figure 2.1 with a
multiplication sign, indicating that some level of each antecedent is necessary and, beyond
this threshold level, the magnitude of empathic concern is a product of the strength of each.
Hence, the shared causal path to empathic concern. The relative weighting of the two
antecedents, and whether the effect of each is linear ormore likelynegatively accelerated
as it approaches some asymptote, is not specified.
Perceiving the Other as in Need
In Chapter 1, I spoke of perceiving another as in need without saying exactly what was
meant. Now it is time to be more precise. Perceiving need involves perceiving a negative
discrepancy between the others current state and what is desirable for the other on one or
more dimensions of well-being. Dimensions of well-being include the absence of physical
pain, negative affect, anxiety, stress, danger, and disease, as well as the presence of physical
pleasure, positive affect, satisfaction, and security.
The negative discrepancy in well-being that is at issue is for the person in need, not for the
person feeling empathic concern. But the perception at issue is by the person feeling
empathy, not the person in need. There are times when people perceive themselves to be in
need, yet others do not. These others will not experience empathic concernunless they
consider the false perception of need itself to be a need. Alternatively, there are times when
people do not perceive themselves to be in need, yet others do. These others may well feel
empathic concern.
Perception of need seems to be a threshold function of two situational factors: First, the
discrepancy (real or apparent) between what is and what is desirable must be noticed

33
 Figure 2.1 Antecedents of Empathic Concern

(Clark & Word, 1972, 1974; Latan & Darley, 1970). Second, attention must be focused on
the person in need, not on the self or some other aspect of the situation (Aderman &
Berkowitz, 1983; Gibbons & Wicklund, 1982; Mathews & Canon, 1975; Milgram, 1970;
Weiner, 1976; Wicklund, 1975). Both of these conditions must simultaneously be satisfied to
perceive anothers need.
Satisfying these conditions does not, however, guarantee perception of need. Additional
cognitive and situational factorssuch as being led by the reactions of other bystanders to
misinterpret the situation (No one else seems upset, so I guess that scream was not a cry of
distress, only play.)may lead a perceiver to minimize or even deny an apparent need
(Latan & Darley, 1970). Additional factors may also facilitate perception of need in
ambiguous situations. One such factor, described in Chapter 1, is imagining yourself in the
others shoes. It may lead you to recognize that, were you in the others situation, you would
be experiencing need.
Given that need is perceived, it can vary in magnitude. The magnitude appears to be a
function of three factors: (a) the number of dimensions of well-being on which discrepancies
are perceived, (b) the size of each discrepancy, and (c) the perceived importance of each of
these dimensions for the overall well-being of the person in need.
Is Perceived Innocence Necessary for Empathic Concern?
Weiner (1980) and Nussbaum (2001) both contend that in addition to perceiving a person as
in need we must also perceive him or her to be free of responsibility for causing the need
before we can feel empathic concern (sympathy, pity, compassion). For them, perception of
need and perception of innocence are two separate antecedents. Yet, as Nussbaum notes, we
readily feel compassion for those for whom we especially care, even when they bring
suffering on themselves. Nussbaum attempts to handle such cases by suggesting that we see
these others, such as our children, as being at a stage of life where they cannot be held
responsible. But she fails to consider those cases in which we feel

34
compassion for adults for whom we especially careclose friends, lovers, spouses, siblings,
parentseven when they bring suffering on themselves. This omission is, I think, a problem.
(In response to John Deigh, 2004, Nussbaum, 2004, modified her position to allow for
compassion without consideration of blame, but she did not deal with cases in which we feel
compassion for loved ones in spite of knowing they caused their own need.)
I propose a different analysis. Rather than two separate antecedents, I believe that perceived
responsibility contributes to our perception of need. In general, we may feel that people who
bring suffering on themselves get what they deserve. If so, and if we also believe that people
should get what they deserve (Lerner, 1970), then there is no discrepancy between our
perception of their current state and the state we deem desirable for them. We perceive no
need. But deservedness is not the only dimension of well-being on which we assess the state
of those for whom we care. Discrepancies on these other dimensions may lead to a perception
of needand to empathic concerneven when there is no perceived discrepancy on
deservedness.
Vulnerability
One form of need that should get special mention is vulnerability. Even when there is no
specific immediate discrepancy between what is and what is desirable, another may be
perceived to be vulnerable to such discrepancies, which is itself a form of need.
Perception of vulnerability is especially likely if the other is viewed as comparatively
defenseless and unaware of danger. Think, for example, of your reaction to seeing a young
child happily running across a playground, or to seeing this child safely asleep in bed. Think
of your reaction to seeing a puppy in similar situations. No immediate need is apparent. Still,
the young childsor puppysvulnerability is apt to trigger empathic feelings of
tenderness, warmth, and softheartedness. Vulnerability alone does not, however, trigger
feelings of sympathy or pity. These latter empathic feelings seem to require the presence of
an immediate need (Dijker, 2001; Lishner, 2003).
Evidence That Empathic Concern Requires Perception of Need
Not wanting to take anything for granted, several psychologists conducted research in the
1960s to demonstrate that empathic concern requires perception of need. Berger (1962) had
people observe a target person perform a task. He led these people to believe that at the onset
of a visual signal the target either received electric shocks (electric-shock condition) or did
not (no-shock condition). Further, the target either jerked his arm at the visual signal
(movement condition) or did not (no-movement condition). All research participants were
told that they themselves would not be shocked during the experiment.
Berger reasoned, first, that both a painful stimulus in the environment (shock) and a distress
response (movement) were necessary for an observer to infer that the target was experiencing
pain (i.e., need). He reasoned, second, that if participants in his experiment

35
were feeling empathic concern for the target, as opposed to feeling fear or anxiety about the
shock itself, then they should display a physiological reaction to watching the target only
when they inferred that he was experiencing pain. Accordingly, Berger predicted that only
participants in the shock/movement condition would display increased physiological arousal
because only they would make this inference. For participants in each of the other three
conditions, some information necessary to infer pain was missing.
Results followed the predicted pattern. Consistent with the assumption that people can
experience empathic concern when attending to another perceived to be in need, participants
in the shock/movement condition were more physiologically aroused while observing the
target than were participants in the other three conditions. (Physiological arousal was
assessed by electrodermal skin conductance.) Berger concluded that empathic arousal occurs
in response to perceived need. Subsequent research also supported this conclusion (Bandura
& Rosenthal, 1966; Craig & Lowery, 1969; Craig & Wood, 1969). Later, Hygge (1976)
tested and found support for the idea that the evoked physiological arousal (again assessed by
skin conductance) is a response to what the target is believed to be experiencing and not a
response to what participants believe they would themselves experience in the targets
situation (also see Lamm et al., 2010).
It is important to note that results of these studies do not fit an automatic motor-mimicry or
neural response matching view of empathic emotion, such as Preston and de Waals (2002b)
perception-action model (PAM). Physiological responses in these studies were not automatic
reactions to what was visually perceived. Instead, the responses were clearly contingent on
cognitive interpretation of the targets experience. They were responses to perception of need.
The research by Berger (1962), Hygge (1976), and others just mentioned demonstrates that
people respond physiologically to perceiving another as in need. Stotland (1969) reported a
series of experiments supporting two further ideas: (a) this response reflects other-oriented
empathic concern, and (b) perspective taking can increase empathic concern. Stotland had
research participants watch a male target undergo what they believed was a painful diathermy
treatment. Participants instructed to imagine how the target felt (imagine-him condition) or to
imagine how they would feel in the targets place (imagine-self condition) showed more
physiological arousal (assessed by vasoconstriction and palmar sweat) and reported feeling
more emotion than participants instructed to watch the targets movements (observe
condition). These participants also showed more physiological arousal and reported feeling
more emotion than participants given the imagine instructions but led to believe that the
diathermy treatment was not painful.
Consistent with the distinction made in Chapter 1 between the imagine-other and imagine-
self perspectives, emotional effects of the two forms of perspective taking were not the same,
either on physiological or self-report measures. Among participants observing the target
undergo what they thought was a painful diathermy experience, those given the imagine-him
instructions showed more vasoconstriction, which Stotland (1969) interpreted as evidence
that they were reacting to the feelings they perceived the model as having at a given
moment (p. 296). Those given the imagine-self instructions showed more palmar sweat and
reported feeling more tension and nervousness, which
36
Stotland interpreted as evidence that their emotional reactions were more self-oriented and
not quite so tied to the experience of the model (p. 297). Thus, the imagine-him instructions
seemed to evoke relatively pure empathic feelings, whereas the imagine-self instructions
seemed to evoke more personal distress (for parallel findings, see Batson, Early, & Salvarani,
1997).

Who Can Perceive Another as in Need?

Cognitive Abilities Required

Surprisingly perhaps, perception of another as in need may be a uniquely human skill. If so,
and if this perception is a necessary antecedent of empathic concern, then empathic concern
and empathy-induced altruism must be uniquely humans also. Consider the cognitive abilities
necessary to perceive another as in need. First, one must recognize the other as an animate
being who is not only qualitatively different from physical objects but also distinct from other
animate beings, including oneself. Apparently, this recognition occurs in the normal childs
first year of life (Hoffman, 1975, 2000). It also occurs early in the normal development of
non-human primatesand probably in the development of other higher mammals as well
(Tomasello, 1999).
Second, it is necessary to recognize that the other has values, goals, and feelings. Tomasello
(1999) speaks of this as understanding that the other is an intentional agent, not merely an
animate being. Hoffman (1987, 2000) speaks of awareness that others have feelings and
internal states. Povinelli (Povinelli & Bering, 2002; Povinelli et al., 2000) speaks of second-
order mental states, which involve inferring intentions. Tomasello (1999) presents evidence
that this ability emerges in normal children at around 912 months; Hoffman (2000) puts it a
bit later, at around 1824 months (also see Bretherton, McNew, & Beeghly-Smith, 1981;
Dunn & Kendrick, 1982; Kagan, 2000; Meltzoff, 1995; Thompson, 1987). Within this age
range, infants first begin to recognize that they have goals, intentions, desires, and feelings.
Soon thereafterperhaps because of a uniquely human adaptation that allows them to
understand other persons as beings like me yet distinct from me (Tomasello, 1999)
infants begin to recognize that others also have goals, intentions, desires, and feelings. With
this recognition, infants see others not simply as acting but as acting with purpose,
circumventing barriers and using alternative behavioral routes to reach desired goals. (The
recognition of desires and feelings in others may be related to the development of Von
Economo neurons in the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortexsee Allman, Watson,
Tetreault, & Hakeem, 2005; Craig, 2005.) Often, infants initially extend this perception too
far, applying it not only to people but also to toys and machines. Over time, experience hones
the perception.

Who Has These Abilities?

Both Tomasello (1999) and Povinelli et al. (2000) concluded based on the existing evidence
at the time that the ability to see others as sentient, intentional agents was limited to humans
(and possibly some human-reared primates). Other primates have the

37
ability to recognize and generalize from contingent stimulus-response relations and to predict
the behavior of others (if I kick her, she is likely to kick back), but even chimpanzees seemed
to lack the ability to infer the internal mediating processesfeelings, desires, goals, and
intentionsthat explain why a given stimulus-response sequence occurs (she doesnt like to
be kicked). Humans have both.
Tomasello (1999) further suggested that the ability to perceive others as intentional agents is
the basis for cultural learning and cultural evolution. It is what allows humans (a) to learn
ways of dealing with the world through observing others, (b) to learn goal-directed strategies
from others, (c) to be able to creatively modify these strategies, and (d) to be able to
recognize and retain improvements. If all this is true, then the ability to recognize others as
intentional agents is one truly giant step for mankind. Moreover, if only humans have this
capacity, then only humans, and no other species, are capable of experiencing empathic
concern and the altruistic motivation it produces. Recognition of the other as a sentient,
intentional agent with values, goals, desires, and feelings is necessary to perceive
discrepancies on dimensions of well-being, because without this recognition, issues of the
others well-being do not arise. There can be no perception of need and, hence, no empathic
concern.
But one must be cautious about claiming that a given ability is uniquely human. Such claims
have often proved false. Indeed, Tomasello has more recently withdrawn his claim that
chimpanzees lack the ability to see others as sentient, intentional agents (Call & Tomasello,
2008; Tomasello, Call, & Hare, 2003), although Povinelli has not (Penn, Holyoak, &
Povinelli, 2008; Povinelli & Vonk, 2003). Tomasello now argues that evidence from
experiments modeled more closely on situations that chimpanzees routinely encounter in
their natural environment, such as competition for food, do provide evidence that at least
human-reared chimpanzees understand others as having goals and intentions. Call and
Tomasello (2008) claim that the new experimental data cannot be explained by arguing that
chimpanzees rely on behavioral rules, even circumstance-contingent behavioral rules.
However, it seems that these data can be explained if the chimpanzees in the new
experiments are applying learned knowledge of abstract contingent action-consequence
relations (If I reach toward the food in front of him, hell grab and eat it, but not if his head
is turned. If either Action A or Action B would produce Consequence C, and she chooses
A, then it may be the better means to produce C.). Use of such knowledge occurs in a wide
range of mammalian species and does not require inferences about anothers goals or
intentions, only probabilistic knowledge of contingent action-consequence relations. Thus,
even the more recent experimental data have not provided clear evidence that chimpanzees
infer intentions. The question of whether only humans see others as intentional agents
remains unresolved (Call & Tomasello, 2008; Penn et al., 2008).
Frans de Waal (1996) provided a nice illustration of how hard it is to resist the assumption
that when other animals display behavior similar to what we might display in a given
situation, their behavior must be the product of equally complex psychological processes.
Most dog owners and lovers, myself included, are quite familiar with canine guilt. Mango, a
Siberian husky, displayed such guilt after persisting in shredding newspapers,
38
magazines, and books, despite scolding and punishment. Mangos owner thought Mango
knew the shredding was wrong and was acting out of spite for having been left alone. Peter
Vollmer (1977), an animal behavior consultant, used a simple demonstration to show that
although Mango behaved as if she were feeling spite and guilt, her behavior was a product of
a learned contingent action-consequence relation. With Mango out of the house, Vollmer had
her owner shred some newspapers. Mango was then let back in the house, and her owner left
for fifteen minutes. On the owners return, Mango acted as guilty as when she shredded
things herself. In de Waals words: The only thing she seemed to understand was: Evidence
+ Owner = Trouble (1996, pp. 107108). We are easily misled about the psychological
processes underlying a behavioral sequence when it is taken out of the context of situational
cues and learning history. (Sapolsky, 2010, provides other nice examples.)
For present purposes, the ongoing debate about whether other species infer intentions or
simply use knowledge of contingent action-consequence relations to behave as if they infer
intentions highlights the point that in order to have evidence of empathic concern and
empathy-induced altruism it is not enough to observe a response by one organism to
anothers distress cries, even a response intended to stop those cries. One must have evidence
that the others plight is more than a noxious stimulus or a conditioned cue for danger, as it
appears to have been in the research claiming evidence of altruism in mice, rats, and
monkeys described in Chapter 1 (also see Langford, Crager, Shehzad, Smith, Sotocinal,
Levenstadt, Chanda, Levitin, & Mogil, 2006) as well as in research showing that one
chimpanzee will console the loser of a fight (de Waal, 1996, 2008; Romero, Castellanos, &
de Waal, 2010) or will help another get food (Warneken, Hare, Melis, Hanus, & Tomasello,
2007, Experiment 3). There must be perception of need, other-oriented emotion, and a goal-
directed desire to remove the need.

What About Primates, Elephants, Dolphins, and Dogs?

Some primatologists believe they see evidence of sensitivity to the feelings and intentions of
othersand evidence of empathy and altruismamong at least some primate species other
than humans (de Waal, 1996, 2008, 2009; de Waal, Leimgruber, & Greenberg, 2008;
Goodall, 1990; Kohler, 1927; Povinelli, 1993; Preston & de Waal, 2002a; for contrary
evidence see Brosnan, Silk, Henrich, Mareno, Lambeth, & Schapiro, 2009; Jensen, Hare,
Call, & Tomasello, 2006; Povinelli & Bering, 2002; Povinelli et al., 2000; Silk, Brosnan,
Vonk, Henrich, Povinelli, Richardson, Lambeth, Mascaro, & Schapiro, 2005; Vonk, Brosnan,
Silk, Henrich, Richardson, Lambeth, Schapiro, & Povinelli, 2008; Warneken & Tomasello,
2006, but also see Warneken et al., 2007). Other experts make similar claims for elephants
(Bates et al., 2008; de Waal, 1996; Moss, 2000; Poole, 1997), or for dolphins and whales
(Caldwell & Caldwell, 1966; Connor & Norris, 1982; Hindley, 1985; McIntyre, 1974;
Trivers, 1985, pp. 382386, but also see Wilson, 1975, pp. 474475). Darwin (1871, p. 104),
who was a great lover of dogs, thought that he could see such sensitivity when a dog gently
licks the face of an injured master or an ailing canine friend (but see Macpherson & Roberts,
2006).

39
However, careful examination of existing evidence reveals that even the most touching and
tantalizing examples of nonhuman response to another in need fail to show unequivocal
awareness that the other is in needlet alone empathic emotion and altruistic motivation.
Consider the famous 1996 case of Binti Jua, the 8-year-old female gorilla at the Brookfield
Zoo outside Chicago who rescued and gently held an unconscious 3-year-old boy after he fell
into the primate enclosure. Binti Jua eventually turned the child over to the zoo staff
unharmed. As Joan Silk (2009) explains:
Some have cited this incident as evidence for empathy and sympathy in apes, arguing that
Binti Jua was motivated by compassion and concern for the welfare of the child (Preston &
de Waal, 2002). However, other facts need to be considered. Binti Jua was hand-reared by
humans, after being rejected by her own mother. Concerned that Binti Jua might become a
neglectful mother herself, the zoo staff used operant training methods to guide the
development of appropriate maternal skills. One of the things that she was trained to do was
to retrieve a doll-like object and bring it to the front of the enclosure, where the zoo personnel
could inspect it. (pp. 275276)
Did Binti Jua perceive the childs need and act to meet it, or was her response generalized
from the training she received prior to the birth of her own baby? I do not think we know. As
with Mango, a behavioral episode taken out of the context of situational cues and learning
history can easily be misread.
There are a number of non-human examples that, without knowing more about context, seem
to satisfy the conditions for perceiving need (i.e., for understanding the other is a sentient,
intentional agent with desires and feelings), providing what de Waal (2008) has called
targeted helping. One example offered by de Waal (1996, p. 83) is the intriguing
observation by Otto Adang of two chimpanzees, Krom and Jakie, at the Arnhem Zoo. Krom,
an elderly female, spent over ten minutes pulling and pushing on a rubber tire that held some
water. The tire was hanging on a horizontal log extending from a climbing frame.
Unfortunately, there were a half-dozen heavy tires hanging in front of the tire with the water,
and Krom made no progress in getting it off the log. Jakie, a 7-year-old male whom Krom
had taken care of as a juvenile, watched her struggle unsuccessfully with the tire and finally
give up. When she walked away, Jakie went over, pushed the tires off the log one by one
until he was able to remove the tire with the water. He then carried it straight to Krom, who
began scooping the water out with her hand and drinking. Jakies behavior seems hard to
explain without assuming that he perceived Kroms need (i.e., he recognized what she wanted
but did not have) and acted to meet that need.
A second example suggests possible anticipation of need on the part of an old, experienced
male bonobo, Kakowet. The moat around the bonobo enclosure at the San Diego Zoo was
routinely drained for cleaning. One day, unnoticed by the keepers, several young bonobos
had entered the dry moat and were unable to get out. When the keepers went to open the
valve to refill the moat, Kakowet came to the window screaming and waving his arms,
alerting the keepers and preventing possible disaster (de Waal, 2006, p. 71).
These examples are certainly intriguing and suggestive, but given our lack of knowledge of
context, it is probably unwise to place the heavy weight of a claim that chimpanzees,
bonobos, or other species satisfy the conditions for perceiving need on
40
these two examplesor on the other examples that might be cited, such as the efforts of
elephants to help a wounded or sick member of the herd to rise (Moss, 2000; Poole, 1997) or
of dolphins and whales to protect or rescue pod-mates and even humans (Caldwell &
Caldwell, 1966; Connor & Norris, 1982). Nor is the experimental evidence to date yet clear
enough to warrant such a claim. At least for now, it seems wise to suspend judgment on this
important possibility. Fortunately, we need not settle the issue of non-human perception of
need to proceed with our analysis of altruism in humans. There is little doubt that by two
years of age, most normal human children are capable of perceiving need. They understand
that others are sentient and goal directed. Failure to understand this is considered a key
feature of autism (Allman et al., 2005; Gillberg, 1992; Klin, 2000; Tomasello, 1999).
Valuing the Others Welfare
The two abilities that Tomasello identified(a) recognize others as distinct, animate beings
and (b) recognize them as sentient, intentional agentsenable one to perceive another as in
need (as deficient on one or more dimensions of well-being). But to feel empathic concern,
more is required; one also needs to care about whether the other is in need and about how this
need affects the others life. Apparently, in normal humans the capacity to place value on
anothers welfare emerges somewhere between one and three years of age (Hoffman, 1975,
2000; Rheingold, 1982; Thompson, 1987; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979;
Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, & Chapman, 1992). When it fails to develop, we
speak of psychopathy or sociopathy (Anderson, Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1999;
Damasio, 1994; also see Blair, 2004, 2007).
Why should one person value anothers welfare, especially someone who is not kin? Is not
such valuing a violation of principles of natural selection? Is not interest exclusively in ones
own welfarein looking out for Number Onea central tenet of the theory of rational
choice? We need to consider in some detail what might lead one person to value anothers
welfare.
One often hears lip service paid to valuing all human life or the welfare of all humanity
(Monroe, 1996). Most of us, however, place different value on the welfare of different others.
We value the welfare of some quite highly. We value the welfare of some very little, if at all.
We may even place a negative value on the welfare of some, such as a rival.
If we place no value on the welfare of a person perceived to be in need, then we are not likely
to think about how this person is affected by the need, except perhaps as a means to control
his or her behavior. The perceived need provides no basis for feeling empathic concernor
any other emotion. We understand what the other needs but do not care. This might be called
a dispassionate or objective orientation to the other.
If we place negative value on a persons welfare, which we may if we dislike or are in
competition with the person, then perceiving him or her in need will produce emotions quite
different from the other-oriented, congruent emotions I am calling empathic concern. We are
apt to feel pleasure at the persons suffering, or even the malicious glee

41
called schadenfreude (James, 1890; Lanzetta & Englis, 1989; Singer, Seymour, ODoherty,
Stephan, Dolan, & Frith, 2006; Zillmann & Cantor, 1977). In this case, although we may be
well aware of the other persons desires and feelings about his or her situation, we do not
adopt an other-oriented value assessment of events. Instead, our assessment is antithetical to
this persons welfare. This might be called a hostile orientation.
If we positively value a persons welfare, then we are likely to think about how this person is
affected by the events in his or her life, and to adopt an other-oriented value assessment of
these events. By an other-oriented value assessment, I mean one that is congruent with the
perceived welfare (well-being) of the other. Positive value is placed on events that we think
will bring the person pleasure, joy, satisfaction, safety, or relief; negative value is placed on
events that we think will bring the person pain, sorrow, discontent, danger, or
disappointment. Such valuing not only produces a lively response to events that affect this
persons welfare, much as we might respond to events that affect our own welfare, but it also
produces vigilance. It leads us naturally to adopt his or her perspective, imagining how this
person thinks and feels about events. His or her welfare becomes part of our own value
structure. This might be called a sympathetic orientation.

Why Not Similarity Instead of Valuing?

Not everyone considers valuing the others welfare to be a basic antecedent of empathic
concern. Many focus on perceived similarity instead. For example, Nussbaum (2001) refers
to Aristotles analysis of pity in the Rhetoric (1932). She suggests that for Aristotle the
perceivers belief that his or her possibilities are similar to those of the person in need is a
requirement for experiencing pity. Aristotles argument is that ones own vulnerability to the
same suffering is necessary in order to appreciate the reality of the others suffering, i.e., to
perceive need. (For similar views among psychologists, see Davis, 1994, pp. 1315; Gruen &
Mendelsohn, 1986; and Houston, 1990). Nussbaum deviates from Aristotle, however, arguing
that perceived similarity is important because to recognize ones own related vulnerability
makes the others suffering apparent and, potentially, relevant to ones own value structure.
Thus, she places the priority on valuing. Similarity is not necessary, but it may increase the
likelihood one will recognize and care about the others suffering (see Nussbaum, 2001,
especially Chapter 6).
My analysis parallels Nussbaums (2001) here; I also do not think similarity is necessary. If
the other is thought to be sentient, then perceiving the other as in need and valuing the others
welfare are sufficient conditions for the perceiver to appreciate the reality of the others
suffering and to feel empathic concern. Even those of us who experience no fear or anxiety in
close spaces can feel for someone we care about (value) who is claustrophobic. Awareness of
this persons discomfort and distress (perception of need) can be sufficient to evoke strong
empathic feelings of sympathy and compassion.
For me to question the importance of perceived similarity as an antecedent to empathic
concern may seem surprising. After all, I and others have used experimental manipulations of
perceived similarity to induce empathic concern in research participants
 42
(e.g., Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch, 1981; Krebs, 1975; Stotland, 1969).
However, a close look at the empirical evidence suggests that the effect of these similarity
manipulations on empathic concern is not due to perceived similarity itself but to
consequences of perceived similarity, such as liking, that reflect valuing of the others
welfare (Batson, Lishner, Cook, & Sawyer, 2005; Batson, Turk, Shaw, & Klein, 1995;
Lishner, 2003). For example, Batson, Turk et al. (1995, Experiments 1 & 2) found that an
experimental manipulation of similarity led to increased valuing of a peers welfare. They
also found that when the peer was in need, empathic concern was more clearly associated
with this increased valuing than with perceived similarity.
In the most direct test to date of the effect of similarity on empathic concern, Batson, Lishner
et al. (2005) found that female undergraduates reported as much empathic concern for a 40-
year-old clothing-store clerk undergoing rehabilitation for a severely broken leg as they
reported for a female undergraduate from their own university undergoing the same
rehabilitation. This was true even though they thought the other undergraduate was much
more similar to themselves than was the clerk. In a second and more extreme test of the effect
of similarity, Batson, Lishner et al. (2005) found significantly more empathic concern for a
child or a dog undergoing the same rehabilitation than for the undergraduate even though,
once again, research participants thought the undergraduate was far more similar to
themselves. (For other evidence that similarity may facilitate but is not a necessary condition
for empathic concern, see Batson, Sympson, Hindman, Decruz, Todd, Weeks, Jennings, &
Burris, 1996; Hodges, 2005; Hodges, Kiel, Kramer, Veach, & Villanueva, 2010; and Hygge,
1976).

Why Not Perspective Taking?

Even more surprising may be my focus on valuing the others welfare rather than on
perspective taking. There is considerable evidence from laboratory research that perspective
taking can increase empathic concern (e.g., Coke et al., 1978; Stotland, 1969; Toi & Batson,
1982), even concern for whales (Shelton & Rogers, 1981). Also in the natural stream of
behavior, empathy may be increased by perspective taking instructions, including self-
instructions (e.g., Imagine what shes going through!). So, it may seem that perspective
taking is the more basic construct, not valuing. For a long time, I thought it was. In
discussions of the empathy-altruism hypothesis, I named (a) perceiving the other as in need
and (b) adopting the others perspective as the two key antecedents of empathic concern (e.g.,
Batson, 1987, 1991; Batson & Shaw, 1991a). Clearly, the present formulation is different.
Why the change?
There are three reasons. First, it is now apparent that a person can adopt anothers
perspectivecan actively imagine how the other thinks and feels about his or her situation
(including a situation of need)and still feel relatively little empathy. This can occur if one
places either no value or negative value on the others welfare, and so has a dispassionate or
hostile orientation toward the other. For example, Batson, Polycarpou, Harmon-Jones,
Imhoff, Mitchener, Bednar, Klein, and Highberger (1997) found that even though those led to
adopt the perspective of a convicted murderer serving a life sentence
43
reported more empathic concern for him than did those not led to adopt his perspective, they
reported far less empathy than is typically reported in studies in which participants adopt the
perspective of a stranger in need. Batson, Eklund, Chermok, Hoyt, and Ortiz (2007) found
that less empathic concern for a young man hit by a car was reported by research participants
led to place low value on his welfare than by participants led to place high value on his
welfare. This effect of valuing was found even for those who adopted the young mans
perspective.
Second, it is now clear that a person can feel empathic concern for someone in need without
being instructed to adopt the others perspective. Most people naturally place at least a
moderate value on the welfare of other peopleeven total strangersas long as there are no
grounds for antipathy. Psychopaths are, of course, a conspicuous exception to this rule, but
they comprise only a small percentage of the population. As a result of this moderate valuing,
when research participants provided with no perspective-taking instructions learn about a
stranger in clear, legitimate need, they typically report levels of empathic concern only
slightly below the levels reported by those instructed to adopt the others perspective (Batson,
Eklund et al., 2007). In such situations, it seems more accurate to say that adopting an
objective perspective reduces empathic concern than to say that adopting the others
perspective increases it. A moderately sympathetic orientation, not a dispassionate
orientation, seems to be the default.
Third, Batson, Turk et al. (1995, Experiment 4) found that when participants learned (via
false physiological feedback) that they felt empathic concern for a person in need, their
valuing of this persons welfare increased. Consistent with the link between values and
emotions outlined at the end of Chapter 1, these participants appeared to make a backward
inference from awareness of their empathic emotion to valuing (If I feel empathic concern
for her, I must value her welfare), suggesting that they considered valuing necessary for
empathy. Importantly, after the need was removed, empathic concern disappeared but the
valuing remained, reflecting the more enduring character of valuing.
For these three reasons, I now think it best to focus on (a) perceiving the other as in need and
(b) valuing the others welfare as the two key antecedents of empathic concern. In the flow of
everyday life, perspective taking lies a little downstream from valuing the others welfare, on
the diagonal line from valuing to the junction with perceiving need in Figure 2.1. Supporting
this suggestion, Batson, Eklund et al. (2007, Experiment 2) found that increased valuing of
anothers welfare led to the spontaneous adoption of an imagine-other perspective, which in
turn led to increased empathic concern.
The downstream location of perspective taking explains why it can effectively induce
empathic concern for someone in need. Even in the absence of prior valuing, it activates the
valuing path. Indeed, use of perspective-taking instructions to induce empathy is usually a
better research strategy than reliance on valuing. Valuing of anothers welfare is most likely
to occur in close and enduring relationships (e.g., family relationships, friendships). Because
such relationships are ongoing, with a past and a future, many motives not produced by
empathic concern come into play. One can be motivated to benefit the other in order to
reciprocate past benefits, to encourage reciprocation in the future, or in anticipation of being
held accountable. The presence of these additional motives can
44
obscure any attempt to determine the nature of the motivationaltruistic or egoistic
produced by empathy.
Given these motivational confounds, it seems quite appropriate to use perspective-taking
instructions rather than valuing to induce empathic concern in the laboratory. At the same
time, it is important to recognize that in life outside the lab such instructions are not
necessary to induce empathic concern. Valuing the others welfare produces a sympathetic
orientation that naturally involves imagining how the other thinks and feels about events
perspective takingand, coupled with perceived need, evokes empathic concern.

Intrinsic, Not Extrinsic Valuing

The type of valuing of anothers welfare that evokes empathic concern is what has been
called intrinsic or terminal valuing, not extrinsic or instrumental valuing (Rokeach, 1973).
The other is valued in his or her own right, not for what he or she may be able to provide.
When I perceive another whom I extrinsically value to be in need, I may feel concern,
anxiety, fear, or sorrow, but these emotions are apt to be self-orientedevoked by the
implications of the others plight for my own welfare. I may be upset if I hear that the
mechanic who promised to have my car ready on Tuesday has come down with the flu, and
my car will not be ready until Friday. If I am honest, however, I may also admit that I am
upset almost entirely (if not entirely) about the delay in getting my car. I give little thought
toand have little feeling forthe discomfort and difficulties the mechanic is experiencing.
In contrast, learning that someone whom I intrinsically value is sick is likely to cause me to
feel sympathy, compassion, anxiety, or sorrow for this person. Because I have incorporated
the others welfare into my own value structure, I imagine how he or she is affected by the
situationI spontaneously perspective takeand feel empathic concern. It is the threat to his
or her welfare, not to my own, that evokes my emotional response.
All this assumes, of course, that it is possible to value anothers welfare intrinsically. There
seems little doubt that we can value anothers welfare extrinsically, even someone quite
close. A young child may be upset that his mother is sick because of the implications for his
own welfare (Knafo, Zahn-Waxler, Van Hulle, Robinson, & Rhee, 2008; Zahn-Waxler,
Radke-Yarrow et al., 1992). So may an adult who is faced with the illness or injury of a
spouse. Extrinsic valuing of the other underlies interdependence theory analyses of close
relationships, which assume that each person values the relationship to the extent that the
partner is necessary for the persons own well-being (Berscheid, 1983; Kelley, 1979).
Can we ever value anothers welfare intrinsically? There are reasons to think that we can.
First, it is important to note that extrinsic valuing and intrinsic valuing are not mutually
exclusive. What was once valued extrinsically may, with time, become functionally
autonomous and valued in its own right (Allport, 1937). This is true even though perceptions
of extrinsic valuing can undermine perceptions of intrinsic valuing. (Reflecting such
undermining, I would probably have felt more empathic concern on hearing my

45
mechanic had the flu were my car not in the shop at the timesee Aronson & Carlsmith,
1963; Lepper, 1983.) Other terms for what I am calling intrinsic valuing of the others
welfare are caring, loving, or being close.
When one person values, cares for, loves anotherfor example, when a mother loves her
childthere are likely to be feelings of heartache and sadness at prolonged separation, and
feelings of warmth and joy at reuniting. Cognitive processes such as perceived similarity,
familiarity, and attractiveness can contribute to love. However, its basic character seems to be
affective and evaluative. Like the related but more general concepts of attitude and sentiment,
love involves a relatively enduring value placed on the target, even though love can, of
course, end. Love is often thought to be an emotion, but it may be more appropriate to think
of love as a form of valuing. Threats to the welfare of a loved one can evoke a range of
emotions, including empathic concern.
Linking Valuing the Others Welfare and Empathic Concern to Parental Nurturance
The parents valuing of and care for the child almost certainly has a genetic base (see Bell,
2001; Bowlby, 1969; Hoffman, 1981a). Less certain but certainly intriguing, the genetically
based caring of parent for child may provide a biological substrate for all intrinsic valuing of
anothers welfare and, thereby, for all empathy-induced altruism in humans.
Today, parental nurturance is rarely mentioned as the evolutionary origin of empathy-induced
altruism, but it was frequently mentioned a century ago. At that time, psychologists were
strongly influenced by Darwin (1871), who spoke of instinctive love based on parental and
filial affections and linked it to the all important emotion of sympathy (p. 308). The
suggestion that parental nurturance may be a source of empathic concern and of altruistic
motivation has recently resurfaced outside psychology in the writings of primatologist Frans
de Waal (1996) and of philosopher Elliott Sober and biologist D. S. Wilson (1998).
Is it possible that feelings of tenderness and compassion, even for strangers, are grounded in
the strong impulse for mammalian parents to provide care for their vulnerable and dependent
offspring? It certainly seems clear that if mammalian parents were not intensely interested in
the welfare of their youngso interested as to put up with endless hassles, exhaustion, and
even risks to their personal safetythese species would quickly die out (also see Bartels &
Zeki, 2004; Bell, 2001; Hoffman, 1981a; MacLean, 1990; Taylor, 2002; Zahn-Waxler &
Radke-Yarrow, 1990).

McDougalls Parental Instinct and Tender Emotion

William McDougall (1908) provided what is perhaps the most systematic argument to date
for parental nurturance as the basis for empathy-induced altruism, even toward

46
strangers. He described the parental instinct, which he considered to be the most powerful
of all instincts, and associated tender emotion. McDougall did not think of instincts as
automatic, reflexive responses. For him, all instincts included a cognitive, an affective, and a
motivational component. The cognitive and motivational components were modifiable by
experience and learning, but the affective component was not; it defined the character of the
instinct. The tender emotion defined the character of the parental instinct. According to
McDougall (1908), this instinct
is primarily to afford physical protection to the child, especially by throwing the arms about
it; and that fundamental impulse persists in spite of the immense extension of the range of
application of the impulse.... Tender emotion and the protective impulse are, no doubt,
evoked more readily and intensely by ones own offspring, because about them a strongly
organized and complex sentiment grows up. But the distress of any child will evoke this
response in a very intense degree in those in whom the instinct is strong.... By a further
extension of the same kind the emotion may be evoked by the sight of any very young
animal, especially if in distress.... In a similar direct fashion the distress of any adult (towards
whom we harbor no hostile sentiment) evokes the emotion. (pp. 6163)
McDougalls tender emotion is clearly empathic as I am using that term. And, consistent with
the empathy-altruism hypothesis, McDougall believed that the motivation evoked by the
tender emotion was altruistic:
From this emotion and its impulse to cherish and protect spring generosity, gratitude, love,
pity, true benevolence, and altruistic conduct of every kind; in it they have their main and
absolutely essential root without which they would not be. (McDougall, 1908, p. 61)
Thus, for McDougall, tender, empathic feelings and altruistic motivation are key components
of the parental instinct in humans, which can be generalized not only to other children but
also to adults in need.
We should not accept such an idea too quickly. Many mammalian species lack the prefrontal
cortical structures and cognitive abilities necessary to experience tender, empathic feelings.
Yet these species display parental care. For McDougall, human parental nurturance involves
(a) inference about the internal states of others, (b) perception of need, (c) intrinsic valuing,
(d) empathic concern, and (e) altruistic motivation. If McDougall is right, the human parental
instinct goes well beyond nursing, providing other kinds of food, protecting, and keeping the
young closethe activities that characterize parental care in most other mammalian species.
It includes feeling for the child based on inferences about the desires and feelings of the child
(Is that a hungry cry or a wet cry? She wont like the fireworks; theyll be too loud.). It
also involves a clear recognition of the distinctiveness, even possible dissimilarity, of self and
other. Parents must recognize that a childs needs may be quite different from their needs.
They must also recognize that the childs capacity to deal with needs may be quite different
from their own.
Humans have doubtless inherited key aspects of their parental instinct from ancestors they
share with other mammalian species, but in humans this instinct has become considerably
less automatic and more flexible. Parental care based on the tender-emotion (empathic
concern) did not replace the more primitive hard-wired stimulus-response circuits.
47
It supplemented them, increasing the flexibility with which they are employed (Bell, 2001; A.
Damasio, 2002; MacLean, 1990; Sober, 1991; Sober & Wilson, 1998; Taylor, 2002; Zahn-
Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990).
Note that McDougalls grounding of the parental instinct in the tender emotion is quite
different from attachment theorists ethological grounding of what they call the caregiving
behavioral system. Their ethological perspective leads attachment theorists to focus on
caregiving as cue-based and reactive rather than as proactive, cognitively flexible, and
emotionally mediated (see Bowlby, 1969; George & Solomon, 1999; but also see Bell, 2001).
McDougalls focus on other-oriented tender emotion is also quite different from de Waals
(2009) grounding of the parental instinct in emotional contagion and affective resonance.
Further, for McDougall, the human parental instinct and associated tender emotion have a
range of applicability that extends well beyond parent-child relations. Through cognitive
generalization based on learning and experience, this instinct and emotion come into play in
many if not all cases of intrinsic valuing of anothers welfare, as well as in the resulting
empathic concern and altruistic motivation. Both women and men must be capable of caring
about the welfare of non-kineven strangersin something like the same way, if not the
same degree, that they care for their own children. Moreover, the parental instinct and
associated tender emotion must not be limited to those who have children; it must be
operative from an early age. Is such a view at all plausible? Recent research suggests that it is
plausible, albeit far from certain.

Neurophysiology of Parental Care and Empathic Concern

First, there is research that looks at the neurophysiology of brain regions related to parental
care, empathic concern, and altruism. Although to date only limited work has been done,
several luminaries of neurophysiology have provided general perspectives.
Paul MacLean (1990) described the human brain as triune, consisting of a hierarchy of
three-brains-in-one: Oldest is an evolutionarily ancient reptillian (or protoreptillian) brain
that we share with reptiles and mammals. Next is a paleomammalian brain (containing the
limbic system) that we share with all mammals. Most recent is a neomammalian brain
(frontal and prefrontal cortex) that is found only in higher mammals and that reaches its
greatest proportions in humans. According to MacLean (1990), each of these brains has its
own special intelligence, its own subjectivity, its own sense of time and space, and its own
memory, motor, and other functions (p. 9). Each operates somewhat independently but is not
completely autonomous. The three intermesh and function together. For MacLean, parental
care, play, and social bondingfunctions that would seem to have favored the evolution of
the human sense of empathy and altruism (1990, p. 520)all arise from the interrelationship
of areas of the neomammalian frontal cortex with a subdivision of the paleomammalian
limbic system.
At a more detailed level, Antonio and Hanna Damasio have sketched the implications for the
neurophysiology of empathy of their research with patients who have brain lesions.

48
In addition to the limbic areas involved in the expression of emotion (MacLean, 1990),
Antonio Damasio proposed that the brain regions in the metarepresentation of mental states
are critical for the process of empathy, and they include... regions of parietal association
cortex and of prefrontal cortex (2002, p. 269; also see Decety & Chaminade, 2003; Eslinger,
1998; Immordino-Yang, McColl, Damasio, & Damasio, 2009; Kim, Kim, Kim, Jeong, Park,
Son, Song, & Ki, 2009; Lamm, Batson, & Decety, 2007; and Ruby & Decety, 2004).
Similarly, Hanna Damasio concluded:
There is a system in certain sectors of the prefrontal cortex that is critical for the learning and
maintenance of certain aspects of social behavior that pertain to interpersonal relationships.
After damage to this system, empathy, as well as emotions such as embarrassment, guilt,
pride, and altruism, are not evoked, and personal and social decisions become defective....
It is possible, and indeed likely, that some of the adaptive interpersonal behaviors that were
lost in these patients are actually preset in neural systems that include prefrontal
components.... Without certain sectors of the prefrontal cortex, empathy, along with other
adaptive social behaviors, becomes impaired. (2002, pp. 281282)
Behavioral observations seem quite consistent with these suggestions about the
neurophysiology of empathic concern, as well as with the neurophysiological evidence that
for normal operation of the human parental instinct, cortical processes attentive to the internal
state and needs of the child interact with midbrain-based reaction tendencies to produce goal-
directed motivation (Damasio, 1994; MacLean, 1990).
Antonio Damasio (1994, 1999, 2003) has repeatedly pointed out that one of the virtues of
relying on emotions and goal-directed motives to guide actionrather than relying on more
automatic stimulus-response patterns (his regulatory mechanisms)is that emotions and
their associated goal-directed motives can be adaptive under a wide range of environmental
conditions, circumstances, and events. Such flexibility seems highly desirable when caring
for human offspring. To illustrate the flexibility that emotions introduce with an emotion
quite different from empathic concern, consider anger. Aggressive responses occur in many
species that likely do not experience anything like the emotion we call anger. Among
humans, however, aggressive responses are stimulated, tempered, and generalized by feelings
of anger that are a product of complex cognitive assessment of the situation, including
assessment of the intentions of others. Similarly, tender, empathic feelings permit more
flexible and adaptive parental care, care that is not simply reflexive or reactive to distress
cues but is directed toward the goal of enhancing the childs welfare as needed in the
particular situation. This flexibility includes anticipation and prevention of needs, even
evolutionarily quite novel onessuch as the need to avoid sticking a pin in an electrical
outlet.
Bell (2001) reached a similar conclusion, describing the human parental caregiving system as
directed toward the needs of the infant (p. 220) and therefore based on relatively
sophisticated cognitive processes. At the same time, he recognized that this system is linked
to some emotional processes located in older parts of the brain that appear to follow a
different, emotional logic (Bell, 2001, p. 216). Bell assumed that this sophisticated and
flexible caregiving system is present not only in humans but also in other primates. As
already noted, Tomasello (1999; Call & Tomasello, 2008) and Povinelli

49
(Povinelli et al. (2000; Penn et al., 2008) give us reason to reserve judgment on such an
assumption.
Consistent with (but certainly not conclusively supporting) this depiction of human parental
care, Bartels and Zeki (2004) found that mothers looking at photos of their own child
compared to photos of another child (aged-matched) showed increased activation of the
periaqueductal gray (PAG) region in the midbrain, which is known to be involved in maternal
behavior in mammals, including humans. They also found increased activation of regions in
the cortex associated with higher cognition and emotion (especially positive, tender feelings)
as well as with goal-directed activitythe medial insula, dorsal and ventral anterior cingulate
cortex, lateral orbito-frontal cortex, and lateral prefrontal cortex. The first three of these
regions, all associated with emotion and motivation, are known to have direct connections
with the PAG. (For informative analyses of the relevant neuroanatomy, see Allman et al.,
2005, and Craig, 2005.)

Neurochemistry of Parental Care

Shelley Taylor (2002) proposed the existence of a tending instinct that is remarkably
similar to McDougalls parental instinct, even though she made no reference to his work.
Taylor suggested that the instinct to tend and nurture offspring and to establish a range of
attachment bonds (i.e., an instinct to tend and befriend) underlies various forms of tending
throughout society (Taylor, 2002, p. 158). She also suggested that this instinct may have its
neurochemical base in the neuropeptide hormone oxytocin and the endogenous opioid
peptides (EOPs). There is some evidence, which Taylor admitted is limited and spotty, that
oxytocin may be released not only during sexual intercourse, at birth, and during nursing, but
also in other affiliative experiences (see, for example, the evidence provided by Turner,
Altemus, Enos, Cooper, & McGuinness, 1999; reviews of some of this evidence are provided
by Bell, 2001, and Panksepp, 1998, as well as by Taylor, 2002). More recently, Feldman,
Weller, Zagoory-Sharon, and Levine (2007) reported an association between mothers level
of plasma oxytocin and cognitive as well as behavioral aspects of mother-infant bonding,
including thoughts about the infant and vigilance for the infants welfare.
Research on oxytocin is certainly intriguing. It might lead one to think that oxytocin provides
a neurochemical link between parental care and other forms of care, including empathy-
induced altruism. But this research is also complex, and results are neither consistent nor yet
clear. Oxytocin has been found to be highly associated with maternal care and social
attachment in some mammalian species but not in otherssometimes even closely related
ones. There is, for example, an association in rats but not in mice (Carter, 1998; Insel, 2000;
Kendrick, 2000; Nelson & Panksepp, 1998; Olazbal & Young, 2006). And vasopressin, not
oxytocin, may underlie paternal care and pair-bonding in at least some mammalian species
(Curtis & Wang, 2003; Insel, 1997, 2002). Those most knowledgeable about research on
oxytocin suggest that it is still too soon to make any strong claims about the neurochemistry
of parental care and attachment in humans

50
(e.g., Carter, 1998; Donaldson & Young, 2008; Insel, 2000, 2002; Panksepp, 1998). As Insel
(2000) summarized,
The available data support the hypothesis that oxytocin is critical for maternal behavior and
pair-bond formation in select nonhuman animals. Humans have oxytocin and brain oxytocin
receptors, but the role of this neuropeptide system in human attachment remains highly
speculative. (p. 176)
Evidence from human oxytocin studies over the past few years may have tipped the scales
from highly speculative to highly suggestive, but it is still too soon to reach a verdict.

Evidence Regarding Generalization of Tender Feelings and Nurturant Care

What about generalization beyond progeny? McDougall (1908) claimed that we can extend
the tender feelings and nurturant care that emerged as part of the human parental instinct to a
wide range of others, including adult strangers and even members of other species (especially
pets). The suggestion is that through cognitive generalization we adopt non-progeny,
making it possible for their needs to evoke empathic concern and altruistic motivation
(Batson, 1987; Hoffman, 1981a). The prospect of such generalization may seem implausible
and at odds with the theory of natural selection, as was argued by Boehm (1999).
However, it is important to recognize that genetically hardwired parental care need not be
progeny specific to be effective. Insel (2002) has noted that rat mothers will show intense
devotion and defense of their young, but they are not selective in their maternal behavior,
offering the same level of care to unrelated young in the nest (p. 255). Presumably,
occurrence of unrelated young in a rats nest is sufficiently rare that there has not been strong
selection pressure for a more discriminating maternal response. Nor is adoption rare in other
mammalian species. What is currently discussed as alloparenting and cooperative breeding is
found in a range of primate species, including humans, as well as in elephants, canids
(wolves, dogs), rodents, a number of bird species, and, of course, the social insects (Hrdy,
2009).
In a highly interdependent and cooperative species like our own, natural selection may not
only have tolerated generalized parental nurturance; there may actually have been a selective
advantage to extending the genetically hardwired nurturant impulse beyond ones own
offspring. Due to selection pressure on the small, closely knit hunter-gatherer bands in which
our genetic predispositions for social behavior are thought to have evolved (Caporeal, Dawes,
Orbell, & van de Kragt, 1989; Hrdy, 1999, 2009; Kelly, 1995), generalization of the impulse
to provide nurturant care for our own offspring to include care for younger siblings (Dunn &
Kendrick, 1982; Hrdy 2009), care for the offspring of other band members, and even care for
other adults in the band may have increased the likelihood of our genes surviving (Sober &
Wilson, 1998). And, to the

51
extent that the human nurturant impulse relies not on cue-based stimulus-response patterns
but on cognitively based other-oriented emotions such as tender, empathic concern, it would
be relatively easy to generalize.
Within contemporary society, the prospect of such generalization appears more plausible
when one thinks of the tender care typically provided by nannies and workers in day-care
centers, by adoptive parents, and by pet owners. One can even see tender, nurturant care
provided by young children to people, pets, stuffed animals, and dollsand by pets to family
members (Hoffman, 1981a; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990). Clearly, tender, nurturant
feelings are felt not only by mothers, by parents, by women, or by adults. As early as the
second year of life, children of both genders have them. The parental instinct is deep and
pervasivealthough receipt of nurturance seems necessary for its normal expression
(Harlow, Harlow, Dodsworth, & Arling, 1966; Hrdy, 2009).
Consistent with the prospect of generalization, some have proposed that parental nurturance
may play a role in adult friendships and love relationships. Curtis and Wang (2003) reflected
as follows on research over the previous decade concerning the role of oxytocin in pair
bonding in monogamous prairie voles (in contrast to non-monogamous meadow voles):
One possibility for the origin of pair bonding is that pair-bonding species have co-opted the
mechanism (or mechanisms) by which maternal bonds are formed. This possibility is further
supported by observations that even sexually nave male prairie voles display maternal-type
behaviors when exposed to pups, and that prairie vole mothers display considerably more
maternal care than do meadow vole mothers. (p. 51)
Grewen, Girdler, Amico, and Light (2005) reported an association between closeness of
romantic relationship (reflected in partner support) and level of plasma oxytocin before and
after warm contact with the partner. This association was found for both men and women.
Evidence of plasma oxytocin increase has also been reported in affiliative experiences of
humans (men and women) with dogs (Odendaal & Meintjes, 2003). And oxytocin infusion
(nasal) was reported to increase generosity toward strangers among men in a competitive
situationan Ultimatum Game (Zak, Stanton, & Ahmadi, 2007). Zak et al. (2007) speculated
that the increase in generosity was mediated by the effect of oxytocin on empathic emotion.
Finally, Barraza and Zak (2009) found that after watching a video interview in which a father
describes the plight of his 2-year-old son who has a terminal brain tumor, including scenes of
the child in the hospital, UCLA undergraduates not only reported more empathic concern but
also showed increased plasma oxytocin.
Turning from neurochemistry to neurophysiology, Singer et al. (2004) found increased
activation in the anterior insula and rostral anterior cingulate cortex among women informed
that their romantic partner was receiving a painful (vs. not painful) electrical stimulation.
Bartels and Zeki (2000) found increased activation of many of the same cortical regions (but
different midbrain regions) when participants looked at a photo of their romantic partner
compared to looking at photos of friends. Jackson et al. (2006) found similar activation
among participants imagining an unfamiliar other in a painful (vs. not

52
painful) situation. Finally, Lamm et al. (2007) found that activation of the medial anterior
cingulate cortex correlated positively with self-reported empathic concern among participants
watching unknown patients undergo a painful therapeutic treatment. In sum, several of the
same (or closely associated) regions activated in mothers looking at photos of their own child
(Bartels & Zeki, 2004) are activated when cued to a loved ones distress or when seeingor
even imaginingan unknown other in distress (also see Immordino-Yang et al., 2009; Kim
et al., 2009).
Also consistent with the idea of generalized parental nurturance, Batson, Lishner et al. (2005)
found that a child, dog, or puppy in need evoked more empathic concern than did a fellow
university student with exactly the same need. And Lishner, Oceja, Stocks, and Zaspel (2008)
found that empathic concern for adults in need is enhanced when the adult has a more infant-
like face or voice.
Thus, there is a range of evidence consistent with the idea that parental nurturance may
provide a biological substrate for intrinsic valuing of anothers welfare and for empathy-
induced altruism in humans. Although not conclusive, the existing evidence supports the
plausibility of the idea that four evolutionary developments may underlie the human capacity
to care for the welfare of both progeny and non-progeny as an end in itself, not simply as an
instrumental means of caring for ones own welfare. The first development is the evolution in
mammals of parental nurturance (Bell, McDougall). Second is the evolution in humans and
possibly a few other species of the ability to see others as sentient, intentional agents and,
thereby, to recognize others needs, even subtle ones (Povinelli et al., Tomasello). Third is
the evolution of tender, empathic emotions as an important component of parental nurturance
(Bell, Darwin, McDougall). Fourth is the evolution of cognitive capacities that make it
possible to generalize valuing of anothers welfare and tender, empathic feelings beyond
offspring (McDougall).
If this analysis is correct, then we have an answer to the question raised earlier about whether
the capacity to value anothers welfare intrinsically is a violation of the principles of natural
selection. It is not. Parental nurturance is entirely consistent with those principles. To value
anothers welfare intrinsically is, however, in clear violation of a central tenet of standard
versions of the theory of rational choiceexclusive interest in ones own welfare. If humans
are able to value anothers welfare intrinsically, then versions of rational choice that assume
all human behavior is directed toward maximizing ones own welfare need radical revision
(see Chapter 9; also Batson & Ahmad, 2009a).
A New (Actually Old) Evolutionary Perspective on Altruism in Humans
It is important to note that generalized parental nurturance is different from the evolutionary
biologists idea of inclusive fitness (kin selection) as a genetic basis of altruism (Hamilton,
1964). The former refers to a specialized and specific adaptationan instinctwhereas the
latter proposes a general principle. A genetic impulse to care for

53
offspring certainly falls within the purview of inclusive fitness. On average, half the
offsprings variable genes (the less than 1 percent of our genes that vary among humans) are
ones own, so to care for offspring increases the likelihood of ones variable genes surviving,
enhancing inclusive fitness. Offspring are not, however, an indirect way to get ones genes
into the next generation, which is the issue addressed by the idea of inclusive fitness.
Offspring are ones genes in the next generation. As a result, parental care does not speak to
the problem that Hamilton (1964) was trying to solve with the concept of inclusive fitness,
the problem of apparent evolutionary altruism.
Recall Sober and Wilsons (1998) distinction between evolutionary altruism and
psychological altruism presented in Chapter 1. Care for offspring is evolutionary egoism, not
evolutionary altruism. That is, it is a case of an organism acting in a way that increases its
own personal reproductive fitness. For this reason, when citing examples of inclusive fitness,
evolutionary biologists focus on care for siblings or more remote kin; they almost never
mention parental care of offspring. (Parental care is more likely to get discussed under the
topic of parental investmentthe jockeying between parents in which each tries to ensure
that their joint offspring survive through the least possible expenditure of his or her own time
and energy; see Buss & Kenrick, 1998; Trivers, 1972.)
Especially in higher mammals, the effects of parental nurturance on reproductive fitness are
much more focused, direct, and straightforward than are the effects of inclusive fitness.
Because offspring of higher mammals are unable to fend for themselves for an extended
period after birth, there is strong selection pressure to develop a mechanism that leads parents
to provide care. It is far less clear that an impulse to care for siblings and more remote kin
behavior often attributed to inclusive fitnesswould receive strong selection pressure.
One can build a clear case for a genetically hardwired impulse to care for siblings in the
social insects, where sisters share three-fourths of their genes and are themselves sterile
(Hamilton, 1964; yet see Wilson, 2005, and Wilson & Wilson, 2007, for doubts). One can
also build a clear case for such an impulse in the naked mole rat, a mammalian species with a
sterile worker caste (Sherman, Jarvis, & Alexander, 1991). But in humans, the case for a
degree-of-kinship-based genetic impulse of the sort Hamilton (1964) postulated is far from
clear (see Campbell, 1975, and Batson, 2010). Data most frequently cited as support (e.g.,
Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994; Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1980) are easily
amenable to alternative explanations and are at least as compatible, if not more so, with
generalized parental nurturance as with inclusive fitness (see especially Korchmaros &
Kenny, 2001).
In a species like ours, in which each normally developing individual has the potential to
procreate and, thereby, to place his or her genes directly in the next generation, genetic
selection for use of an indirect route through helping others proportional to degree of kinship
is not likely. Helping kin is far more likely to be a product of social norms and cultural
morescultural evolution (Campbell, 1975; Richerson & Boyd, 2005). In contrast, it is hard
to doubt the existence of a strong, genetically hardwired impulse for parental care in
humansMcDougalls parental instinctand there is good reason to believe that empathic
concernMcDougalls tender emotionplays an important role in the
54
expression of this impulse. This parental instinct is strong but flexible. It can be overridden in
certain circumstances (which, when extreme, can produce abandonment and even
infanticideHrdy, 1999; Soltis, 2004; Zeifman, 2001). There is also good reason to believe
that it can generalize beyond progeny.
If we wish to speculate about genetic bases for human altruism, as many clearly do, then I
think we are on far firmer groundboth logical and empiricalif we focus on cognitive
generalization of tender, empathic feelings that emerged to add flexibility to a genetically
hardwired parental instinct (McDougall, 1908) than if we focus on a genetically hardwired
impulse toward inclusive fitness (Hamilton, 1964), reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971, 1985),
or some combination of the two (e.g., Brown & Brown, 2006)or even on genetically
hardwired impulses toward sociality, cooperation, trust, and coalition formation (Caporeal et
al., 1989; de Waal, 1996; Frank, 2003; Sober & Wilson, 1998).
Ideas of inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism, and group selection have dominated recent
thought about natural selection and the genetic basis of altruism. The possibility that parental
nurturance might serve as a genetic substrate for human altruism has been largely ignored.
With Sober and Wilsons (1998) distinction between evolutionary altruism and psychological
altruism, perhaps it will once again be possible to recognize the importance for psychological
altruism of a process like parental nurturance, which does not qualify as evolutionary
altruism. Certainly, it seems far from coincidental that Sober and Wilson (1998) ended their
book with a consideration of parental nurturance as a plausible example of psychological
altruism.
Individual Differences as Moderators of Empathic Concern
My analysis of the antecedents of empathic concern has focused on two factorsperceiving
the other as in need and valuing the others welfare. I have not considered individual
differences. I have not, even though I think the strength of empathic feelings is affected by
individual difference factorssome of which may be genetically hardwired (Emde, Plomin,
Robinson, Corley, DeFries, Fulker, Reznick, Campos, Kagan, & Zahn-Waxler, 1992; Knafo
et al., 2008). The reason I have not considered these individual difference factors is that I
believe they are more appropriately thought of as moderators of the effect of perception of
need and valuing on empathic concern, not as direct antecedents.

Dispositional Empathy?
But, one may ask, is there not a specific disposition to experience empathy? A number of
self-report questionnaire measures of such a disposition have been developedmost
prominently, Daviss (1983) Interpersonal Reactivity Index and Mehrabian and Epsteins
(1972) Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy. However, I believe that there is reason
to doubt the validity of these measures, which ask people to report whether, for example, I
often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me

55
(an item from the Empathic Concern scale of Daviss Interpersonal Reactivity Index). One
might strongly agree with such a statement because it is true, but one might also agree
because one erroneously believes it is true, because one wants to believe it is true, or because
one wants others to believe it is true. Each of these reasons for agreement is, under certain
circumstances, likely to be associated with increased helping of those in need. But only the
first reason provides a valid indication of a disposition to experience empathic concern. So,
according to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, only the first reason should be associated with
altruistic motivation to help.
There is considerable evidence that scores on Daviss Empathic Concern scale correlate
positively both with reports of empathic concern and with helping in a range of situations
(see Davis, 1994, for a review)and perhaps even with increased activity in brain regions
associated with the experience of affect (e.g., Singer et al., 2004; but also see Decety, 2010b;
Vul, Harris, Winkielman, & Pashler, 2009). However, consistent with the concern about
validity, there is also evidence that scores on the Empathic Concern scale and other measures
of dispositional empathy are associated, not with altruistic motivation but with an egoistic
desire to see oneself as altruistic (Archer, Diaz-Loving, Gollwitzer, Davis, & Foushee, 1981;
Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Neuringer-Benefiel, 1986).
Eisenberg and her colleagues (Carlo, Eisenberg, Troyer, Switzer, & Speer, 1991; Eisenberg,
Miller, Schaller, Fabes, Fultz, Shell, & Shea, 1989) have challenged the claim that scores on
the Empathic Concern scale are associated with egoistic rather than altruistic motivation to
help, but the basis of their challenge is questionable. Their challenge relies on the results of
two studies. In each, participants had a low-cost opportunity to help in response to a rather
stereotypic need (in one study, a single mother with two hurt children; in the other, a recently
assaulted young woman experiencing flashbacks). Given the nature of these help
opportunities, it is difficult to know whether helping was motivated by an altruistic desire to
relieve the need or by an egoistic desire to avoid social and self-censure for failure to help
when norms dictate one should. For each study, Eisenberg and her colleagues made no claim
to be able to make this essential distinction (see Carlo et al., 1991, p. 450; Eisenberg, Miller
et al., 1989, p. 62).
To express doubt about the validity of self-report questionnaire measures of dispositional
empathy is not to express doubt that individual differences affect the experience of empathy.
Such effects clearly exist. In the same situation, some people feel more empathy than others.
My doubt is about whether existing self-report questionnaires validly reflect these
differences. There is too much room for social desirability and positive self-presentation in
responses to these questionnaires.
More fruitful than using self-reports to measure individual differences in dispositional
empathy are efforts to assess likely dispositional moderators of empathic responding in
specific situations. Such moderators include general emotionality and the regulation of
emotion (Davis, Luce, & Kraus, 1994; Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, Karbon, Maszk, Smith,
OBoyle, & Suh, 1994; Eisenberg, Losoya, & Spinrad, 2003; Wiesenfeld et al., 1984), as well
as attachment style (level of anxiety about and desire to avoid social relationsMikulincer et
al., 2001; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005).
Doubtless there are others as well.
56
Gender Differences?
It has also been suggested that gender may be an important antecedent of empathic concern.
Specifically, it has been suggested that women feel more empathy than men (de Waal, 2009;
Hoffman, 1977). Evidence for this claim is not, however, especially strong, and it is largely
limited to self-report measures of empathy (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983) or to gender-
appropriate expressions of concern (Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, & Emde, 1992). Such responses
likely reflect gender differences in expectations about, and in the perceived desirability of,
feeling and expressing empathic emotion.
Research to be reviewed in Part II provides much evidence that men are quite capable of
experiencing empathic concern. Still, there may be genuine gender differences that moderate
the experience of empathy. There is some evidence that women are, in general, more
emotional than men, or at least are more emotionally expressive (Buck, 1984; Eisenberg et
al., 1994; Zahn-Waxler, Cole, Welsh, & Fox, 1995). Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, and Emde
(1992) even link possible gender differences in empathic concern to gender differences in
parental nurturance in a manner reminiscent of McDougall (1908): A biologically based
explanation for the origins of gender differences in empathy would be consistent with the
childbearing and child-rearing roles of females. Empathic caregiving is required if the infant
is to survive and thrive (Zahn-Waxler et al., 1992, p. 1045). Of course, moderation of
empathic concern by gender could reflect socialization and culture as well.
Of critical importance for the present theory, there is as yet no evidence from any of the
research conducted to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis (summarized in Chapters 5 & 6)
that the empathy-altruism relationship differs by gender. Even if women are more likely to
experience empathic concern, once empathic feelings are evoked they have similar
motivational consequences for men as for womenat least when generalized beyond
offspring.
A Return to the Seven Other Empathy-Related States
With this analysis of the proposed two antecedents of empathic concern before us, it may be
useful to return to the seven other empathy-related states discussed in Chapter 1, examining
how each relates to the two antecedents. Concepts 2, 3, and 4adopting the others posture
(motor mimicry), feeling as the other feels, and projecting oneself into the others situation
are different strategies for knowing what the other is thinking and feeling (Concept 1). Thus,
each should affect perception of the other as in need. Concepts 3 and 4, under conditions
specified earlier, may facilitate adoption of the others perspective (Concept 5), a product of
and a research proxy for valuing the others welfare. None of the first four states affect
valuing the others welfare directly.
I have suggested that in the natural flow of behavior, adopting anothers perspective (Concept
5) is a consequence of valuing the others welfare, not an antecedent.

57
However, in the absence of prior valuing, imagining anothers thoughts and feelings (i.e., an
imagine-other perspective) can be induced directly through instructions. In this case, it
coupled with perception of needshould evoke empathic concern.
Concept 6, imagining how one would think and feel in the others place (i.e., an imagine-self
perspective), may affect perception of the other as in need. This is especially likely if (a)
there are no clear, independent cues about the others need, and (b) one has reason to believe
that ones own response to the situation and the others response would be similaror would
differ in a predictable way. In addition, adopting an imagine-self perspective may serve as a
stepping-stone to adopting an imagine-other perspective (Concept 5), especially if the others
situation is not also threatening to the self.
Concept 7, feeling vicarious personal distress, does not affect either antecedent of empathic
concern. Rather, it is a self-oriented emotion evoked by perceiving the other as in need, an
emotion that can be experienced alongside empathy. Feelings of personal distress are likely to
produce egoistic motivation to reduce ones own distress.
In sum, empathic concern is proposed to be a natural consequence of two factors, perceiving
the other as in need and intrinsic valuing of the others welfare. Therefore, only these two
antecedents are represented in Figure 2.1. Most of the other empathy-related states discussed
in Chapter 1 can contribute to empathic concern indirectly through their effect on perception
of the other as in need (Concepts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6). None is an antecedent of valuing the
others welfare, although Concept 5 refers to a key consequence of valuing that has also been
used in research as a proxy for valuingadopting the others perspective. Two of the
empathy-related states (Concepts 4 and 6) may lead to adoption of the others perspective
and, thereby, increase empathic concern. Parental nurturance may be the prototype and
provide a genetic substrate for the human capacity to extend intrinsic valuing beyond oneself
to others, even strangers.

58
3 Behavioral Consequences of Empathy-Induced Altruism

You feel empathic concern. What do you do? The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that
empathic concern produces altruistic motivationmotivation with the ultimate goal of
increasing the welfare of the person for whom empathy is felt. Given that empathic concern is
evoked by perception of need, the goal of empathy-induced altruism can be specified more
precisely: remove the empathy-evoking need. Helping in a way that removes the need may
seem to be the obvious behavior to reach this goal, but it is not the only possible response of a
person who is altruistically motivated. Empathy-induced altruism can result in at least three
possible behaviors: help, have someone else help, or not act. If more than one of these three
options is available, then, as depicted in Figure 3.1, the option selected will be a product not
only of the altruistic motivation but also of a cost-benefit analysis prompted by the impulse to
act on this motivation.
Cost-Benefit Analysis Prompted by Altruistic Motivation
As is true of any goal-directed motive, altruism does not automatically produce behavior. It
produces a desire to reach a goal. Before acting on this desire, the altruistically motivated
individual weighs benefit against cost for each possible course of action. Benefits and costs
included in the analysis may take many formstangible or intangible, immediate or long-
termand may be weighed in many ways.
The two behaviors that can remove the need for which empathy is felt (help, have another
help) each offer the benefit of reaching the goal of the empathy-induced altruistic motivation.
Accordingly, the magnitude of the benefit for each of these behaviors is a function of the
magnitude of the altruistic motivation. The magnitude of the cost for each is the sum of the
various costs perceived to be associated with that behavior.
As a general principle, if a person is experiencing more than one goal-directed motive, and if
a given behavior enables that person to reach the goal of one of these motives but not the
goals of others, then failure to obtain the incompatible goals is the cost

59
 Figure 3.1 Consequences of Altruistic Motivation

associated with the behavior. The magnitude of cost will be a function of the magnitude of
the motivational forces to reach the unobtained goals. Applied to altruistic motivation, if
helping involves cost to the self in the form of pain or risk of pain, lost time or money, and so
on, as it almost always does, then the thought of helping is likely to arouse motivation to
avoid these costs (Piliavin, Piliavin, & Rodin, 1975). The cost of helping is a function of the
magnitude of each of these egoistic motives. Having another person provide the help does not
involve these costs. Instead, it involves the cost of being unsure that the other will in fact
offer help, and if so, that the help will prove effective. Costs can even involve conflicting
altruistic motives, as was horribly true in Sophies Choice: Select the child to die or both will
(Styron, 1979).
This logic can be extended to the third possible behaviornot actby reversing the costs
and benefits associated with helping. By not acting, the altruistically motivated person does
not reach the goal of removing the empathy-evoking need, so this becomes a cost. At the
same time, he or she does not incur the cost associated with helping, which becomes a
benefit. After considering all possible behaviors, the one with the greatest relative benefit
(benefit minus cost) will be the one pursued.
It may seem contradictory to suggest that altruistic motivation prompts a cost-benefit
analysis. After all, the goal of the analysis is clearly egoistic; it is to deal with the altruistic
motive in a way that incurs minimal cost to self. The existence of this egoistic goal does not,
however, mean that the motivation to have the others need removed is no longer altruistic. It
only means that the impulse to act on this motive is likely to evoke egoistic motives as well.
The presence of these egoistic motives neither negates nor contaminates the altruistic motive,
although their presence complicates the relationship between the altruistic motive and
behavior. A person who feels an altruistic impulse to dive into icy waters to rescue someone
who is drowning may find this impulse overpowered by an egoistic fear for ones life,
resulting in no action. This inaction does not mean that no motivation was present. Nor does
it mean that the impulse to rescue was not altruistic.
Introduction of a cost-benefit analysis for each of three possible behaviors may seem to make
the behavioral consequences of altruistic motivation hopelessly vague, especially
60
when it must be acknowledged that each of these behaviorshelp, have another help, not
actcan be produced by egoistic motives as well. If altruistic motivation can prompt a
person to do this or that or the other, and egoistic motivation can do the same, then how are
we ever to know which motiveif eitheris present?
The situation is not as hopeless as it seems. Attending to the cost-benefit analysis of each
possible behavior associated with altruistic motivation is actually quite informative. To
understand how informative, we need to compare the analysis prompted by empathy-induced
altruism with the cost-benefit analysis prompted by various egoistic motives that might lead
one to try to help a person perceived to be in need.
Comparison with the Cost-Benefit Analysis Prompted by Egoistic Motives for Helping
Much evidence exists for three general classes of egoistic motives that might lead a person to
help someone in needreward seeking, punishment avoiding, and reducing aversive arousal
(see Batson, 1987, 1991, 1998, and Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006, for partial
reviews). Each class has a unique configuration of possible behaviors that are considered in
the cost-benefit analysis. Moreover, although there is some overlap, the configuration of
possible behaviors for each class of egoistic motivation differs from the configuration for
empathy-induced altruism.
Reward Seeking
If seeing another person in need evokes in me an egoistic desire to gain the material, social,
or self-rewards (e.g., a warm glowHarbaugh et al., 2007) that come from helping, then
there would seem to be only two viable responses. If I am to get the rewards, I must try to
help in some way. Alternatively, I can decide to do nothing and give up the rewards.
Because the rewards for helping go only to the helper, I need to do the helping myself if I am
to get the rewards. To have another person help will not enable me to reach my goal unless I
can somehow take credit for the other persons helping, and so claim to have helped
indirectly (I talked her into volunteering.). At the same time, many of the social and self-
rewards for helping may be obtained even if my help is not effective. We do not usually insist
on knowing that our charity dollars are well spent before giving ourselves a pat on the back
for contributing. As people say, Its the thought that counts. So, offering seemingly sincere
but only low-cost, token help may be an especially attractive option if I am motivated to gain
social and self-rewards.
Punishment Avoiding
If seeing another person in need evokes in me an egoistic desire to avoid the material, social,
or self-punishments that come from failing to help, then my options are

61
more varied. I have four. First, I can avoid possible punishments such as social censure,
shame, and guilt by sincerely trying to help, even if my effort proves ineffective. Second, if
another person helps effectively before I have a chance, then I am free from any threat of
punishment because my help is no longer needed. If available, this is a particularly attractive
option because it is cost free. Third, if I can escape from the need situation by, for example,
becoming involved in a distracting task, or if I can escape the perception that I should help
(by having justification for not helping), then I may successfully avoid self-inflicted
punishments such as shame and guilt. Fourth, I can do nothing and take my punishment.
The escape option deserves additional comment. In general, escape from the need situation
may be achieved by eliminating any of the three conditions identified in Chapter 2 as
necessary for perceiving need: (a) I can redefine the situation so that no perceptible
discrepancy exists between the others current state and what is desirable (He got what he
deserved.), (b) I can reduce the salience of the others need through increasing physical or
psychological distance from it (Thank goodness that sort of thing doesnt happen around
here.), or (c) I can shift the focus of attention away from the person in need toward some
other aspect of the environment (I cant stand to see this; lets switch channels.).
To reach the goal of avoiding self-inflicted punishments of shame and guilt, I need to escape
psychologically. Physically escaping the need situation may not be enough because I may
take knowledge of the need with me in memory. Of course, the old adage, Out of sight, out
of mind, reminds us that physical escape often permits psychological escape as well, and
evidence to be reviewed in Chapter 6 suggests that people believe this adage. Moreover, even
if I cannot escape the need situation, a good justification for why I cannot be expected to help
(I would love to, but...) may allow me to escape social and self-censure.

Reducing Aversive Arousal

If seeing another person in need evokes in me an egoistic desire to reduce aversive arousal
experienced as a result of witnessing the others suffering, e.g., unpleasant feelings of distress
or disgust evoked by seeing someone who is hurt, then I again have four options. The cause
of my distress can be removed either (a) by me helping or (b) by another person helping.
Alternatively, contact with the cause of my distress can be removed (c) by escaping. But in
this case I must escape something different from social or self-punishment. Here, I must
escape the stimulus causing my distress. Given this difference, physical escape may be even
more effective as a means to reduce aversive arousal than as a means to avoid social or self-
punishment. Finally, I can (d) do nothing and continue to feel distressed.
Unlike reward seeking and punishment avoiding, where the thought counts and helping does
not need to be effective as long as the ineffectiveness is justified, helping must be effective if
the goal of aversive-arousal reduction is to be reached. The help must remove the others
need because the others need is what is causing my distress. Moreover, having someone else
help can be just as effective in removing the cause of my

62
distress as being the helper myself, and having someone else help is almost always less
costly. Therefore, if others can help, the motivation to reduce aversive arousal should lead me
to hope they will. It may even lead me to encourage them to do so.
If no one else can help, then a desire to reduce aversive arousal produced by witnessing
anothers need will motivate me either to help or to escape, whichever is the least costly
means of reducing my distress. Typically, escaping is less costly than helping. So, when
escape is possible, this type of egoistic motivation should lead to little helping.

Empathy-Induced Altruism
As previously stated, and as depicted in Figure 3.1, the cost-benefit analysis prompted by
empathy-induced altruistic motivation is likely to include consideration of three possible
behaviors: help, have another help, or not act. No thought should be given to escape from the
need situation because escape is not a viable behavioral means to reach the altruistic goal of
removing the empathy-inducing need.
Helpingwhether done by me or by someone elsemust be effective if the altruistic goal is
to be reached. Assuming we can both help effectively, someone else helping should be as
viable, but no more viable, a means of reaching the altruistic goal as is being the helper
myself. However, to have someone else help is likely to be less costly. So when I can be
confident that another persons help will be at least as effective as my own, having that
person help should be preferred. Even if no one else can help, I may decide to do nothing due
to overriding costs, leaving the altruistic motive unsatisfied. In this case, I will experience
agitation and frustration until the force of the altruistic motivation slowly diminishes as the
empathic concern dissipates. (Like any emotion, empathic concern is likely to dissipate over
time.) Alternatively, I could (a) reassess the situation and decide that the person is not in need
after all or (b) reduce valuing of the needy persons welfare by derogating him or her (Lerner,
1970). These responses do not enable me to reach the altruistic goal. Instead, they eliminate
my empathic concern and, hence, my altruistic motivation.
Helping a person for whom one feels empathic concern is likely to enable the helper to gain
social and self-rewards, avoid social and self-punishments, and reduce aversive arousal
caused by witnessing the others suffering. But according to the empathy-altruism hypothesis,
these benefits to self are not the ultimate goal of the motivation to help produced by empathy.
They are either unintended consequences or the product of other motives (see Chapter 1). The
empathy-altruism hypothesis claims that the ultimate goal of the motivation produced by
empathic concern is to remove the empathy-evoking need.

Time Required for the Cost-Benefit Analysis

The cost-benefit analysis prompted by these various motives for helping does not necessarily
involve extensive deliberation. Problem-solving heuristics exist that permit a rough cost-
benefit analysis to be performed, when necessary, very quicklyprobably in less than a
second. This high-speed analysis may be crude. It may be limited in the number of

63
response options entertained and in the consideration given to the benefits and costs of each.
Still, that should not lead us to conclude that no analysis occurred. Hoffman (1981a) and
Piliavin and Piliavin (1973) have claimed that rapid, impulsive helping (in 25 seconds after
recognizing a need) is too quick to involve a weighing of benefits and costs. I doubt this.
When necessary, it is possible to think fast. A tennis player hitting a volley may weigh the
benefits and costs of several behavioral options (Should I go cross-court? Down the line? Try
a drop shot?) and act with precision in a fraction of a second.
Imagine you are hurrying down the sidewalk, late for a meeting. Suddenly, a young child in
front of you sees something on the other side of the busy thoroughfare, breaks free from his
mother, and darts into the street. You experience a rush of empathic concern and, therefore,
altruistic motivation to save the child. The benefit of the child being safe may be the most
prominentperhaps the onlyfactor considered in the cost-benefit analysis. You may fail to
consider the associated cost. This limited analysis of the situation may lead you impulsively
to run into the traffic in pursuit. You may afterward reportas do many who rush into
burning buildings or dive into dangerous watersthat you didnt think before you acted. In
spite of this report, it seems likely that youand theydid think. Otherwise, impulsive
helping responses would not be as adaptive as they are, with helpers trying to circumvent
barriers (in this case, cars) to reach the goal. It seems more accurate to say that youand
theymay not have thought carefully, but you did think. Your response was still goal
directed.
Similar problem-solving heuristics exist for conducting the cost-benefit analysis prompted by
egoistic motivation. Once again, the sophistication of these heuristics can vary. If, on
witnessing the child dart into the street, you feel a surge of shock, alarm, and personal
distress and, as a result, strong egoistic motivation to reduce your distress, then you may
respond rapidly based on a relatively crude heuristic. The benefit of reducing your aversive
arousal, and of doing so before it gets any more intense, may be the only factor you consider.
Once again, you may impulsively dash into the traffic to save the child and relieve your
distress, failing to give weight to the associated cost. This would result in impulsive egoistic
helping.
Other individuals confronted with the same situation may employ a very different but equally
crude heuristic. They may focus on the danger to themselves of running into traffic (i.e., the
cost of helping) to the exclusion of benefits. As a result, they may impulsively respond, No
way! Still, this impulsive response also likely involves thought, even if it is not well thought
out. Impulsiveness per se does not distinguish altruistic from egoistic motives; either type of
motivation can lead to an impulsive or a well thought out responseor failure to respond.

Empathic Over-Arousal, Personal Distress, and Egoistic Drift

Hofffman (2000) has suggested that when empathic concern becomes too strong, one
experiences empathic over-arousal, and empathy turns into personal distress, producing

64
egoistic drift (also see Piliavin et al., 1981). If he is right, the cost-benefit analysis is even
more complicated than suggested thus far. But is he right? To back up his claim of empathic
over-arousal, Hoffman relies on a study reported by Stotland, Mathews, Sherman, Hansson,
and Richardson (1978). They found that during the first month working on hospital wards,
nursing students more prone to experience empathic concern (compared to their peers) spent
less time providing direct care in patients rooms and more time seeking support and
assistance from staff nurses and other hospital personnel.
This finding is certainly intriguing. However, it can easily be explained without having to
postulate the complexities of (a) empathic over-arousal, (b) a transformation of empathic
feelings into personal distress, and (c) egoistic drift. The empathy-prone students, initially
unsure of their ability to help effectively, likely experienced feelings of both empathic
concern and personal distress and, as a result, both altruistic and egoistic motives. Avoiding
direct contact with patients would allow some escape from the distress; seeking support and
assistance from more experienced staff would be the most effective means to remove
patients needs, which would allow the students to reach both egoistic and altruistic goals.
Consistent with this interpretation, the tendency for empathy-prone students to avoid
providing direct care disappeared after the first month. In the next month, when they felt
more competent, the time spent in their patients rooms dramatically increased.
Insofar as I know, there is no good evidence that once empathic concern reaches a certain
level it turns into personal distress. Nor is there good evidence that as altruistic motivation
becomes more intense, it drifts toward egoism. Although the ideas of empathic over-arousal
and egoistic drift have enjoyed some popularity in the literature (e.g., Eisenberg, 2000), I
think they must be regarded skeptically. Research to be reviewed both in this chapter and in
Chapter 5 clearly indicates that empathic concern and personal distress are distinct emotions
that can arise in response to the same need situation. Each lies on its own continuum; each
can vary from mild to strong intensity; and each produces its own qualitatively distinct form
of motivationaltruistic and egoistic, respectivelywhich may at times complement one
another and at times conflict (see Chapter 1).
Evidence of an Empathy-Helping Relationship
Let us return to the question raised at the beginning of this chapter about what a person
feeling empathic concern will do. We can now give an answer in light of our analysis of the
cost-benefit analysis prompted by empathy-induced altruistic motivation. The analysis
suggests that if (a) a person can provide the needed help, (b) no one else can, and (c) the cost
of helping does not exceed the benefit, then the more empathic concern felt, the more likely
the person will offer help.
The idea that as empathic concern increases, the tendency to help also increases is certainly
not new. Nor is it controversial. It is a claim that has been heard at least since the thirteenth
century, when Thomas Aquinas (1270/1917) suggested that mercy is heartfelt

65
sympathy for anothers distress, impelling us to succor him if we can (II-II, 30, 3). Over the
past fifty years, psychological research has produced much empirical evidence that as
empathic concern increases, helping increases.
Providing initial evidence, Aronfreed and Paskal (cited in Aronfreed, 1968) and Aderman and
Berkowitz (1970) each set up experimental conditions designed to encourage or inhibit
empathic concern for a person in need. Participants were then given an opportunity to help. In
the Aronfreed and Paskal study, they could help the person in need; in the Aderman and
Berkowitz study, they could help someone else (the experimenter). In each study, more
helping occurred in the experimental conditions designed to encourage empathic concern, and
both pairs of authors concluded that increased empathy led to increased helping. However,
this conclusion is in doubt for the Aderman and Berkowitz study, given that the person
helped was not the same as the person for whom empathy was induced. In that study the
instructions may have increased helping not because they increased empathy but because they
made helping norms more salient, leading to a greater sense of obligation to help.

Krebs (1975)
Dennis Krebs also conducted an experiment to test whether empathic concern increases
helping. In his experiment, male participants observed another young man undergo positive
(reward) and negative (shock) experiences. Krebs measured participants physiological
arousal (assessed by skin conductance, vasoconstriction, and heart rate), self-reports of
empathy, and helping. He found that a high-empathy condition (in which the young man was
(a) similar to the participant and (b) undergoing the negative experience) created the greatest
physiological arousal (most clearly on skin conductance), the highest self-reports of empathic
emotion, and the most help.
Krebss experiment demonstrated that both empathic concern and helping occurred under the
same circumstances and were correlated, but it did not demonstrate that the empathic concern
caused the helping. A study by Harris and Huang (1973) provided evidence that the
emotional arousal evoked by seeing someone in need can play a causal role.

Harris and Huang (1973)

Harris and Huang used a misattribution of arousal procedure to test for causation. While
research participants were performing a mathematics task, a confederate with bandaged knee
limped into the experimental room, tripped over a chair, fell to the floor, and cried out in
pain. Some participants were induced to misattribute any emotional arousal they felt while
witnessing this incident to aversive noise being broadcast during the math task; others were
not. Harris and Huang based their predictions on Schachters (1964) two-factor theory of
emotion, which states that in order for an emotion to be experienced a person must (a) have
physiological arousal and (b) cognitively label the arousal as reflecting that emotion. Harris
and Huang reasoned that if experiencing empathic concern

66
increases helping, then the emotional arousal produced by seeing the person fall should
increase helping only when attributed to the victims plight. As predicted, participants
induced to misattribute their arousal to the aversive noise offered less help to the confederate
than did those not so induced.
Unfortunately, it was not clear that the emotional arousal experienced by participants in the
Harris and Huang (1973) study was empathic concern. The confederates fall may have led
participants to experience feelings of upset, anxiety, or other forms of personal distress,
which they then sought to reduce by helping.

Coke, Batson, and McDavis (1978)

Using a misattribution of arousal procedure similar to the one used by Harris and Huang,
Coke et al. (1978, Experiment 1) provided clearer evidence that empathic concern increases
helping. They had undergraduates listen to a taped radio newscast (actually fictitious) that
presented the situation of a college senior, Katie Banks. Katies parents and a sister had
recently been killed in an automobile accident. Her parents did not have life insurance, and
she was struggling to support her surviving younger brother and sister while finishing her last
year of college. Katie badly needed money, but she also needed transportation to the grocery
store and laundry, and sitters to stay with her younger brother and sister while she attended
her two night classes. The announcer then interviewed Katie. In a grief-stricken voice, she
explained that her primary concern was to graduate so that she could get a job that would
enable her to support her younger brother and sister. Without a good job, she would have to
give them up for adoption. Employing Stotlands (1969) technique for manipulating empathy
through perspective-taking instructions, Coke et al. had participants either imagine how Katie
felt about her situation (imagine-other condition) or observe the broadcasting techniques used
to make the newscast impactful (observe condition).
Shortly before they heard the newscast, participants ingested a capsule in the context of
another experiment. Ostensibly, the capsule contained the drug Norephren. (It was actually a
placebo.) All participants were told that Norephren had a side effect. Half were told that it
would cause them to feel relaxed (relaxation-side-effect condition); the rest, that it would
cause them to feel aroused (arousal-side-effect condition). After hearing the newscast, all
participants were unexpectedly given an opportunity to help Katie by offering to run errands,
sit with her brother and sister while she attended her classes, and so on. (To avoid the
possibility that participants, who might have seen my name associated with research on
helping behavior in their introductory psychology class, would be alerted to the true purpose
of the research, a different name was given as faculty sponsor of this and similar
experiments.)
Consistent with what was said about perspective taking in Chapters 1 and 2, Coke et al.
(1978) reasoned that imagining how Katie felt about her situation would increase empathic
concern for her because she was clearly in need. Participants in the imagine condition should
be more empathically aroused than participants in the observe

67
condition. However, participants in the imagine/arousal-side-effect cell would have a salient
alternative explanation for this arousal. They had just taken a Norephren capsule that causes
arousal. Only participants in the imagine/relaxation-side-effect cell should both experience
empathic arousal and label the arousal as a response to Katies plight. Therefore, following
Schachters (1964) two-factor theory of emotion, only participants in the imagine/relaxation-
side-effect cell should experience empathic concern. And, if empathic concern increases
helping, participants in the imagine/relaxation-side-effect cell should help more than
participants in each of the other three cells.
Helping responses conformed to this predicted pattern. Participants in the imagine/relaxation-
side-effect cell offered significantly more help to Katie than did participants in any of the
other three cells. Perception of need did not differ across the four cells; it was consistently
high. Stocks (2001) replicated the Coke et al. (1978, Experiment 1) procedure and pattern of
results.
In addition to providing evidence that empathic concern increases helping, the results of these
two experiments indicate that adopting the perspective of a person in need increases helping
specifically as a result of its emotional effects, not as a result of any cognitive or perceptual
effects that perspective taking may produce (for research on such effects, see Davis, Conklin,
Smith, & Luce, 1996; Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Regan & Totten, 1975). Cognitive and
perceptual effects should not be diminished by a misattribution of arousal manipulation. (Nor
should effects due to conditioning or reinforcement.) Only effects due to emotional arousal
should.
In a second experiment, Coke et al. (1978) used a different strategy to manipulate empathic
concern. They artificially increased perceived empathic arousal by providing false
physiological-arousal feedback to participants listening to a (bogus) radio broadcast. The
need situation presented in the broadcast was designed to be intrinsically unarousing: A
graduate student in Education was having difficulty finding volunteers to participate in her
masters thesis research because she could offer neither payment nor course credit. All
participants were instructed, while listening to the broadcast, to imagine how the graduate
student felt about her situation (i.e., an imagine-other perspective). As they listened, some
participants received false galvanic skin response (GSR) feedback indicating that they were
not aroused (low-arousal condition); others received false feedback indicating that they were
highly aroused (high-arousal condition). All participants were then unexpectedly given an
opportunity to help the graduate student by volunteering to take part in her research. Prior to
this opportunity to help, participants were asked to indicate the degree to which they had
experienced a number of emotions while listening to the broadcast, including empathic
emotions.
Compared to participants in the low-arousal condition, participants in the high-arousal
condition (a) reported that they felt more empathic concern while listening to the broadcast,
and (b) helped the graduate student more. A path analysis indicated that the effect of the
false-feedback manipulation on helping was mediated by the self-reported empathic concern
(i.e., feeling empathic, concerned, warm, softhearted, and compassionate), not by feelings of
personal distress.
68
Wright, Shaw, and Jones (1990)
Rather than frequency of helping behavior, Wright et al. (1990) used cardiovascular response
to assess the intensity of motivation to help evoked by empathic concern. Adapting the
procedure of Coke et al. (1978, Experiment 1), participants listened to the taped radio
newscast presenting the plight of Katie Banks while either imagining how Katie was feeling
about her situation (imagine-other condition) or observing the broadcast techniques used to
make the newscast impactful (observe condition). Afterward, participants learned that they
would perform a memory task, and if they succeeded on the task, $5 would be donated to a
fund established to help Katie. Some participants were led to believe that the memory task
was easy; others, that it was difficult. Measures of cardiovascular response (most relevant,
systolic blood pressureSBP) were taken as participants were waiting to begin the memory
task. (Participants never actually performed the task.)
Based on the assumptions that (a) perspective taking increases empathic concern for a person
clearly in need and (b) empathic concern increases motivation to help, Wright et al. made the
following predictions: First, participants in the imagine-other condition should show more
SBP increase (relative to baseline) when the memory task was difficult than when it was
easy. Induced to feel empathic concern and, therefore, motivated to help, these participants
should mobilize whatever energy was needed to do so. Second, participants in the observe
condition, feeling little empathic concern and less motivated to help, should show little SBP
increase regardless of the difficulty of helping. Results matched these predictions. SBP
increase was significantly higher in the imagine-other/difficult-task cell than in each of the
other three cells. These results seem quite consistent with the idea that empathic concern
increases motivation to help. However, some doubt is cast on interpretation of the results of
this experiment because reported empathic concern for Katie was relatively high in all cells,
including the two observe cells. Wright et al. (1990) suggested that their self-report measure
of empathic concern may have been insensitive, but they could not fully rule out the
possibility that their perspective-taking manipulation of empathy was unsuccessful.

Dovidio, Allen, and Schroeder (1990)

Finally, an experiment by Dovidio et al. (1990) showed that inducing empathic concern does
not simply activate a general inclination to help; it increases the motivation to help relieve the
specific need for which empathy is felt. Using a perspective-taking manipulation much like
the one used by Coke et al. (1978, Experiment 1), Dovidio et al. first successfully induced
either low or high empathic concern for Tracy, a young woman with one of two specific
problems: (a) recruiting students to help with her senior honors project or (b) finding
volunteers to help gather information for a university committee. Participants in the
experiment were then informed that Tracy had the other problem as well, but there was no
induction of empathy for the second problem. Next, half of the participants

69
in each empathy condition were given a chance to help Tracy with the first problem, the one
for which empathic concern had been induced, whereas the other half were given the chance
to help her with the second problem.
Regardless of the problem for which empathy had been induced (honors project; university
committee), results were the same. Among participants given a chance to help with that
problem, those in the high-empathy condition were more likely to help than those in the low-
empathy condition. Among participants given a chance to help with the second problem,
those in the high-empathy condition were no more likely to help than those in the low-
empathy condition. Thus, results supported the idea that the increased helping evoked by
empathic concern is not a product of a general impulse to be good, moral, or nice; it is the
product of a specific impulse to relieve the need for which empathy is felt.
Although the effect of empathic concern on helping seems to be need-specific, it can
generalize, increasing helping of other individuals with the same or a similar need. Oswald
(1996) demonstrated such generalization in a sample of ethnically diverse, adult evening
school students in the U.S.

Conclusion
The combined evidence from these studies indicates that there is indeed an empathy-helping
relationship. Feeling empathic concern for a person in need increases the likelihood of
helping relieve that need. (Reviews by Davis, 1994, and Eisenberg & Miller, 1987, reach the
same conclusion.) This evidence may seem to provide support for the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. But, although consistent with that hypothesis, the evidence does not really
provide support. To find that empathic concern leads to increased helping tells us that it
produces motivation to help, but it tells us nothing about the nature of the motivation. The
empathy-altruism hypothesis claims that empathic concern produces altruistic motivation.
None of the evidence presented thus far addresses this claim.
Egoistic Alternatives to the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
Up to this point, I have treated the empathy-altruism hypothesis as if it were true. But instead
of producing altruistic motivation, empathic concern may produce egoistic motivation. There
are a number of plausible egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Each of
the three general forms of egoistic motivation for helping discussed earlier in the chapter has
been proposed as an explanation for the empathy-helping relationship.

Empathy-Specific Rewards
One proposal is that rather than the motivation to help produced by empathy being altruistic,
the motivation is directed toward the egoistic goal of gaining material, social, or

70
self-rewards. According to this explanation, I help more when feeling empathy because I
know that there are special rewards in the form of praise, honor, and pride that are attendant
on helping.
We heard a precursor of such an argument in la Rochefoucaulds maxim quoted in the
Introduction: The most disinterested love is, after all, but a kind of bargain, in which the
dear love of our own selves always proposes to be the gainer some way or other (1691,
Maxim 82). Bernard Mandeville (1714/1732) stated a similar view: The humblest man alive
must confess that the reward of a virtuous action, which is the satisfaction that ensues upon it,
consists in a certain pleasure he procures to himself by contemplating on his own worth (p.
43).
Each of these quotes points to the role of social rewards and, especially, self-rewards as
general motivators of helping. If, however, one is to account for the increased helping
associated with feeling empathic concern, then it is necessary to postulate motivation specific
to empathy. It is not enough to appeal to general rewards associated with helping. Helping
must be especially rewarding when the helper feels empathic concern. Three different
versions of this empathy-specific-reward hypothesis have been proposed.
The most general version claims that we learn through socialization that special rewards
follow helping someone for whom we feel empathy. These rewards are in the form of extra
praise from others or a special feeling of pride in ourselves. Given this prior learning, when
we feel empathic concern we think of these special rewards, and we help in order to get them.
Variations on this theme have been suggested by Thompson, Cowan, and Rosenhan (1980)
and by Batson (1987; see also Meindl & Lerner, 1983).
A second version of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis was proposed by Smith et al.
(1989). They called it the empathic-joy hypothesis. According to the empathic-joy hypothesis,
individuals feeling empathic concern do not help in order to gain the rewards of seeing
themselves or being seen by others as helpful and caring. Instead, they help in order to gain
the good feeling of sharing vicariously in the joy the needy individual experiences when the
need is removed. Empathic concern prompts awareness of the opportunity for empathic joy.
It is proposed that the prospect of empathic joy, conveyed by feedback from the help
recipient, is essential to the special tendency of empathic witnesses to help.... The
empathically concerned witness to the distress of others helps in order to be happy (Smith et
al., 1989, p. 641).
A third version of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis proposes that, rather than being
associated with special rewards, empathic concern is associated with a special need for the
general rewards associated with helping. Much as a hungry person values food more than
someone comfortably replete, the special need for rewards that arises when we feel empathic
concern makes helping more attractive, and more likely. Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan, Arps,
Fultz, and Beaman (1987) proposed this negative-state-relief hypothesis. They claimed that
individuals who experience empathic concern find themselves in a negative affective state, a
state of temporary sadness or sorrow. This negative state creates a need to feel better, which
leads the empathically-aroused individual to help because helping contains a rewarding
component for most normally socialized adults... [and] can be used instrumentally to restore
mood (Cialdini et al., 1987, p. 750).
71
According to each of these three versions of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis,
empathic concern does not lead to increased helping because of an altruistic desire to relieve
the suffering of the person for whom empathy is felt, as the empathy-altruism hypothesis
claims. Rather, it leads to increased helping because of an egoistic desire to gain a positive,
rewarding experience.

Empathy-Specific Punishments
The second general class of egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis focuses
on avoiding material, social, or self-punishments. According to this explanation, we help
more when we feel empathic concern because we know that special punishments in the form
of guilt, shame, and censure follow failing to help someone for whom we feel empathy.
Mandeville graphically portrayed the role of punishment avoidance in motivating helping:
There is no merit in saving an innocent babe ready to drop into the fire: The action is neither
good nor bad, and what benefit soever the infant received, we only obliged our selves; for to
have seen it fall, and not strove to hinder it, would have caused a pain, which self-
preservation compelled us to prevent (1714/1732, p. 42). Less graphic but to the same point,
John Stuart Mill (1861/1987) suggested that we act on our feeling for others in order to avoid
either external sanction, the fear of displeasure, from our fellow-creatures or from the Ruler
of the Universe, or internal sanction, a pain,... the essence of Conscience,... derived from
sympathy, from love, and still more from fear (pp. 299300). Freud presented a similar
analysis in Civilization and Its Discontents (1930).
Once again, if anticipated punishments are to explain the increased helping produced by
empathic concern, these punishments cannot be those associated with any and all failures to
help; they must be specific to failures to help when feeling empathy. In contemporary
psychology, two versions of an empathy-specific-punishment hypothesis have been proposed.
One version, introduced by Archer et al. (1981), focuses on socially-administered
punishments. This version claims that empathic concern increases helping because, after
reporting empathic feelings, a person anticipates negative evaluation by others if he or she
fails to act in a manner consistent with those feelings.
A second version, proposed by Dovidio (1984), Batson (1987), and Schaller and Cialdini
(1988), focuses on self-punishments. This version claims that we learn through socialization
that feeling empathic concern introduces a special obligation to help and, as a result, an extra
dose of self-administered shame and guilt if we do not. Given this prior learning, when we
feel empathy we think of the impending empathy-specific self-punishments and help in order
to avoid them. We ask ourselves, what kind of person would not help when feeling like this?
To avoid having to admit we are that kind of person, we help.

Aversive-Arousal Reduction
The most popular egoistic explanation of the motivation to help associated with empathic
concern, both in classical philosophy and in contemporary psychology, is that the

72
motivation is directed toward the goal of aversive-arousal reduction. According to this
explanation, we help more when we feel empathy because feeling empathic concern is an
unpleasant, aversive emotional state, and we want to reduce our own aversive empathic
arousal. Helping benefits us by turning off the stimulus causing us to feel bad.
At first glance, this aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis may look very much like the third
version of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis, the one based on negative-state relief. In
fact, it is quite different. Both explanations begin with the proposition that empathic concern
is unpleasant, a negative affective state. But from this common starting point they diverge.
The negative-state-relief explanation claims that the resulting motivation is directed toward
the goal of adding mood-enhancing rewards that we have learned are associated with helping.
The aversive-arousal-reduction explanation claims that the motivation is directed toward the
goal of eliminating the negative affect itself, and helping is one way to do so.
Aquinas gave early expression to an aversive-arousal-reduction explanation of the empathy-
helping relationship when he argued: From the very fact that a person takes pity on anyone,
it follows that anothers distress grieves him. And since sorrow or grief is about ones own
ills, one grieves or sorrows for anothers distress, in so far as one looks upon anothers
distress as ones own (1270/1917, II-II, 30, 2).
In contemporary psychology, an aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis has been proposed to
explain the increased helping associated with empathic concern by Dovidio (1984), Hoffman
(1981b), Hornstein (1978), Karylowski (1982), Krebs (1975), and Piliavin and Piliavin
(1973). Each of these authors has suggested that when we feel empathic concern for someone
who is suffering we also suffer, and we act to relieve their suffering as an instrumental means
to relieve our own. Hoffman (1981b) put it succinctly: Empathic distress is unpleasant and
helping the victim is usually the best way to get rid of the source (p. 52).
Using the Unique Configuration of Possible Behaviors to Determine Whether the Motivation
Produced by Empathic Concern is Altruistic or Egoistic
Given the plethora of possibilities, how are we to know which explanation for the motivation
to help produced by empathic concern is correct, the empathy-altruism hypothesis or one or
more of these egoistic alternatives? Insofar as I know, there is no known way to directly
assess the nature of a persons motivationthat is, to directly determine a persons ultimate
goal. There are some physiological indicatorsstill rather crudeof the intensity of
motivation, but except for indicators of general approach versus avoidance tendencies
(Davidson, 2000), there are not even crude physiological indicators of the nature of
motivation. Nor is it possible to trust peoples self-reports about why they do what they do.
As noted in Chapter 1, people may not knowor may not reporttheir true motives,
especially their true motives for helping someone in need. Still, I believe it is possible to
determine whether the motivation to help produced by empathy is altruistic or egoistic.

73
Consider the way we go about assessing the nature of a persons motivation in everyday life.
For example, consider the case of Suzie and Frank, who work in the same office. One
Monday morning, music-loving Suzie is unusually attentive to homely but well-heeled Frank.
Frank wonders, Have my prayers been answered? Has Suzie finally discovered my
charmsor is she broke and wanting me to take her to the concert this weekend? Frank is
questioning the nature of Suzies motivation, her ultimate goal. As matters stand, he lacks the
information to make an inference, even though wishful thinking may provide one. But what if
Suzie, returning from lunch, opens her mail and finds that her father has sent her two tickets
to the concert? If she coolly passes Frank on her way to invite John, Frank can infer with
considerable confidenceand chagrinthe ultimate goal of her earlier attentions.
This simple example highlights three principles that are important when drawing inferences
about the nature of a persons motivation. First, we do not observe another persons goals or
intentions directly; we infer them from the persons behavior. Second, if we observe behavior
that is a viable means to reach the ultimate goals of two plausible motives, we cannot know
which motive produced the behavior. It is like having one equation with two unknowns; a
clear answer is impossible. Third, we can draw reasonable inferences about the underlying
motive if we can observe the persons response when conditions change so that the behavior
is no longer the best means to reach the ultimate goal of one of the motives. If that is the
persons motive, he or she should no longer pursue the behavior.
Everyday use of this strategy for inferring the motives underlying other peoples behavior has
been discussed in some detail by attribution theorists (e.g., Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis,
1965). We use such a strategy to infer when a student is really interested or only seeking a
better grade (What happens to the students interest after the grades are turned in?), why a
friend chose one job over another, and whether politicians mean what they say or are only
after votes.
Generalizing from these examples, two steps seem necessary to infer the nature of a persons
motivation from his or her behavior. First, we must conduct a conceptual analysis of the
various plausible motives for the persons action. Unless we have some idea that a given goal
may have been the persons aim, there is little likelihood of concluding that it was. Frank
realized that Suzie might be after the concert rather than him. Second, we need to observe the
persons willingness to enact a behavior that is the most effective mean to reach the ultimate
goal of one motive but not the other. After lunch, Frank was no longer the most effective way
for Suzie to get to the concert. The persons behavior under these circumstances should prove
diagnostic.
Applying this two-step strategy to the problem at hand, we have already taken the first step.
We have identified seven possible motives that might underlie the empathy-helping
relationshipempathy-induced altruism and six empathy-specific egoistic motives (3
versions of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis, 2 versions of the empathy-specific-
punishment hypothesis, and the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis).
Now we need to take the second step. We need to observe the behavior of people who are or
are not feeling empathic concern when this behavior is the most effective means to reach the
goal of one or more of the six egoistic motives but not to reach the
74
altruistic goal of removing the empathy-inducing need, or vice versa. Chapter 5 reviews over
thirty experiments designed to do just this.
Before taking this second step, however, it is necessary to consider with some care the
different possible behaviors that allow a person to reach the goal of one or more of the six
egoistic alternatives but not of an altruistic motive, or vice versa. These will be the behaviors
used to test the various egoistic alternatives against the empathy-altruism hypothesis. We
have already considered the unique configuration of viable behaviors associated with
empathy-induced altruism and with the three general forms of egoistic motivation evoked by
perceiving someone in need. Now we need to get more specific.
Possible behaviors associated with empathy-induced altruism and the various egoistic
alternatives appear as column headings in Table 3.1. (The option of not acting has been
omitted from the table because not acting is always a possible behavior, so it provides no
basis for inferring which motive is present.) Let us consider the diagnostic potential of each
behavior in turn.

Help
Providing help is a viable way to reach the goal of each of the seven motives considered in
Table 3.1, altruistic and egoistic. This is no surprise, given that each motive in the table has
been proposed to explain the increased helping produced by empathic concern. Still, there are
differences in the conditions under which help should result from the different motives. The
key conditions are (a) whether ones help effectively removes the others need, (b) whether
one anticipates knowing if the help effectively removed the need, and (c) whether one thinks
other people (e.g., the person in need, a third-party) know about ones opportunity to help.

Effectiveness
As stated in Table 3.1, if the motive produced by empathic concern is altruistic, then to
satisfy this motive, help must be effective. Otherwise, the ultimate goal of the altruistic
motiveremoving the empathy-evoking needwill not be reached. Help must also be
effective if the motive is either to gain empathic joy or to reduce aversive arousal because if
one knows the other is still suffering, neither of these goals can be reached. However, if the
motive is to gain rewards for helping (Versions 1 & 3 of the empathy-specific-reward
hypothesis) or to avoid punishments for not (Versions 1 & 2 of the empathy-specific-
punishment hypothesis), then help need not be effectiveas long as the ineffectiveness is
justified. As noted previously, when dispensing rewards for helping and punishments for not,
a sincere attempt to help (the thought) counts.

Feedback
If the motive is altruistic, receiving feedback about the effectiveness of ones helping effort is
likely to be desired (just as a person seeking to hit a bulls-eye would like to know if he or
she succeeded), but it is not essential. However, as Smith et al. (1989) pointed out,

75
Table 3.1 Behaviors Associated With Different Plausible Empathy-Induced Motives

Behaviors
Motive Help Have someone else Escape from the Receive other Latency to respond due to
help situation rewards cognitive interference
Altruism Yes (must be Yes (must be No No Yes, to cognitions
effective)a effective) concerning victims need
Egoistic
alternatives
Reward seeking
Version 1: Rewards Yes (need not be No No Probably Yes, to cognitions
for helping effective) concerning reward
Version 2: Yes (must be effective Yes (must be effective No No Yes, to cognitions
Empathic joy and result known) and result known) concerning victims need
Version 3: Yes (need not be Yes (must be No Yes Yes, to cognitions
Negative-state effective) effective) concerning reward
relief
Punishment
avoiding
Version 1: Social Yes (if public; need Yes (must be effective Yes (if not No Yes, to cognitions
evaluation not be effective) and justified) helping justified) concerning social
punishment
Version 2: Self- Yes (need not be Yes (must be effective Yes (if not No Yes, to cognitions
evaluation effective) and justified) helping justified) concerning self-
punishment
Aversive-arousal Yes (must be effective) Yes (must be Yes No Unclear
reduction effective)

a
Each entry in the table is a response to the question, Is this particular behavior (see column
heading) a viable means to reach the ultimate goal of this particular motive (see row
heading)?

76
receiving feedback is essential if one is to reach the goal of experiencing empathic joy. One
must know that the other is enjoying removal of the need in order to vicariously share the joy.
For the other egoistic motives, as for altruism, feedback is likely to be desired but not
essential.

Others Awareness
If the motive is altruistic, then whether other people are aware of ones opportunity to help
should be irrelevant. The ultimate goal is to relieve the need that evoked empathic concern,
not to either look good or avoid looking bad in others eyes. However, this awareness is
essential if the motive is to gain social rewards. It is also essential if the motive is to avoid
negative social evaluation. If no one else knows about the opportunity to help, there is no
chance to enhance social esteem and no need to fear social censure. Others awareness is not
essential to gain self-rewards, to avoid self-punishments, or to reduce aversive arousal.

Have Someone Else Help

To have another person help, and help effectively, is a viable behavior if the motive produced
by empathic concern is altruistic. It is also viable if the motive is (a) to reduce ones own
aversive arousal caused by witnessing the others distress, (b) to experience empathic joy (as
long as one receives feedback that the other persons help was effective), or (c) to gain
negative-state relief (a happy ending should produce mood-enhancing positive affect). And
it is a viable way of avoiding social and self-censure, as long as one can justify not having
helped first. But to have someone else help is not a viable way to gain social and self-rewards
for being helpful (Version 1 of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis). To gain these
rewards, one must be the helper oneself.

Escape
Escape from the need situation without helping is not a viable behavior if the motive is
altruistic. Nor is it viable if the motive is to gain rewardswhether rewards for helping,
empathic joy, or negative-state relief. However, as discussed earlier, escape is a viable
behavior if the motive is either to avoid social or self-punishment (as long as ones failure to
help can be justified) or to reduce aversive arousal caused by witnessing the needy
individuals distress.

Receive Other Rewards

If the motivation produced by empathic concern is altruistic, then receipt of other rewards is
not a viable route. It brings one no nearer the ultimate goal of removing the others need. Nor
is receipt of other rewards viable if the motive is to experience empathic joy, to

77
avoid social or self-punishment, or to reduce ones own aversive arousal. It is, however, a
viable way to reach the ultimate goal of negative-state relief. According to the negative-state-
relief hypothesis, any experience that produces mood-enhancing positive affect should satisfy
the motive associated with empathic concern. Although less clear, receipt of other rewards
may also be viable if the motive is to gain rewards for being a helper (Version 1 of the
empathy-specific-reward hypothesis). To receive other rewards does not provide rewards for
being a helper, but it may diminish the need for rewards in general, including those that come
from helping (cf., Aderman & Berkowitz, 1970).

Latency to Respond Due to Cognitive Interference

The last behavior listed in Table 3.1, latency to respond due to cognitive interference, has not
been mentioned previously. It has not because this latency is not instrumental to reaching a
goal and is not observable in everyday life. It can be observed only in laboratory situations,
where one can present carefully constructed stimuli and take precise reaction-time measures.
The idea is that when an individual is motivated to reach a specific goal, he or she will have
thoughts related to this goal. So, if reminders of these thoughts are embedded in a stimulus
about which the individual is asked to make a judgment unrelated to these thoughts, the
reminders will prove distracting, impeding the judgment, and producing a slower reaction
time to make the judgmenti.e., an increased latency.
A Stroop (1938) task is one technique for assessing latency to respond due to cognitive
interference. On a Stroop task, research participants for whom certain thoughts are salient try
to name as quickly as possible the color of the ink in which different words are printed. Some
of the words are related to the salient thoughts; some are unrelated. Participants cannot, it
seems, keep from processing the content of the words, and if the content is related to their
current thoughts, it will create interference and slow down their color-naming response,
resulting in a longer latency.
Although indirect and artificial, latency responses have the virtue that they can be expected to
show a pattern if the motive produced by empathic concern is altruistic that differs from the
pattern expected for all but one of the egoistic alternatives. If the motive is altruistic, the
ultimate goal is to remove the empathy-evoking need, so words that refer to thoughts about
the need should produce a longer latency to name the color of the ink in which the word is
printed. The only egoistic alternative for which words that refer to the need should produce a
longer color-naming latency is the empathic-joy hypothesis. Awareness that the others need
has been removed is necessary for empathic joy, so for a person seeking empathic joy,
thoughts about the others need should be salient.
The other two versions of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis (Versions 1 & 3) should
produce longer color-naming latency for words that refer to possible rewards (e.g., the word
praise). The two versions of the empathy-specific-punishment hypothesis should produce
longer color-naming latency for words that refer to possible social or self-punishments,
respectively (e.g., blame, guilt). The effects on color-naming latency of a

78
motive to reduce ones own aversive arousal are unclear. The ultimate goal of aversive-
arousal reduction is not the presence of a new state; it is elimination of a current one.
Moreover, the current state is affective. So it is not clear exactly what thoughts, if any, would
cause interference. Given this, latency to cognitive interference is probably not useful in
detecting a motive to reduce ones own aversive arousal.
Reviewing the entries in Table 3.1, no single behavior or condition differentiates empathy-
induced altruistic motivation from all six of the egoistic alternatives. On the other hand, for
each of the egoistic alternatives, there is at least one behavior or condition for which the
altruism predictions differ. Observing the effect of empathic concern on this set of behaviors
under these conditions should prove diagnostic, revealing the ultimate goalor natureof
the motivation produced by empathy. The apparent vagueness of an analysis that involves
weighing the costs and benefits of the three behaviors that may result from empathy-induced
altruism, and the overlap of these behaviors with those that may result from possible
empathy-induced egoistic motives, proves not to be so vague after all. By clearly identifying
possible empathy-induced egoistic motives, and by attending to the unique configuration of
behaviors associated with each, we have identified a set of behaviors and conditions that will
allow us to infer whether the motivation produced by empathic concern is altruistic or
egoistic.

Sequential Testing
It should not be surprising that none of the behaviors and conditions listed in Table 3.1 allows
a clear test of the empathy-altruism hypothesis against all six egoistic alternatives. Each
alternative involves a different psychological process. Ultimately, of course, the goal is to test
the empathy-altruism hypothesis against all egoistic alternatives. To do this, it is necessary
either to conduct an experiment in which a number of behaviors and conditions are
considered at oncewhich seems unwieldy and unwiseor to conduct a series of
experiments in which the egoistic alternatives are tested against the empathy-altruism
hypothesis one after another. Following the latter strategy, care must be taken when moving
from testing one egoistic alternative to testing another. Experimental situations must remain
comparable so that results across studies can be aggregated. The best way to maintain
comparability is to use the same need situations and techniques for inducing empathy,
changing only the available behaviors and relevant conditions. At the same time, it is also
important to test any given alternative in multiple experiments using different need situations
and techniques for inducing empathic concern and, if possible, different behaviors and
conditions.
Summary and Conclusion
In these first three chapters, I have presented a theory of altruistic motivation based on the
empathy-altruism hypothesis. This core hypothesis, depicted in Figure 1.1 and explicated in
Chapter 1, states simply that empathic concern produces altruistic motivation.

79
 Figure 3.2 Overview of a Theory of Empathy-Induced Altruistic Motivation

Empathic concern is defined as other-oriented emotion elicited by and congruent with the
perceived welfare of someone in need. Altruistic motivation is a motivational state with the
ultimate goal of increasing anothers welfareor in the present context, with the ultimate
goal of removing the empathy-evoking need.
In addition to this core, the theory specifies both the antecedents of empathic concern and the
possible behavioral consequences of altruistic motivation. As depicted in Figure 2.1 and
explicated in Chapter 2, two antecedents of empathic concern are proposed: (a) perceiving the
other as in need and (b) valuing the others welfare. As depicted in Figure 3.1 and explicated
in this chapter, the possible behavioral consequences of altruistic motivation are to (a) help,
(b) have another help, or (c) not act. Which of these three behaviors occurs is a product not
only of the altruistic motivation but also of a cost-benefit analysis prompted by the altruistic
motivation. This analysis involves weighing the costs and benefits associated with each
possible behavior.
Comparing the behaviors considered in the cost-benefit analysis for empathy-induced
altruistic motivation with the behaviors considered in the cost-benefit analysis of each of the
egoistic motives that have been proposed to account for the increased motivation to help
produced by empathic concern reveals that no one behavior is uniquely diagnostic of
empathy-induced altruism. However, this comparison also reveals that the altruistic and
egoistic possibilities can still be distinguished behaviorally because each of the egoistic
alternatives differs from altruistic motivation on the relevance of at least one behavior.
Figure 3.2 provides an overview of the theory by putting all of the pieces togetherthe
antecedents of empathic concern, empathy-altruism core, and behavioral consequences. With
the entire theory before us, and with the egoistic alternatives that have been suggested, it is
time to consider whether the claim that empathic concern produces altruistic motivation
might actually be true. Part II is dedicated to this task.

80
Part II Empirical Evidence

Part I provided a theory of altruistic motivation based on the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

Part II considers empirical research designed to test this hypothesis. First, in Chapter 4, I
explain why adequate evidence for or against the empathy-altruism hypothesis cannot be
drawn from examples of helpfulness, no matter how heartwarming or heroic. Adequate
evidence requires experimental designs that permit inference about the nature of the motives
for helping. In Chapters 5 and 6, I summarize the available evidence. Chapter 5 focuses on
the research that has tested the empathy-altruism hypothesis against the six egoistic
alternatives identified in Chapter 3. Chapter 6 focuses on two more challenges to the
empathy-altruism hypothesis, and reviews research relevant to each.

81
82
4 Turning to Experiments

When seeking evidence of altruism, most scholarsand most non-scholars as welllook to

dramatic cases of heroic helping, cases in which one individual or organism acts to benefit
another at considerable cost to self. The cases cited typically include one or more of the
followingor cases very much like these. As such cases make clear, what is done for others
can be truly spectacular.
Cases of Heroic Helping

Holocaust Rescuers
First, there are the rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. People like Miep Gies (1987), who
helped hide Anne Frank and her parents, risked their own livesand often the lives of loved
onesday after day for months, sometimes years. Not only was hiding Jews dangerous, but it
was also quite costly in terms of scarce food supplies shared, inconvenience of living
arrangements, and time spent ministering to the needs of one or more invisible members of
the household. German businessman Oskar Schindler has been justly acclaimed for saving
several thousand Jews in Poland from death. At least as deserving of acclaim, Swedish
emissary Raoul Wallenberg was responsible for saving perhaps as many as a hundred
thousand Jews in Hungary from Eichmanns final solution.

Saints and Martyrs

There are also the religious figures. When she died in 1997, Mother Teresa had spent years
ministering to the dying of Calcutta, the poorest of the poor, and had brought care and
comfort to thousands. Called the angel of mercy, she received the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize.
Even before her death, she was considered a saint by many. Reverend Martin Luther King,
Jr., was martyred in 1968 for tireless pursuit of his dream of racial equality and justice in the
U.S. He did not reach this Promised Land, but beginning with the bus boycott in
Montgomery, Alabama, in 19551956, through the March on Washington in 1963, and
beyond, his courageous efforts helped bring the dream closer. He too received the Nobel
Peace Prizein 1964.

83
Soldiers, Police, Firemen, and Rescue Workers
Of 207 awards of the Congressional Medal of Honor to U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, 63 were for
voluntarily using ones body to shield other men from an exploding device, usually a live
hand grenade. Of these 63 soldiers, 59 died as a result (Blake, 1978). After the planes hit the
World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, more than 350 firemen and emergency rescue
workers and 23 police lost their lives attempting to direct others to safety. In 1995, rescue
crews worked around the clock in extreme danger to free trapped victims of the Oklahoma
City bombing. So did those who rescued Baby Jessica (18-month-old Jessica McClure)
after she fell into an abandoned well in Midland, Texas, in October, 1987.

Responsive Victims and Bystanders

Surviving the crash of Air Florida Flight 90 leaving National Airport in Washington, DC,
January 13, 1982, Arland Williams lost his life in the icy waters of the Potomac River
because he repeatedly gave others his place in the rescue helicopter. Lenny Skutnik, caught in
traffic on a bridge over the Potomac when the crash occurred, risked his life to dive into the
river and save a crash survivor, who was drowning.
One night in 1997, Otis Gaither, a 23-year-old construction worker, saw a mobile home
ablaze. He broke down the door and dragged Larry Leroy Whitten, 44, to safety. Then he
revived Whitten with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Gaither, who was Black, did this in spite
of Whittens white skin and prominently displayed racist symbol, the Confederate stars and
bars.

Businessmen
Aaron Feuerstein, owner of Malden Mills in Lawrence, Massachusetts, had a golden business
opportunity in 1995 when the companys factory was gutted by the largest fire in
Massachusetts in a century. He could take the $300 million in insurance money and retire, or
he could move the company south or outside the U.S., build a new factory, and hire cheaper
labor. Feuerstein did neither. Instead, he stayed in Lawrence to rebuild the only hope of a
decent job for many of its citizens. He also paid all Malden employees their full salaries for
60 days during rebuildingat a cost of over $25 million. Feuerstein became known as the
Mensch of Malden Mills. Mensch is Yiddish, meaning man with a heart.

Entertainers
In the mid 1980s, men, women, and children were dying by the thousands of famine in
Ethopia. There seemed little hope until Bob Geldof, an Irish rock musican, took the initiative
to organize the Live Aid concert to raise relief funds. Subsequently, millions helped the
Ethopian refugees by buying a copy of We Are the World, a spin-off recording. There were
also other spin-offs, such as the Farm Aid concerts organized by Willie Nelson to benefit
farmers in the U.S. Overall, millions of dollars were raisedboth for the Ethopian

84
refugees and for the U.S. farmers. As Geldof explained, We in the music business have
made drugs fashionable; weve made wild clothing and hairstyles fashionable; now its time
we made compassion and generosity fashionable (Breskin, 1985). The Live Eight concerts
in July, 2005, were descendants of Live Aid.

Donors and Volunteers

It has been estimated that charitable contributions in the U.S. exceed $180 billion annually.
And over 80 million U.S. citizens serve as volunteers, giving an average of 5 hours per week
to help either in institutional settings such as hospitals, nursing homes, AIDS hospices, fire
departments, rescue squads, shelters, halfway houses, peer counseling programs, and church
programs, or informally caring for friends and neighbors (Independent Sector Survey, 2001;
Wuthnow, 1991). That is over 20 billion hours of volunteer help per year. In addition,
thousands of people each year undergo discomfort and inconvenience to donate blood, and
hundreds undergo painful surgery to donate bone marrow.
Zell Kravinsky, 48-year-old philanthropist from Philadelphia, was one of 134 people in the
U.S. since 1998 to donate a kidney to a stranger when, in August, 2003, he made headlines by
suggesting that he might give away his second kidneyand thereby his life. He explained,
What if someone needed it who could produce more good than me? Few would qualify.
Kravinsky and his wife had already given $45 million to charity, and he had promised to give
away virtually all his family wealth that remained. As Kravinsky explained to reporter
Stephanie Strom: No one should have a vacation home until everyone has a place to live. No
one should have a second car until everyone has one. And no one should have two kidneys
until everyone has one (New York Times, August 17, 2003).

Other Species
There are many examples of animals other than humans risking danger, expending effort,
giving up food, and sometimes even giving up their lives, to benefit others.

Insects
As we all know, bees, wasps, and other social insects swarm to attack when their hive is
threatened. Flying forth to face the foe benefits the other members of the hive while incurring
risk to the attacking bee or wasp. Indeed, in the case of bees, stinging is almost always fatal
for the bee because its entrails remain attached to the embedded stinger as it flies away
(Hamilton, 1964; Wilson, 1975).

Birds
Robins, thrushes, and titmice give cries to warn other birds of the approach of a hawk, even
though these cries call attention to their own presence. Mother grouse risk capture

85
by attracting attention and feigning a broken wing to lead a predator away from their chicks
in the nest (Wilson, 1975).

Mammals
An elephant injured by a falling tree, by a weapon, or in a fight may be aided by other
elephants. The others cluster around and use their foreheads, trunks, and tusks to help the
injured elephant rise. Once on its feet, the injured elephant may be supported by others
walking or running alongside (Sikes, 1971).
Dolphins and other cetaceans (whales and porpoises) have been seen risking their lives to
support a sick or wounded conspecific on the surface so that it can breathe. There are also
reports of dolphins supporting drowning men in the same way (Caldwell & Caldwell, 1966;
Dawkins, 1976; McIntyre, 1974; Wilson, 1975).
Orphaned infant chimpanzees have been adopted and reared by their adult brothers or sisters
and, more rarely, even by non-kin (Goodall, 1986). High-status chimps share food with lower
status chimps that beg. Chimps in captivity have been observed pulling back the hand of
other chimps reaching toward danger (de Waal, 1996; Goodall, 1990). Chimps can also be
heroes. They are poor swimmers and are usually careful to avoid even shallow water
(Goodall, 1986; OConnell, 1995). Yet Goodall (1986) described the case of an adult male
chimp in Florida who drowned attempting to rescue an infant who had fallen into the moat
surrounding their enclosure. She also described an incident in Oklahoma in which the famous
female Washoe, the first chimpanzee to learn American Sign Language, leaped a fence to
rescue an unrelated 3-year-old chimp that had fallen into the moat and was drowning.
Cases of canine helpfulness are both numerous and dramatic. African wild dogs return from
hunting and regurgitate pieces of meat to feed not only the young pups but also the adult dogs
who stayed behind to care for the litter (van Lawick & van Lawick-Goodall, 1971). Domestic
dogs are often highly protective of the children in their human family, including children who
do not feed or pet them (Hebb & Thompson, 1968). Here is a newspaper story from the
tsunami of December, 2004:
Chinnakalapet, IndiaRun away! her husband screamed from a rooftop after he spotted
the colossal waves. The command was simple but it presented Sangeeta with a dilemma: She
had three sons, and only two arms. She grabbed the youngest two and ranfiguring the
oldest, 7-year-old Dinakaran, had the best chance of outrunning the tsunami churning toward
her home. But Dinakaran didnt follow. He headed for the safest place he knew, the small
family hut just 40 yards from the seashore.
Sangeeta thought that she would never see him again. The family dog saw that she did. While
water lapped at Sangeetas heels as she rushed up the hill, the scruffy yellow dog named
Selvakumar ducked into the hut after Dinakaran. Nipping and nudging, he did everything in
his power to get the boy up the hill.
Sangeeta, who like many south Indians only uses one name, had no idea of the drama
unfolding below. Once she had crossed the main road to safety she collapsed into tears,
screaming over the loss of her eldest son. I had heard from others that the wall of my house
had collapsed. I felt sure that my child had died, said the 24-year-old mother.
86
Dinakaran credits the dog with saving his life. That dog grabbed me by the collar of my
shirt, the boy said from under some trees at Pondicherry University, where the family was
waiting for relief. He dragged me out.
Sangeeta said she wept with joy when she saw her son walking up to her, with Selvakamar by
his side. That dog is my God, said Sangeetawith Dinakaran sitting on the ground at her
feet and Selvakumar sleeping on the warm asphalt next to him. (Chris Tomlinson, Associated
Press, in the Knoxville News-Sentinel, January 3, 2005)
Finally, here is another canine water rescue. Betsy Weiderhold gives this account of
womans best friend:
One summer I lived alone with my dogs on a small island off the coast of Maine. I had made
a trip to the mainland without them, and it was late at night; the fog and drizzle were thick as
I motored out of the harbor. I tried following the lobster markers, but that became impossible
as the sea swells grew larger. Finally, I could not see beyond the bow of the boat and I had to
rely on my sense of direction, as there was no compass on the boat. Suddenly, I knew I had
overshot the island. To collect my thoughts, I put the motor into neutral. By mistake, I hit the
choke and the engine died! I tried to start the motor, but it would not cooperate. I tried again.
I slumped down in my seat and dissolved into tears. My boat sloshed about, with water
pouring over the sides. I then let out a frantic call for help.
What makes animals sense danger or trouble long before human beings react? I am certain
that by the time I cried out, Ursa was already in the water. From the rocks she plunged into
that black, cold, angry water, with only her instincts to guide her. At first I heard her bark and
thought she was on land, so I called her name over and over, trying to paddle the boat in her
direction. Then my light caught her brown eyes riveted on me. As I reached over to help hold
her up to rest, she kept trying to grab my old canvas hat, which she always wanted to carry
when I came back to the island from a jaunt. I frantically tied it to the painter, shoved it in her
mouth, and yelled, Lets go home, Ursa! I gave the motor one more chanceand it caught!
Ursa swam ahead of my boat, just within the circle of my light, but the going was tedious. I
became so discouraged when she finally refused to swim any further. Holding her tightly in
my arms, crying into her wet, salty fur to tell her it was okay, I was struck on the side of the
head by the big white mooring ball. No wonder she wouldnt swim anymore. Ursa had
brought me home. (From Cohen & Taylor, 1989, p. 16)

Why Cases Are Not Enough

Cases like these are heart-warming and inspiring. They remind us that peopleand other
animalscan do wonderful things for one another. We are not simply red in tooth and
claw. This is an important reminder.
But cases like these do not provide persuasive evidence that altruism exists. In saying this, I
in no way wish to devalue the personal, social, and scientific importance of such cases, or the
courage and strength of such heroism. Such cases are of great value independent of what light
they canor cannotshed on the question of the existence of altruism. As discussed in
Chapter 1, altruism does not refer to helping, even heroic helping. Altruism refers to a
particular form of motivation, motivation with the ultimate
87
goal of increasing anothers welfare. Looking back at the cases with this definition of
altruism in mind, in none is it possible to specify the nature of the motive or motives
underlying the helping. In a few, such as the kamikaze attacks of social insects, it is
inappropriate to speak of goal-directed motivation at all. In most, there does seem to be goal-
directed motivation to help; the action was almost certainly undertaken with a goal of
increasing the welfare of one or more others. Yet even in those cases, it remains unclear
whether this was an ultimate goal, and the motivation altruistic, or was an instrumental goal
on the way to the ultimate goal of self-benefit, and the motivation egoistic.
I noted in the Introduction that we must face the possibility that even a saint or martyr may
have acted with an eye to self-benefit. And, as discussed in Chapter 3, the list of possible self-
benefits of helping is long. One may help to gain gratitude, admiration, or a good feeling
about oneself. One may help to avoid censure, guilt, or shame. One may help to put oneself in
line for help if needed in the future. One may help to secure a place in history or in heaven.
One may help to reduce ones own distress caused by anothers suffering. To find persuasive
evidence for the existence of altruism, we must move beyond dramatic cases. They simply
are not up to the task.
Scholars who seek to base an argument for the existence of altruism on cases of heroic
helping do not like to be reminded of the possibility that such wonderful acts could have been
motivated by self-benefit. Whether philosophers, biologists, anthropologists, sociologists, or
psychologists, they are likely to dismiss this possibility with a wave of the hand. Often, they
add that motivation is not important; behavior is what counts (see, for example, de Waal,
2008). Such a response seems at once disappointing and deeply in error. For the person
helped, it may well be true that the behavior is what counts. However, for those seeking to
understand human nature and the resources that might enable us to build a more humane
society, the motivation counts at least as much as the behavior. We need to know not only
that people (and other animals) do such wonderful things; we also need to know why.
In important works like Samuel and Pearl Oliners (1988) The Altruistic Personality and
Kristen Monroes (1996) The Heart of Altruism, both of which focus on rescuers of Jews in
Nazi Europe, attempts are made to rule out some egoistic motives for heroic rescue, such as
promise of payment or other material reward. But when relying on selective reporting of
retrospective accounts of events long past by pre-identified rescuers, there is no way to rule
out non-material self-benefits such as anticipated guilt. Tellingly, the definitions of altruism
in these works focus on costly helping, not on motivation: We characterize a behavior as
altruistic when (1) it is directed toward helping another, (2) it involves high risk or sacrifice
to the actor, (3) it is accompanied by no external reward, and (4) it is voluntary (Oliner &
Oliner, 1988, p. 6). My own definition of altruism: Action designed to benefit another, even
at the risk of significant harm to the actors own well being (Monroe, 1996, p. 4).
The existence of a risky helpful act certainly raises the possibility that it might be, at least in
part, motivated by altruism, that benefiting the other was an ultimate goal. To deny this
possibility would be as wrong as to accept it uncritically. But the existence of a helpful act,
no matter how heroic or risky, does not rule out the possibility that

88
benefiting the other was only an instrumental means to reach the ultimate goal of benefiting
oneself.
This statement is as true for helping prompted by empathic concern as it is for helping
prompted by religious devotion, political conviction, social responsibility, a sense of duty,
distress caused by the others suffering, or any other source. In Chapter 3, I reviewed some of
the extensive experimental evidence that an increase in empathic concern for a person in need
leads to an increase in the likelihood of offering help to remove that need. I also observed that
even though this empathy-helping relationship is consistent with the empathy-altruism
hypothesis, it cannot be taken as support. The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that
empathic concern produces altruistic motivation, not that it produces helping. To find
evidence of an empathy-helping relationship reveals that empathic concern produces
motivation to help, but not that the motivation is altruistic.
Seeking More Viable Evidence
Empathy-induced helpinglike other helpingtypically has two outcomes. It provides
benefits for the person in need, and it provides benefits for the helper. As depicted in Table
4.1, if removing the others need is the ultimate goal and the self-benefits are unintended
consequences, the motivation is altruistic. If removing the need is an instrumental goal on the
way to the ultimate goal of self-benefit, the motivation is egoistic.
How are we to know which of these possibilities is correct? Faced with this puzzle, many
scientists have given up on the question of the existence of altruism, concluding that it cannot
be addressed empirically. I believe surrender is premature. Determining the ultimate goal of
empathy-induced helping is far from easy, but it is not impossible. As suggested in Chapter 3,
it is possible to empirically ascertain peoples ultimate goals by looking at their behavior
when the most effective and efficient way to reach one possible ultimate goal does not allow
them to reach one or more other possible ultimate goals. This is how Frank inferred that
Suzies ultimate goal was the concertwhen she was given tickets and bypassed him.
In Chapter 3, I identified a set of behaviors and conditions that permit clear inference about
the nature of the motivation to help produced by empathic concern. But these behaviors and
conditions permit clear inference only under certain circumstances. To lay out the logic, let
me list the ideal circumstances. First, we need a group of identical

Table 4.1 Two Outcomes of Empathy-Induced Helping: Which is the Ultimate Goal?
Outcomes of empathy-induced helping
Nature of the motive to help Remove the others need Receive self-benefits
Altruistic Ultimate goal Unintended consequence
Egoistic Instrumental goal Ultimate goal

89
people, and we need to lead some of them to experience much empathic concern (high-
empathy group) and others only a little (low-empathy group) in response to exactly the same
need situation. Separate groups of identical people are better than using the same people
twice because in the latter case, the initial experience is likely to affect the subsequent
experience. (This is the problem of multiple treatment interferenceCampbell & Stanley,
1966.) Second, one at a time and intermixed, we need to provide different people in each
group a carefully chosen behavioral opportunity under specific conditions. For some in each
empathy group, the conditions should be such that the behavior provides an effective way to
reach one or more possible ultimate goals of empathy-induced helping (behavior-effective
group), whereas for others in each empathy group, the conditions should be such that the
behavior does not (behavior-ineffective group).
If among people in the high-empathy group, the behavior occurs whether or not it is an
effective means to reach one or more possible ultimate goals, then we have evidence that the
ultimate goal(s) of empathy-induced helping is not among these goals. However, if among
people in the high-empathy group, the behavior occurs when it is an effective means to reach
one or more possible ultimate goals but does not occur when it is ineffective, and this
variation does not occur among people in the low-empathy group, then one or more of these
possibilities may well be an ultimate goal of empathy-induced helping.
We can pursue this winnowing process step-by-step, reducing the list of possible ultimate
goals until it cannot be reduced further. Only the true ultimate goal or goals remain. As
philosopher Thomas Nagel (1986) put it, Pursuit of truth requires... the generation and
decisive elimination of alternative possibilities until, ideally, only one remains (p. 9).
How can these ideal circumstances possibly be realized? They cannot. We cannot assemble a
group of identical people. Still, we can come surprisingly close to the ideal with experiments.
Experiments can provide conditions sufficient to draw clear inferences about the nature of
motivation. I know of no other research method that can. This is why I believe that
experimentation is the research method best suited to the task of providing evidence, pro and
con, about the existence of altruism.

The Virtue of Experiments

Of scholarsincluding scientistswho have built arguments for or against the existence of
altruism, few have relied on experiments. Therefore, my appeal to experiments needs some
explanation.

What and Why of Experimentation

An experiment can be described as a causal caricature. A caricature is an artificial, usually
simplified, reconstruction of some natural phenomenon. It selectively emphasizes essential
components. A caricature is not a mirror of reality; it is an intentional distortion. But if done
well, it may reveal reality better than a mirror because the essential components stand out.

90
An experimental caricature is created with a specific purpose in mind, testing one or more
causal hypotheses. Virtually all scientific hypotheses are causal; they have an underlying
if..., then... form. The empathy-altruism hypothesis and each of the six egoistic alternatives
identified in Chapter 3 are causal hypotheses. (The empathy-altruism hypothesis can be read
as: If empathic concern is present, then altruistic motivation will result.) Experiments allow
one to test for the existence of this causal relationship by varying (manipulating) the if
dimensions (independent variables) and observing the effect on then dimensions
(dependent variables). Nonessential factors are excluded by one of two techniques: Personal
(dispositional) nonessentials are neutralized within the limits of chance by random
assignment of individuals to independent variable conditions. Environmental (situational)
nonessentials are neutralized by holding them constant.
I said earlier that to draw a clear inference we should, ideally, have a group of identical
people. That is, we should have people not only with identical genetic makeup (i.e., identical
twins or clones) but also with identical life experience, some of whom we can place in one
group and some in the other. Given that we do not have access to identical people (even the
same person is not identical at two different points in time), we settle for random assignment
of individuals to the different groups. Random assignment means that the individuals in the
different groups are not identical but they are equivalent within the limits of chance, and it is
against these limits that inferential statistics provide tests.
Manipulation of the independent variable(s) with other situational factors held constant
provides a situation in which, except for chance variation, the only difference between the
experimental conditions is their difference on the independent variable(s). Under these
circumstances, if an independent variable correlates with a dependent variable, then it is
reasonable to inferwithin the limits of chancethat the independent variable produced
change in the dependent variable. This clarity of inference makes experiments ideal for
testing a causal hypothesis. The hypothesis suggests which variables should be included in
the experimental caricature and what the causal relationship between these variables should
be. A good experiment, in turn, can give the hypothesis an unequivocal opportunity to show
itself wrongwhen the predicted causal relationship fails to appear (e.g., when empathic
concern is present but altruistic motivation is not).
Is a contrived experiment of the sort described not likely to produce contrived, artificial
results that are of no relevance to the real world? To address this important and potentially
troubling question, it may help to consider a distinction that Kurt Lewin (1935) borrowed
from Ernst Cassirer (1921), the distinction between Aristotelian and Galilean approaches to
science. (Some may question whether the approach attributed to Aristotle by Cassirer and
Lewin is actually Aristotles. Even if it is not, the distinction between the two approaches is
real and important for research on altruism, and for consistency and clarity, I shall retain this
terminology.)

Aristotelian versus Galilean Science

Aristotelian science attempts to explain natural phenomena by beginning with observation of
particulars. It proceeds to a conceptual ordering and classification of these

91
particulars into types according to essential attributes. Finally, these attributes are used to
explain the behavior of the particulars. In contrast, Galilean science begins with development
of an explanatory model of underlying processes thought to account for the natural
phenomenon. Then empirical predictions are derived from the model. And, finally, these
predictions are tested through empirical observation. For example, in Galilean science motion
of objects is no longer explained in terms of essential attributeslight objects rise, heavy
objects fallbut in terms of intangible yet still empirical concepts that focus on underlying
processesvelocity and acceleration.
Lewin (1935) called these intangible concepts that are at the heart of Galilean science
conditional-genetic or genotypic concepts because they specify the underlying conditions for
generating observable, or phenotypic, events. In his words:
For Aristotle the immediate perceptible appearance, that which present-day biology terms the
phenotype, was hardly distinguished from the properties that determine the objects dynamic
relations. The fact, for example, that light objects relatively frequently go upward sufficed for
him to ascribe to them an upward tendency. With the differentiation of phenotype from
genotype, or more generally, of descriptive from conditional-genetic concepts and the shifting
of emphasis to the latter, many old class distinctions lost their significance. The orbits of the
planets, the free falling of a stone, the movement of a body on an inclined plane, the
oscillation of a pendulum, which if classified according to their phenotypes would fall into
quite different, indeed into antithetical classes, prove to be simply various expressions of the
same law. (Lewin, 1935, p. 11, italics in original)
In Galilean science, lawfulness is not determined on the basis of regularity of occurrence of
events, as in Aristotelian science. Lawfulness is assumed to be at once more universal and
more specific. It is more universal in that the laws or relationships postulated are assumed to
be trans-situationally invariant. The same laws of motion apply to heavy bodies as to light.
Lawfulness is more specific in that the laws apply to each individual case regardless how
unusual that case may be. The same laws of motion apply when a flame is sucked toward the
ground by a strong downdraft as when it rises toward the sky.

Research Methods in Galilean Science

Once the Galilean scientist proposes relations among conditional-genetic concepts to account
for some phenomenon, how is he or she to know whether the hypothesized relations are
correct? Galileos method for testing his ideas about acceleration of falling bodies provides
the model. After Galileo had developed concepts that allowed him to postulate general and
universal principles to account for the behavior of falling bodies (weight, mass, air resistance,
speed or velocity, acceleration, and the gravitational constant), he tested the validity of these
principles by conducting contrived experiments.
In his experiments, Galileo did not allow the bodies free fall. He constructed totally unnatural
situations, virtually nonexistent in the world outside the laboratory. He rolled balls of
different weight down inclined planes; he attached these balls to threads of equal

92
length and swung them through equal pendulum arcs. Galileos explanation of the reasoning
that led him to conduct these contrived experiments is worth quoting:
The experiment made to ascertain whether two bodies differing greatly in weight will fall
from a given height with the same speed offers some difficulty; because, if the height is
considerable, the retarding effect of the medium [i.e., the air], which must be penetrated and
thrust aside by the falling body, will be greater in the case of the small momentum of the very
light body than in the case of the great force of the heavy body; so that, in a long distance, the
light body will be left behind; if the height be small, one may well doubt whether there is any
difference; and if there be a difference it will be inappreciable.
It occurred to me, therefore, to repeat many times the fall through a small height in such a
way that I might accumulate all those small intervals of time that elapse between the arrival
of the heavy and light bodies respectively at their common terminum, so that this sum makes
an interval of time which is not only observable, but easily observable. In order to employ the
slowest speeds possible and thus reduce the change which the resisting medium produces
upon the simple effect of gravity, it occurred to me to allow the bodies to fall along a plane
slightly inclined to the horizontal. For in such a plane, just as well as in a vertical plane, one
may discover how bodies of different weight behave. (Galileo, 1638/1952, pp. 166167)
From the perspective of Aristotelian science, Galileos strategy was totally wrong. He created
an artificial event, one all but unknown in the world outside the laboratory. Even worse, this
event did not involve the phenomenon in questionthe free fall of objects. Galileos
experiments totally lacked what is today called ecological validity. As Lewin (1935) noted, in
Galilean science
one declares that one is striving for general validity and concreteness, yet uses a method
which, from the point of view of the preceding [Aristotelian] epoch, disregards the
historically given facts and depends entirely upon individual accidents, indeed upon the most
pronounced exceptions. (p. 25)

Aristotelian Criticisms of Contrived Laboratory Experiments

Aristotelian criticisms are often made of laboratory experiments, including experiments
conducted to test whether the motivation produced by empathic concern is altruistic. If, for
example, in a laboratory experiment we give undergraduate students an opportunity to help
another student in need under conditions that systematically vary the ability to reach some
egoistic goal (but not the altruistic goal) without helping, we are likely to be bombarded with
Aristotelian questions: Would non-students respond in the same way? Would people from
another culture? What if the needy person were not a student? What if helping were
moreor lesscostly? And, most often, Would this need situation ever occur outside the
laboratory?
From an Aristotelian perspective, questions like these are central. They concern the historical
regularity and representativeness of the phenomenon. From a Galilean perspective, such
questions are quite beside the point. The Galilean perspective involves no assumption that
everyone would or should respond similarly in this situation, or that

93
anyone would or should respond similarly to a different situation. Nor is there a concern to
study naturally occurring events. As Lewin (1935) observed, to insist that ones science focus
on naturally occurring events introduces a requirement which, if transferred to physics,
would mean that it would be incorrect to study hydrodynamics in the laboratory; one must
rather investigate the largest rivers in the world (p. 21). (For similar arguments, see Mooks,
1983, defense of external invalidity and Aronson & Carlsmiths, 1968, distinction between
experimental and mundane realism.)
The Galilean scientist is concerned with something very different from ecological validity.
He or she is testing hypothesized invariant relations of underlying conditional-genetic
constructs. If an A-B relation is hypothesizedempathic concern produces altruistic
motivationthen to the degree that Construct A is present in some situation, whether
naturally occurring or artificially created, we should see the hypothesized manifestation of
Construct Bas long as the A-B relation is not overwhelmed or counteracted by other
events. Failure to observe this A-B relation under these conditions effectively counts against
the hypothesis. If, however, Construct A is not present for some individuals or in some
situations, or if other confounding variables are introduced, then we would not expect to
observe the A-B relation. Failure to observe the A-B relation under these conditions does not
count against the hypothesis any more than the discovery that a feather and a lead ball
dropped from a balcony hit the ground at different times counts against the hypothesis that
the acceleration of falling bodies is independent of weight.
From a Galilean perspective, experiments can be criticized as lacking validity only to the
degree that they either (a) fail to include the variables (conditional-genetic constructs)
involved in the hypothesized relation or (b) fail to exclude potential confounding variables.
Validity is not determined by whether the experiments are conducted in the laboratory or in
the field, by whether they involve frequently observed or unusual events, or by whether they
employ naturally occurring or contrived situations. Ecological validity is irrelevant, except as
it may contribute to the plausibility or impact of the experiment on participants.
On the other hand, from a Galilean perspective, it is no longer possible to take exceptions
lightly. Exceptions do not in any way prove the rule, but on the contrary are completely
valid disproofs, even though they are rare, indeed, so long as one single exception is
demonstrable (Lewin, 1935, p. 24). Failures to find the hypothesized relation are so
important in Galilean science because empirical observations are not made as a basis for an
inductive generalization; they are made to test deductions from hypotheses concerning
invariant relations.
Lewin was convinced that explanatory theories developed and tested following the Galilean
model were of far more practical value in the real world than were theories developed
following the Aristotelian model, even though the latter model focuses its empirical
observation exclusively on real-world phenomena and the former does not. It was Galilean
theory that Lewin (1951) had in mind when he uttered his well-known dictum, There is
nothing so practical as a good theory (p. 169).

94
Implications of the Aristotelian-Galilean Distinction for Research on Altruism
Citing dramatic cases of heroic helpfulness is Aristotelian. The value of doing so depends on
ones goal. If one is interested in describing the range and diversity of displays of such
helpfulnessamong what kind of people, in what cultures, and in what species these occur
or if one is interested in mapping the correlates of these displays, then collecting and
categorizing cases in a wide range of settings is entirely appropriate. If, however, one is
interested in testing causal hypotheses about the nature of the motivation underlying and
producing these displayshypotheses such as the empathy-altruism hypothesis and its
egoistic alternativesthen this Aristotelian strategy is misguided.
Application of an Aristotelian strategy to the question of the existence of altruism rests on the
assumption that when expectations of helping are low, or costs are high, or both, helping
must be a product of genuine concern for the others welfare. Here, if anywhere, we must
have altruistic motivation in its pure, essential form. Yet this Aristotelian assumption is never
tested. The empirical analysis remains at the level of phenotypic, surface observation of
behavior. There is no attempt to create the conditions necessary for a clear inference about
the underlying motivation.
If we are to understand the motivation underlying displays of helpfulness, it is necessary
temporarily to turn our back on the phenomena and develop models of the relations among
theoretical constructs such as empathic concern and altruistic motivationconditional-
genetic constructs that refer to the dynamics that lie beneath and behind the phenotypic
manifestations of helpfulness. That is, it is necessary to adopt a Galilean approach. This long-
way-around approach is not only likely to lead to a more fundamental understanding, but this
understanding is also likely to be of greater practical value.
The two-step strategy for inferring a persons ultimate goal illustrated with the Suzie-and-
Frank example in Chapter 3 reflects a Galilean approach to determining the nature of
motivation. Recasting this strategy in light of the present discussion and applying it to the
problem of inferring the nature of the motivation produced by empathic concern, we can say
that conceptual analysis, which is the first step, involves specification of relations among
underlying conditional-genetic constructs to account for the phenotypic manifestations of
empathy-induced helpfulness. This kind of analysis was the goal of the theory presented in
Part I, and it led to the identification of seven possible forms of motivation evoked by
empathyaltruistic motivation and six egoistic alternatives. The analysis also attempted to
identify the behavioral consequences of these different motives with sufficient precision that
it would be possible to discern the nature of the motivation from different patterns of
behavior across systematically varying conditions. To this end, Table 3.1 specified the unique
patterns of behavior associated with the seven different possible empathy-induced motives.
The second step involves actually testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis by making
empirical observations under the specified conditions, allowing us to infer whether the nature
of the motivation to help produced by empathic concern is altruistic or egoistic.

95
Specifically, these tests need to be conducted by creating conditions in which randomly
assigned participants are induced to feel either low or high empathic concern for a person in
need and are then unexpectedly confronted with a carefully chosen behavioral opportunity
often an opportunity to help. Empathy is a manipulated independent variable; the behavioral
opportunity is the dependent variable. A second manipulated independent variable is also
needed in the experimental design. Within each empathy group (low, high), conditions should
be varied so that the behavioral opportunity either is or is not the most effective and efficient
means to reach one or more of the potential ultimate goals of empathy-induced helping. In
one condition this behavior should be the most effective and efficient means to reach the
goal; in a second condition, it should not.

Two Examples of Experiments that Test the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

Let me illustrate this process by focusing on the most popular egoistic alternative to the
empathy-altruism hypothesis, the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis. This alternative
proposes that the ultimate goal of the motivation produced by empathic concern is to reduce
ones own aversive empathic arousal. Following Galileos logic, how might we design an
experiment to test the relative merits of the empathy-altruism hypothesis and this egoistic
alternative?
In Chapter 3, it was noted that ease of escape from exposure to anothers suffering should
affect the attractiveness of helping as a means to reach the egoistic goal of reducing ones
own empathic arousal. Ease of escape should not, however, affect the attractiveness of
helping as a means to reach the altruistic goal of reducing the others suffering. Accordingly,
Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, and Birch (1981) employed this empirical distinction
to test the competing predictions of the empathy-altruism hypothesis and the aversive-
arousal-reduction hypothesis in a 2 2 (Ease of Escape Empathic Concern) experimental
design. In each of two experiments, female undergraduates observed a young woman, Elaine,
whom they believed was receiving uncomfortable electric shocks. These undergraduates were
then given an unanticipated chance to help Elaine by volunteering to take the shocks in her
stead. (Some readers may believe that electric shocks can no longer be used in psychological
experiments. However, this is not true as long as the procedure has been reviewed and
approved by the appropriate oversight committee. Care was taken to make sure our
participants were aware of this fact before taking part in either experiment.)
Both amount of empathy felt for Elaine and ease of escape from exposure to Elaines
suffering were experimentally manipulated. Empathy (low vs. high) was manipulated
differently in the two experiments. In the first, similarity information was used; in the second,
an emotion-specific misattribution technique. To manipulate ease of escape, some
participants in each empathy condition were informed that if they did not help Elaine by
taking her place, they would continue to observe her receive the shocks (difficult-escape
condition); others were informed that they would observe no more (easy-escape condition).

96
In both experiments, the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis predicted that helping
responses would conform to the main-effect pattern depicted in Table 4.2less helping when
escape is easy than when escape is difficult even in the high-empathy condition. This is
because, unlike in the difficult-escape condition, in the easy-escape condition helping is not
the most effective and efficient way to reduce aversive arousal caused by watching Elaine
suffer, including empathic arousal. Leaving is. In contrast, the empathy-altruism hypothesis
predicted helping would conform to the 1-versus-3 pattern depicted in Table 4.3a low rate
of helping in the easy-escape/low-empathy cell, and a high rate in the other three cells. This is
because leaving is not an effective means to reach the empathy-induced altruistic goal of
relieving Elaines suffering. Given that no one else is available to help, only helping is.
The key predictions are in the high-empathy condition, where the aversive-arousal-reduction
hypothesis predicts a lower rate of helping in the easy-escape condition than in the difficult-
escape condition, and the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts a high rate of helping in both
escape conditions. Each hypothesis assumes less helping when escape is easy in the low-
empathy condition. This is because, as discussed in Chapter 3, each recognizes that egoistic
motives not produced by empathy exist that are sensitive to ease of escape. If these motives
are strong, then helping should be high enough in the difficult-escape/low-empathy cell that
there will be no difference between the rate of helping in this cell and the rate in the difficult-
escape/high-empathy cell. If these motives are less strong, helping should be high in the
difficult-escape/low-empathy cell but even higher in the difficult-escape/high-empathy cell,
reflecting the often observed empathy-helping relationship (see Chapter 3). These two
possibilities are reflected in the High/Very High prediction in the difficult-escape/high-
empathy cell in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

Table 4.2 Predictions from the Aversive-Arousal-Reduction Hypothesis for Rate of

Helping in an Ease-of-Escape Empathic-Concern Experimental Design
Empathic Concern
Ease of Escape Low High
Easy Low Low
Difficult High High/Very High

Table 4.3 Predictions from the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis for Rate of Helping in an
Ease-of-Escape Empathic-Concern Experimental Design
Empathic Concern
Ease of Escape Low High
Easy Low High/Very High
Difficult High High/Very High

97
The empathy-altruism hypothesis and the six egoistic alternatives are all explanations of the
motivation to help evoked by empathic concern. They do not make predictions for what will
happen when empathic concern is low. Predictions for the low-empathy cells are based on the
general egoistic motives for helping presented in Chapter 3 and are always identical for the
empathy-altruism hypothesis and the six egoistic alternatives. Still, the low-empathy cells are
crucial to the experimental design. They provide a necessary context in which to interpret
results in the high-empathy cells. Without them, the empathy-altruism prediction in Table 4.3
would not differ from the null hypothesis.

Experiment 1
In the first experiment, 44 female introductory psychology students were randomly assigned
to the four cells of a 2 (easy vs. difficult escape) 2 (dissimilar vs. similar victim) design, 11
to each cell. Each participant went through the experimental procedure individually. All
research participants were women because the person in need was a woman, and it was feared
that including both men and women would increase extraneous variability by introducing
issues of chivalry or a desire to impress or incur obligation.
When each participant arrived at the laboratory, a female experimenter told her that she
would have to wait a few minutes for the arrival of the second student participating in the
session. While waiting, the participant was given an introduction to read, which explained the
rationale and procedure for the experiment:
In this experiment we are studying task performance and impression projection under
stressful conditions. We are investigating, as well, whether any inefficiency that might result
from working under aversive conditions increases proportionately with the amount of time
spent working under such conditions.
Since this study requires the assistance of two participants, there will be a drawing to
determine which role will be yours. One participant will perform a task (consisting of up to,
but not more than, ten trials) under aversive conditions; the aversive conditions will be
created by the presentation of electric shock at random intervals during the work period. The
other participant will observe the individual working under aversive conditions. This role
involves the formation and report of general attitudes toward the worker so that we may
better assess what effect, if any, working under aversive conditions has on how that
individual is perceived.
After participants read the introduction, they read and signed a consent form, which reminded
them that participation in the experiment was entirely voluntary and that they were free to
withdraw at any time. Next, participants drew lots for their role. The drawing was rigged so
that they always drew the Observer role; the other participant, Elaine, was to be the Worker.

Observer Role
Participants were then escorted to the observation room and given more detailed written
instructions for the Observer. They learned that they would not actually meet the Worker

98
but would instead watch over closed-circuit television as she performed up to ten 2-minute
digit-recall trials. At random intervals during each trial, the Worker would receive moderately
uncomfortable electric shocks (two to three times the strength of static electricity).

Ease-of-Escape Manipulation
To manipulate ease of escape from Elaines suffering, the last line of the Observer
instructions varied the number of trials that participants expected to watch. In the easy-escape
condition, participants read, Although the Worker will be completing between two and ten
trials, it will be necessary for you to observe only the first two. In the difficult-escape
condition they read, The Worker will be completing between two and ten trials, all of which
you will observe. Unknown to them, all participants would later learn that Elaine agreed to
complete all ten trials, and they would unexpectedly be given the chance to help Elaine by
taking her place as the Worker after the second trial. Therefore, in the easy-escape condition,
participants who did not help would not anticipate having to watch Elaine take any more
shocks; in the difficult-escape condition, they would.

Similarity Manipulation of Empathic Concern

Adapting the similarity manipulation used by Krebs (1975) to induce differential valuing of
Elaines welfare and, as a result, empathic concern (see Chapter 2), participants next received
a copy of a 14-item personal values and interest questionnaire, like one they had completed
several weeks earlier at a screening session. The experimenter explained that this copy had
been filled out by Elaine and would provide some information about her that might be useful
in forming an impression. In fact, Elaines questionnaire had been prepared in advance so that
it reflected values and interests that were either very similar (high-empathy condition) or very
dissimilar (low-empathy condition) to those the participant had expressed when she
completed the questionnaire.
The experimenter was unaware of what each participant read about the number of trials she
would observe and was unaware of whether Elaines questionnaire was similar or dissimilar
to the participants. This was to control for any possibility that the experimenter might
somehow bias participants responses (Aronson, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Gonzales, 1990).
The experimenter remained unaware of the participants similarity condition until after all
measures were recorded, but became aware of the participants ease-of-escape condition just
prior to presenting the opportunity to help Elaine. This allowed the experimenter to remind
participants whether they would be observing any more trials if they chose not to take
Elaines place.
While the participant looked over Elaines questionnaire, the experimenter left to see if
Elaine had arrived. The experimenter soon returned to say that she had, and turned on a video
monitor, allowing the participant to see Elaine. Unknown to the participant, what she saw
was actually a videotape with confederates acting the roles.

99
Need Situation
On the monitor, participants first saw Elaine, a moderately attractive young woman, tell the
research assistant, Martha, that she would complete all ten of the digit-recall trials. As Martha
was going over the procedure, Elaine interrupted to ask about the nature of the electric shocks
that were to be used. Martha answered that the shocks would be of constant intensity and,
although uncomfortable, would cause no permanent damage. You know, if you scuff your
feet walking across a carpet and touch something metal? Well, theyll be about two or three
times more uncomfortable than that. Martha then attached a shock electrode to Elaines
forearm.
When all was ready, the digit-recall trials began, and the experimenter left the participant
alone to observe and form an impression of Elaine. As the first trial progressed, Elaines
facial expressions and body movements indicated that she was finding the shocks extremely
uncomfortable. (No shocks were actually administered when making the videotape.) By the
end of the second trial, Elaines reactions were so strong that Martha interrupted the
procedure to ask Elaine if she was O.K. Clearly in some distress, Elaine said that she was all
right, but would appreciate a glass of water. Martha went to get the water.
During this break, the experimenter re-entered the observation room and gave participants a
brief questionnaire, ostensibly to assess their impression of Elaine thus far. As a check on
their perceptions of her distress, one question asked how uncomfortable they thought the
aversive conditions (random shocks) were for the Worker. When participants finished the
questionnaire, the experimenter returned, collected it, and left.
On the monitor, Martha soon returned with the glass of water and asked Elaine if she had
ever before had trouble with shocks. Elaine sheepishly confessed that she had. As a child she
had been thrown from a horse onto an electric fence. The doctor at the time had said that
Elaine suffered a trauma and in the future might react strongly to even mild shocks. (This
information was provided to ensure that participants would view Elaines extreme reaction to
the shocks as atypical and would not expect to find the shocks as unpleasant if they chose to
take her place.) Hearing this, Martha said that she did not think Elaine should continue with
the trials. Elaine replied that even though she found the shocks very unpleasant, she wanted
to go on: I started; I want to finish. Ill go on.... I know your experiment is important, and I
want to do it.
At this point, Martha hit upon an idea: The Observer is another Psych. 104 [introductory
psychology] student; maybe she would be willing to help you out by taking your place. With
a mixture of reluctance and relief, Elaine consented to let Martha check about this possibility.
Martha said that she would shut off the equipment and go talk with the experimenter about it.
Shortly thereafter, the video monitor went blank.

Dependent Measure: Taking Shocks for Elaine

About 2030 seconds later, the experimenter entered the participants room and said:
I guess you saw, Elaines finding the aversive conditions pretty uncomfortable. Martha was
wondering if maybe youd like to help Elaine out by taking her place. Now, before you
decide anything, let me explain just what that would involve.
100
First of all, let me say that youre under no obligation to take Elaines place. I mean, if you
would like to continue in your role as Observer thats fine; you did happen to draw the
Observer role.
What the experimenter said next depended on the participants ease-of-escape condition.
In the easy-escape condition, the experimenter said: If you decide to continue as the
Observer, youve finished observing the two trials, so all you need to do is answer a few
questions about your impression of Elaine, and youll be free to go. In the difficult-escape
condition, the experimenter said: If you decide to continue as the Observer, Ill need you to
observe Elaines remaining eight trials. After youve done that and answered a few questions
about your impression of Elaine, youll be free to go.
For participants in both escape conditions, the experimenter continued: If you decide to help
Elaine out by taking her place, then what will happen is that shell come in here and observe
you, and you will go in and perform the recall trials while receiving the shocks. Once you
have completed the trials, youll be free to go. What would you like to do? Response to this
question provided the dependent measure of helping.

Debriefing
After responding, participants were given a brief reaction questionnaire to complete while the
experimenter ostensibly went to tell Martha what had been decided. As soon as participants
completed this questionnaire, they were fully debriefed. Care was taken to explain all
deceptive aspects of the experiment and the reasons for using deception. Participants were
encouraged to discuss and explain their reactions to the situation. All participants seemed
readily to understand the necessity for the deception involved, and none appeared upset by it.
Most said that they found the experiment quite interesting and were glad to have participated.

Experiment 2
Batson et al. (1981) conducted a second experiment using the same shock procedure but a
different way of manipulating empathic concern for Elaine. In Experiment 2, empathic
concern was manipulated more directly by use of an emotion-specific-misattribution
technique. As discussed in Chapter 1, two qualitatively distinct emotional states may be
elicited by witnessing another person suffer physical pain: empathic concern, made up of
other-oriented feelings for the victim such as sympathy, compassion, tenderness, warmth, and
softheartedness, and personal distress, made up of more self-oriented feelings such as upset,
alarm, anxiety, and distress.
Batson et al. (1981) reasoned that in the absence of a similarity manipulation, Elaines
welfare would be valued at least moderately, and so watching her react badly to the shocks
would elicit a reasonably high degree of both empathic concern and personal distress.
Therefore, extending the misattribution technique used by Coke et al. (1978, Experiment 1)
that was described in Chapter 3, if individuals could be induced to misattribute

101
one of these emotions to some extraneous source, such as a placebo, then these individuals
would perceive their emotional reaction to Elaines suffering to be predominantly the other
emotion. If they attributed their feelings of empathic concern to a placebo, they should
perceive their response to Elaine to be predominantly personal distress. If they attributed their
feelings of personal distress to a placebo, they should perceive their response to Elaine to be
predominantly empathic concern.
Combining this emotion-specific-misattribution manipulation with an ease-of-escape
manipulation produced a 2 (easy vs. difficult escape) 2 (personal distress vs. empathic
concern as the response attributed to watching Elaine) design. Again, female undergraduates
were used as participants; 48 were randomly assigned, 12 to each cell of the design. The
introduction that participants read on arrival informed them that two studies were being run
concurrently because one involved a time delay and the other required the assistance of an
observer. By a (rigged) drawing, participants were assigned to the first studythe effect of
the drug Millentana on short-term memory. Elaine was assigned to the second studytask
performance under aversive conditions.
As a rationale for the first study, participants read, One of the enzymes in the drug
Millentana is believed to increase the level of serotonin in the brain. This modification...
results in greater ability for short-term memory recall. To test the possible effect of
Millentana on short-term memory, participants would complete two brief memory tasks, one
before and one after taking a capsule containing Millentana. It would take approximately 25
minutes for the Millentana to be completely absorbed into their system, and absorption was
necessary before the second memory task could be administered. In the interim, participants
were to serve as the Observer for the aversive-conditions study.

Emotional-Response Manipulation
After completing the first memory task, participants were given a capsule containing
Millentana (actually a placebo). Before taking the capsule, all participants were informed on a
typed statement that in addition to its brief effect on short-term memory, the oral form of
Millentana being used had a side effect. Participants in the distress condition read:
Prior to total absorption, Millentana produces a clear feeling of warmth and sensitivity, a
feeling similar to that you might experience while reading a particularly touching novel. You
should begin to notice this side effect sometime within the first five minutes after ingestion.
The side effect will disappear within twenty-five minutes, when the drug is totally absorbed.
Participants in the empathy condition read the same statement, except that the side effect of
Millentana was described a clear feeling of uneasiness and discomfort, a feeling similar to
that you might experience while reading a particularly distressing novel.
All participants then signed a statement, indicating that they had read and understood the
information about the side effect of Millentana. The experimenter remained unaware of each
participants emotional-response condition.

102
Ease-of-Escape Manipulation
After taking the Millentana capsule, participants were given instructions for their role as
Observer. The last sentence of these instructions contained the ease-of-escape manipulation.
Participants in the easy-escape condition read: Although the Worker will be completing two
trials, you will be observing only the first. Participants in the difficult-escape condition read:
The Worker will be completing two trials, both of which you will observe. Only two trials
were used in this second experiment to fit the time schedule.

Need Situation
As before, participants watched over closed-circuit television (actually a videotape) as Elaine
reacted very strongly to the shocks. At the end of the first trial, the assistant interrupted the
procedure and, at Elaines request, went to get her a glass of water.

Check on the Emotional-Response Manipulation

During this break, participants were given a list of 28 emotion adjectives and asked to circle
any emotions they were experiencing as a result of taking the Millentana capsule. The list
contained 10 adjectives that in previous research had loaded together on an empathic-concern
factor (sympathetic, kind, compassionate, warm, softhearted, tender, empathic, concerned,
moved, and touched) and 10 that had loaded together on an orthogonal, personal-distress
factor (alarmed, bothered, disturbed, upset, troubled, worried, anxious, uneasy, grieved, and
distressed). Participants responses provided a check on the effectiveness of the emotional-
response manipulation. In addition, responses served to strengthen the manipulation by
reminding participants that their experience of any emotions specified as a side effect could
be due to the Millentana capsule.

Dependent measure: Taking Shocks for Elaine

As in the previous experiment, when the assistant returned with the glass of water, a
conversation began about Elaines reaction to the shocks. This conversation led to the
assistants idea that the participant might be willing to help Elaine by taking her place.
Shortly thereafter, the experimenter entered the observation room and presented the
opportunity to help. In the easy-escape condition, participants were reminded that even if
they did not take Elaines place they would not have to watch any more. In the difficult-
escape condition, they were reminded that if they did not take Elaines place they would have
to watch her second trial. The dependent measure was whether the participant volunteered to
help Elaine by taking her place for the second trial.

Reactions to Observing Elaine

After participants indicated whether they wished to help, they were given a brief
questionnaire assessing their reactions to observing Elaine. The first two questions asked how

103
much uneasiness and how much warmth and sensitivity observing Elaine caused them to
experience (1 = none; 9 = a great deal). A final question asked how uncomfortable the
aversive conditions (random shocks) were for the Worker (1 = not at all; 9 = extremely).
Then participants were carefully and fully debriefed.
I hope that it is clear from the description of these two experiments how an artificial yet
impactful situation was created in which participants were faced with a decision to help
another person in need, but only at some cost to self. I also hope it is clear how random
assignment of participants to the different conditions created by the empathic concern
manipulations produced a situation in which, within the limits of chance, equivalent
individuals were led to experience either low or high empathy in response to exactly the same
need, and were then given a chance to help. Finally, I hope it is clear how the ease-of-escape
manipulation provided some individuals (easy-escape condition) but not others (difficult-
escape condition) in each empathy condition with an effective and efficient means to reach
the egoistic goal of reducing their aversive empathic arousal without helpingbut not to
reach the altruistic goal of relieving Elaines suffering. That is, I hope it is clear how these
experiments satisfy the requirements necessary to infer from the pattern of helping across
conditions whether the motivation for helping Elaine produced by empathic concern is
directed toward reducing ones own aversive arousal or relieving her suffering.

To Deceive or Not to Deceive?

There are some researchers, most notably some behavioral economists, who endorse and
employ experiments to study other-oriented behavior, but not the kind of experiments just
described. They are careful to avoid deception in their experiments, believing that only if
everything research participants are told really is true will participants (a) believe it and (b)
give honest responses. Decades of experiments on humans, especially social-psychological
experiments, clearly indicates that both (a) and (b) are wrong. Full honesty on the part of the
experimenter can easily make it more likely, not less, that participants will be inclined to give
dishonest responses.
The problem is that most participants in experiments are concerned to present themselves in a
good light, both to themselves and to experimenters. Depending on the experimental
procedure and settingsay, a Dictator Game, in which one participant is given a sum of
money ($10) and can anonymously give another participant any or all of it, keeping the
remainderit may look good to present oneself as a ruthless, personal-gain maximizing,
rational chooser (e.g., if the experiment is connected to an economics classFrank, Gilovich,
& Regan, 1993) or as a nice, fair-minded sharer (e.g., if the experiment is connected to a
church group). Research participants respond not simply to the choice of how to distribute the
money. They respond to this choice in the context of the particular experimental setting and
the cues it provides regarding appropriate behaviorwhat have been called demand
characteristics of the experimental setting (Orne, 1962; also see Aronson et al., 1990;
Campbell & Stanley, 1966).

104
The best way to avoid effects of demand characteristics and reactive cues is to deceive
participants in one of two ways. One way is to keep participants from knowing they are in an
experiment at all, as is done in some field experiments. Unfortunately, this form of deception
is often not ethically or practically feasible, especially if the experiment involves a complex
design and obtrusive measures. The second way is to deceive participants about the true
purpose of the experiment by providing a plausible cover story. As long as participants can be
kept unaware of what are good responses on key measures, demand characteristics and
self-presentation concerns can be minimized. (See Aronson et al., 1990. for extensive
discussion of these issues when experimenting on humans.)
The two experiments just described employed the second deception strategy, providing
participants a plausible cover story unrelated to the true purpose of the research. In each,
participants were told the research was about task performance and impression projection
under stressful conditions. The opportunity to help Elaine by taking her place arose quite
unexpectedly and, seemingly, was not at all what was being studied. The researchers
dishonesty made it easier for participants to respond honestly. Virtually all the experiments
reported in subsequent chapters employ this second deception strategy.
Limitations of Experimental Research on Altruism
In the next chapter, I shall summarize results of these two experiments, along with the results
of other experiments designed to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis against each of the six
egoistic alternatives. Before getting to results, however, it is important to consider some
limitations of experiments. As with any research method, experiments have disadvantages as
well as advantages. Let me point out four specific limitations to the use of experiments to
study altruism.

Open-Set Problem
First, as depicted in Table 4.1, there is a logical limit to the conclusions that can be drawn
from experimental tests of the empathy-altruism hypothesis that rely on helping as the
dependent variable. The various self-benefits of helping are a result of the attempt to benefit
the person in need. This ordering raises the possibility that benefiting the other is an
instrumental goal on the way to the ultimate goal of benefiting the self. But the reverse is not
a possibility. The self-benefits cannot logically be an instrumental goal on the way to the
ultimate goal of benefiting the other; they can only be unintended consequences. Because of
this asymmetry, experimental tests like the two just described employ conditions that vary
whether benefiting the otherhelpingis or is not necessary to gain one or more of the six
possible self-benefits of empathy-induced helping. Whether helping is necessary to reach the
altruistic goal is not varied because if no one else can help, it is always necessary.

105
Following this strategy, the six egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis are
tested directly. The empathy-altruism hypothesis is tested indirectly, by a process of
elimination. Only if results fail to pattern as predicted by any of the six egoistic hypotheses,
and instead pattern consistently as predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis, can we
conclude that the latter hypothesis is valid. Even then, we can accept the empathy-altruism
hypothesis as valid only as long as no new plausible egoistic explanation can be proposed
that accounts for the existing evidence. And we can never be sure that we have exhausted the
set of all plausible alternative explanations. As a result, any conclusion that empathic emotion
produces altruistic motivation must remain tentative.
In itself, this tentativeness is not a basis for pessimism. To say that another version of egoism
could be proposed is not enough to cast doubt on the empathy-altruism hypothesis. It is
necessary to actually propose another version, one that can explain all relevant existing data.
To offer an egoistic explanation for one set of existing results when that explanation is clearly
contradicted by another set will not do.
Working our way through the plausible egoistic alternatives by elimination is admittedly
arduous, far more arduous than if we could test the empathy-altruism hypothesis directly. It is
also less elegant and less aesthetically pleasing. This long-way-around approach is, however,
the only approach available given the logical structure of the problem. Such an approach
would, of course, be doomed to failure if the set of plausible egoistic alternatives were
infinite. However, this seems highly unlikely. As noted in Chapter 3, all plausible egoistic
alternatives proposed to date have been variations on just three major themes: aversive-
arousal reduction, punishment avoidance, and reward seeking. And, as will become apparent
in the next two chapters, the data supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis are extensive,
diverse, and interconnected. I know of no plausible egoistic explanation for these data. If,
however, someone can come up with such an explanation, then new experiments will need to
be designed to test it. The case is never fully closed.
An open-set problem like this is not unique to experimental tests of the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. Open-set problems are common in science. For example, empirical evidence that
the speed of light is a constant involves the same kind of inference. After a number of tests
under circumstances where variability should have appeared but did not, it was accepted that
the speed is constant. It remains possible that it will prove variable in some not yet tested
medium or under some not yet conceived condition. However, until such a medium or
condition is found, the conclusion of constancy is justified. Analogously, if through a number
of tests we find that all plausible self-benefits of helping are not the ultimate goal, then it is
appropriate to conclude that the ultimate goal is to benefit the person in need. As with the
speed of light, however, this conclusion will have to be re-evaluated if and when a new
plausible egoistic explanation is proposed.

Undergraduate Samples
Second, the experiments summarized in the next two chapters are limited in the population
sampled. Participants in almost all have been undergraduate students in introductory
psychology courses at universities in the U.S. Even though our goal is Galilean testing of

106
empirical deductions from hypotheses about conditional-genetic relations rather than
Aristotelian inductive generalization, it would certainly be good to conduct conceptual
replications of these experiments with different populations. Doing so would provide
valuable information about the range and robustness of empathy-induced altruism.
Having said this, I do not think the limited population undercuts the basic importance of the
experimental research to date. There are two reasons. First, were it true that empathic concern
produces altruism only among undergraduate students in the U.S., that fact would still sound
a death knell for universal egoism. Second, I know of no good reason to think that, if
empathy produces altruism among undergraduate students in the U.S., it does so only there. It
seems most unlikely that these students would be unique in this way. It also seems most
unlikely that our luck in selecting a research population would have been so good.
As noted at the end of Chapter 2, the frequency, context of occurrence, and strength of
empathic concern likely vary across age, gender, socioeconomic class, and culture. The
frequency and strength of the antecedents of empathic concern also likely vary, as do the
behavioral manifestations of an altruistic motive. But variability due to these factors is not
what the experiments in Chapters 5 and 6 are designed to test. The experiments are designed
to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis, the claim that empathic concern produces altruistic
motivation. Only if we find that for certain people or in certain situations empathic concern,
when evoked, does not produce altruistic motivation is the validity of this hypothesis limited.
Rather than assessing generality of the empathy-altruism relation by conducting experiment
after experiment with samples from population after population (high school students in the
U.S., elderly persons in Japan, etc.), tests of generality should be theory driven. Is there a
theoretical basis to suspect that a given population might be unable to experience empathic
concern or that for them empathic concern might fail to evoke altruistic motivation (e.g.,
psychopaths; patients with ventromedial prefrontal lesions)? If so, we should test to see. This
theory-driven strategy encourages more directedand more audaciousleaps of
generalization. Are, for example, chimpanzees capable of experiencing empathic concern? If
so, does this concern evoke altruistic motivation? As noted in Chapter 2, there are reasons to
think that empathy-induced altruism might be part of chimpanzee nature; there are also
reasons to think that it might not. Experiments designed to tease apart motives underlying
chimp helpfulness are beginning to answer these important questions (e.g., Brosnan et al.,
2009; Jensen et al., 2006; Silk et al., 2005; Warneken et al., 2007).

Experiments Are Not Always Appropriate

Laboratory experiments are ideal for addressing questions of underlying motivation, such as
questions concerning the existence of altruism. One can introduce the necessary variation and
controls to disentangle potential ultimate goals. But laboratory experiments are not ideal for
addressing many other interesting and important questions about empathic concern, about
helping, and, more generally, about human nature. Let me mention three examples.

107
First, the contrived nature of experiments, which is their major virtue, renders them useless
for assessing the natural frequency of phenomena such as volunteerism, contribution to
charities, and so on. Survey research or some less obtrusive observational technique is far
better. Second, experiments, which employ comparison of individuals randomly assigned to
experimental conditions in order to create equivalence within the limits of chance, are not the
best way to study extreme or unusual cases; these cases become error variance. If one wants
to understand the character of someone like Mother Teresa or Raoul Wallenberg, then
interviews and analysis of life histories are far better strategies (for example, see Colby &
Damon, 1992). Third, if one wants to trace the development of empathic concern or the
empathy-helping relation in the life of individuals, longitudinal studies are needed, not
experiments.
My reason for calling attention to the essential role that experimental research can and should
play in furthering our understanding of altruism is not to suggest that all or even most
research on empathic concern and helping should be experimental. Rather, it is to suggest that
research methods need to be carefully matched to the questions being addressed. An attempt
to determine whether the motivation to help produced by empathic concern is altruistic or
egoistic using surveys, questionnaires, interviews, or longitudinal studies is doomed to
failure. Only experiments are up to this task. But there are other important tasks.

Experiments Raise Ethical Issues

Finally, the experiments I shall summarize in the next two chapters raise thorny ethical
issues. These issues are rooted in mire produced by two facts. First, researchers and scholars
are not the only ones who care about empathic concern and altruism. Most research
participants see themselves as sensitive, kind, caring people, and they want to be seen that
way by others. Second, research on empathic emotion and altruistic motivation focuses on
complex processesthe interplay of values, emotions, motives, and behavior. Except for
behavior, these processes are not directly observable.
To reap a fruitful harvest from the mire that these two features create, one must avoid the
previously noted pitfalls of demand characteristics, evaluation apprehension, social
desirability, self-presentation, and reactive measures (Aronson et al., 1990). Consequently,
most of the experiments I shall describe have employed high-impact deception procedures of
the sort made famoussome would say infamousin the social psychology of the 1960s,
including Milgrams (1963) controversial studies of obedience. More ethically palatable
procedures, such as presenting research participants with descriptions of hypothetical need
situations and asking them to report what they would do, are of limited use when trying to
determine the nature of motivation for helping. So are retrospective accounts of why one
acted as one did. We cannot trust people to know or, if they know, to tell (Nisbett & Wilson,
1977). Commitment to actual behaviorif not the behavior itselfis almost always required.
This means that one must either (a) create or intrude into situations in which people are
actually suffering or (b) successfully deceive participants into believing that someone

108
is suffering and deceive them about the true purpose of the research until their participation is
complete. Neither option is ideal, but of the two, I much prefer the second. That said, it must
be emphasized that when conducting such deception research, one incurs special
responsibility to protect the welfare and dignity of participants.
Some universities are unwilling to accept this special responsibility. They no longer allow the
use of high-impact deceptions of the kind needed to conduct valid experiments on human
response to others in need. It is ironic that research on helping, caring, empathy, and altruism
has been one of the areas to suffer most from restrictions imposed out of concerns about
research ethics. Given the societal importance of understanding when and why people care
for others, given the apparent necessity of using high-impact deception research to provide
this understanding, and given the dangers of obtaining misleading information using other
methods, it is not allowance of high-impact deception research that seems unethical but
blanket prohibition of it.
Keeping these four limitations in mind, let us turn to the more than thirty experiments that
have been done to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis against one or more of the six
egoistic alternatives. The results, although complex, are remarkably consistent and clear.

109
5 Testing the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

From 1978 to 1996, thirty-one experiments were conducted to test the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. In each, a behavior that could differentiate an empathy-induced altruistic motive
from one or more of the six egoistic alternatives identified in Chapter 3 was measured. (It
may be useful to look back at Table 3.1 for a reminder of the behaviors that can be used to
test against each egoistic alternative.) Empathic concern for someone in need was either
manipulated, measured, or both. In addition, in almost all of the experiments, a cross-cutting
variable was manipulated to create conditions necessary to draw a clear inference about the
ultimate goal of the behavior. In the remaining few, the procedure was designed to create a
level of the cross-cutting variable that would produce different behavioral effects depending
on whether the motivation was altruistic or egoistic (e.g., easy escape). However, without
direct comparison to a condition in which this level of the cross-cutting variable was not
present (e.g., difficult escape), the success of such a procedure cannot be assured. So, these
experiments provide a weaker test than the experiments that include manipulation of the
cross-cutting variable.
Evidence from these thirty-one experiments is reviewed in the text of this chapter. The
appendices at the end of the book provide more detail. Appendix A lists the cross-cutting
independent variable(s), the dependent variable(s), and the competing predictions that can
test the empathy-altruism hypothesis against each egoistic alternative. For clarity, predictions
are presented for both low- and high-empathy conditions, even though predictions in the low-
empathy conditions will always agree. As noted in Chapter 4, predictions from the empathy-
altruism hypothesis and the egoistic alternatives do not differ for people feeling no or low
empathic concern, only for those clearly feeling empathy. This is because the empathy-
altruism hypothesis and the alternatives are all explanations of the motivation produced by
empathic concern.
Procedures and results of the thirty-one experiments are summarized in Appendix B through
Appendix G. (Some experiments appear in more than one appendix because they tested more
than one egoistic alternative.) In these appendices, and in the text, the egoistic alternatives are
considered in the order in which they came to the fore: Aversive-arousal reduction came first,
then punishment avoidance, including social and self-punishment,

110
and finally, reward seeking, including rewards for helping, empathic joy, and rewards that
provide negative-state relief. Although key details of the experiments are provided in these
appendices; far more detail is provided in the original research reports. (The appendices
include only experiments reported in articles published in major, peer-reviewed scientific
journals.) To provide a forest-level overview, discussion in the text is limited to brief
presentation of competing predictions, experimental evidence, and conclusions. Should you
want a closer, tree-level look at any experiment or conclusion, consult the relevant appendix
or the original report.

Aversive-Arousal Reduction
As noted in Chapter 3, the most frequently proposed egoistic explanation of the motivation to
help produced by empathic concern has long been aversive-arousal reduction. This
explanation claims that the ultimate goal is to remove the empathic concern, which is
experienced as aversive. We act to remove the empathy-evoking need as a means to this self-
serving end.
Table 3.1 specifies one key difference in behavioral consequences between an altruistic
motive and a motive to reduce aversive empathic arousal. Because empathic arousal is a
result of witnessing the victims suffering, either helping or escape should serve to reduce the
arousal. Escape is not, however, a viable means to reach the altruistic goal of relieving the
victims distress; it does nothing to promote that end.

Competing Predictions
As described in Chapter 4 and in Section 1 of Appendix A, the difference in viability of
escape as a means to reach the ultimate goal of these two motives produces competing
predictions in an Ease of Escape (easy vs. difficult) Empathic Concern (low vs. high)
experimental design. For individuals experiencing low empathy for a person in need
especially when the need involves physical suffering and so evokes feelings of personal
distress in observers (feeling directly upset, anxious, disturbed, and the like)both the
aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis and the empathy-altruism hypothesis predict more
helping when escape without helping is difficult than when it is easy. This is because both
assume that feeling personal distress produces egoistic motivation to reduce this aversive
arousal. For individuals feeling high empathy, predictions differ. The aversive-arousal-
reduction hypothesis assumes that empathic concern also produces egoistic motivation to
reduce aversive arousal. So once again, when escape is difficult, the rate of helping by
individuals feeling high empathy should be high (perhaps very high, as noted in Chapter 4),
but when escape is easy, the rate should be low. In contrast, the empathy-altruism hypothesis
predicts the same high (or very high) rate of helping when escape is easy as when it is
difficult.
Across the four cells of an Ease of Escape Empathic Concern design, then, the aversive-
arousal-reduction hypothesis predicts an ease-of-escape main effectless

111
helping under easy escape regardless of whether empathy is low or high. This prediction was
summarized in Table 4.2. In contrast, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts a 1-versus-3
patternrelatively low helping in the easy-escape/low-empathy cell and high helping in the
other three cells. This prediction was summarized in Table 4.3.

Experimental Evidence
Appendix B presents evidence from ten different experiments that have used all or part of an
Ease of Escape Empathic Concern design to test these competing predictions. The appendix
also reports evidence regarding the effectiveness of experimental manipulations. (In each
experiment, as well as in all other experiments reviewed in this chapter, care was taken to
prevent participants knowing the true purpose of the research or the hypotheses being tested.)
Three of the experimentsthe first two and the last oneprovided only weak tests because
in these experiments ease of escape was not manipulated. In each, there was no prospect of
future exposure to the need situation, so it was assumed that escape from aversive arousal
was easy. Ease of escape was directly manipulated in six of the remaining seven experiments.
In each of these six, some participants were led to believe that even if they did not help they
would no longer see the victim suffer (easy escape); others were led to believe that if they did
not help they would continue to see the suffering (difficult escape). In the other experiment,
Eisenberg, McCreath, and Ahn (1988) manipulated ease of escape indirectly by varying
whether help was requested (difficult escape) or not (easy escape). This manipulation may
have varied the ease or difficulty of escape from anticipated social censureor anticipated
self-censurerather than from aversive arousal. If so, this experiment should be placed in
Appendix Cor Appendix Drather than in Appendix B. Wherever it is placed, conclusions
do not differ.
Overall, results of the ten experiments summarized in Appendix B are highly consistent and
clear. (Note, however, that results are less clear in the two experiments by Eisenberg and her
colleagues using children than in the eight that used undergraduate participants.) Results of
each experiment conform to the 1-versus-3 pattern predicted by the empathy-altruism
hypothesis, not to the ease-of-escape main effect predicted by the aversive-arousal-reduction
hypothesis. Among individuals experiencing low empathic concernor a predominance of
feelings of personal distress over empathic concern (i.e., feeling more upset, anxious, upset,
disturbed, etc., than sympathetic, compassionate, tender, etc.)the chance for easy escape
consistently reduced helping. Among individuals experiencing high empathic concernor a
predominance of empathic concern over personal distressthe chance for easy escape did
not reduce helping.
The consistency of results across the ten experiments suggests that the 1-versus-3 pattern is
quite robust, especially given that these experiments differed from one another in a number of
ways. Low- versus high-empathy groups were identified or created using seven different
techniques: They were identified by childrens facial expressions of sadness and concern,
childrens heart-rate decrease, and childrens and undergraduates self-reports of their
vicarious emotion. They were created by a similarity manipulation, a

112
manipulation of perspective taking, a manipulation of physiological-arousal feedback, and a
manipulation of emotion-specific misattribution. Ease of escape was manipulated by three
different techniques: Children were or were not asked directly by another child to share a toy;
undergraduates believed either that they would or would not see the needy person next week
in their introductory psychology class; and undergraduates believed either that they would or
would not continue to watch another introductory psychology student receive electric shocks.
Six different need situations were used: a child wanting to play with a toy; a single mother
trying to care for her hospitalized children; a university senior trying to care for her younger
brother and sister after the death of their parents; a masters student seeking voluntary
research participants; an introductory psychology student needing help with class notes after
breaking her legs in an auto accident; and an introductory psychology student reacting with
increasing discomfort to a series of electric shocks. Additionally, in an experiment outside the
19781996 window, Bierhoff and Rohmann (2004) replicated the 1-versus-3 pattern of
helping using the electric-shock procedure (described in Chapter 4) in Germany.
Across these different need situations and different techniques for varying empathic concern
and ease of escape, helping responses consistently patterned as predicted by the empathy-
altruism hypothesis, never as predicted by the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis. In spite
of the longstanding popularity of the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis, it appears that
the motivation produced by empathic concern is not directed toward the ultimate goal of
reducing ones own aversive empathic arousal.

A Limiting Condition: Cost of Helping

Batson, OQuin, Fultz, Vanderplas, and Isen (1983) reported three studies that included an
assessment of empathic concern and a manipulation of ease of escape. The first two are listed
in Appendix B, but Study 3 is not. It is not because Study 3 was designed to test the
robustness of the empathy-altruism relationship rather than to test the empathy-altruism
hypothesis per se. In it, both male and female undergraduate participants first reported their
emotional reaction to observing what they thought was another same-sex introductory
psychology student perform as a Worker under aversive conditions. As in the two
experiments described in Chapter 4, the aversive conditions were created by random electric
shocks to the arm, and it was clear that the Worker was quite bothered by the shocks.
Participants were then given an unexpected chance to help the Worker by taking his or her
place, receiving the shocks themselves. In this study, however, before being given the chance
to help, participants were given additional information about the level of shock being used.
All were told that the highest of the four possible levels was being used, a level described as
clearly painful but of course not harmful. This information was included to make the cost
of helping very high.
Batson et al. (1983) found that with the cost of helping this high, the motivation even of
participants who had previously reported high empathic concern for the Worker appeared to
be egoistic; these participants helped significantly less when escape was easy than when it
was difficult. Apparently, the high cost of helping directed the attention of

113
participants reporting high empathy away from the person in need and back to themselves,
replacing concern for the person in need with self-concern. The results of this study suggest
that there is a limit either to the ability to maintain empathic concern or to the readiness to
engage in costly helping when feeling empathy. Batson et al. (1983) concluded that even if
the motivation produced by empathic concern is altruistic, it may be a fragile flower, easily
crushed by self-concern (p. 718).
To find such a limit is no surprise. As noted when discussing the cost-benefit analysis in
Chapter 3, even when we feel empathic concern for others we often do not act on it. Our
empathic concern is overridden by other, more pressing concerns. Nor is this all bad. Life
would be decidedly awkward if we were only looking out for others concerns and not also
for our own. It would be, as one philosopher has suggested, like a community in which
everyone tries to do each others washing. No ones washing would get done.
At the same time, the generality of this limiting condition should not be over-interpreted. The
ease with which self-concern can override concern for another is likely to be a function of the
relative strength of each concern. In the study just mentioned, the potential helper and the
person in need were undergraduate students who had never met before, and empathic concern
was evoked by watching over closed-circuit TV as the person in need reacted with obvious
discomfort to a series of electric shocks.
Had valuing the welfare of the person in need been stronger, the other-oriented concern might
have been less fragile. Think, for example, of the response of a father at seeing his young
daughter toddling into the path of an oncoming car. Even though the cost of helping may be
extremely high, including likely loss of life, the fathers concern may remain riveted on the
child and her needs, with relatively little attention paid to the extreme cost of helping. In such
a situation, empathy-induced altruism may be far from fragile.

Empathy-Specific Punishment
The second egoistic alternative to come to the fore, the empathy-specific-punishment
hypothesis, can account for all the results summarized in Appendix B. This alternative claims
that we learn through socialization that an additional obligation to help is attendant on feeling
empathic concern for someone in need. So, when we feel empathy, we face impending social
or self-censure above and beyond any general censure associated with not helping. We help
out of an egoistic desire to avoid this empathy-specific punishment.
As discussed in Chapter 3, two versions of this empathy-specific-punishment hypothesis have
been proposed. One is based on social evaluation and anticipated social punishments. The
other is based on self-evaluation and self-punishment.

Version 1: Avoiding Negative Social Evaluation

According to the first version, empathic concern leads to increased helping because we
anticipate negative social evaluation for failing to act in a manner consistent with our

114
expressed feelings of concern (Archer, 1984; Archer et al., 1981). The most obvious
behavioral difference identified in Chapter 3 between an altruistic motive and a motive to
avoid negative social evaluation is the effect on helping of a belief that others will not (vs.
will) know if we fail to help.

Competing Predictions
If the motivation produced by empathic concern is directed toward the ultimate goal of
avoiding negative social evaluation, then individuals feeling high empathy should help more
than individuals feeling low empathy only when helping is public; high empathy should lead
to no increase when helping is entirely anonymous. As long as no one else will know if one
fails to help, there is no need to fear social censure. If, however, the motivation is altruistic,
then whether or not others will know should have no effect on the rate of helping. Regardless
of whether the chance to help is public or private, if the cost of helping is not too great,
individuals feeling high empathic concern should help more than individuals feeling low.
As described in Section 2 of Appendix A, this hypothesized difference in response when the
help opportunity is private as opposed to public produces competing predictions in an Others
Awareness (public vs. private) Empathic Concern (low vs. high) experimental design.
Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the negative-social-evaluation
explanation and the empathy-altruism hypothesis predict relatively low helping. At the same
time, both allow that due to general concerns about social censure not related to empathy,
there could be more help offered when others (who cannot help) are aware of ones
opportunity to help than when they are not. Among individuals experiencing high empathy,
the negative-social-evaluation explanation predicts less helping when others are not aware of
the opportunity to help than when they are; the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts as much
helping when others are not aware as when they are.
Across the four cells of an Others Awareness Empathic Concern design, then, the
negative-social-evaluation explanation predicts either a 1-versus-3 pattern (high helping in
the public/high-empathy cell and low helping in the other three cells) or two main effects
(more helping in the public condition than in the private condition regardless of whether
empathic concern is low or high, and more helping in the high empathy condition than the
low). In contrast, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts either a different 1-versus-3
pattern (low helping in the private/low-empathy cell and high helping in the other three cells)
or only an empathy main effect (more helping in the high-empathy condition than in the low-
empathy condition regardless of whether the opportunity to help is public or private).

Experimental Evidence
Three experiments have been designed explicitly to test the competing predictions from the
empathy-altruism hypothesis and the negative-social-evaluation explanation in an Others
Awareness Empathic Concern design. Appendix C summarizes them. The first experiment
was reported by Archer et al. (1981), and they claimed support for the

115
negative-social-evaluation hypothesis. There are, however, two reasons to doubt this claim.
First, Archer et al. (1981) found support for the negative-social-evaluation prediction only
among individuals scoring high on dispositional empathy. As noted in Chapter 2and by
Archer et al. (1981)measures of dispositional empathy may tap a concern to be seen by self
and others as kind and caring. Therefore, individuals scoring high on dispositional empathy
may have been especially concerned about possible negative social evaluation, independent
of any concern evoked by their empathic feelings.
Second, there is reason to doubt the effectiveness of the false physiological feedback
manipulation that Archer et al. (1981) used to induce empathic concern. This manipulation
did not seem to affect the level of empathy reported, except among high dispositional-
empathy participants who thought that the experimenter was aware of their apparent
physiological response. So, the relatively low helping found in the private condition may
have been because participants there felt little empathic concern.
These issues, as well as results of previous studies in which increased empathic concern led
to increased helping in situations where it was not possible for the experimenter (or anyone
else) to be aware of participants empathic response (e.g., Batson et al., 1981, Experiments 1
& 2; Coke et al., 1978, Experiment 1see Batson, Coke, & Pych, 1983), led Archer (1984)
to back away from the claim that others awareness of the level of empathic concern is
necessary to find an empathy-helping relationship. Still, Archer (1984) did not abandon the
idea that motivation to avoid negative social evaluation might account for this relationship.
Rather, he shifted to a differentand I think more plausiblesocial-evaluation explanation.
He suggested that individuals feeling high empathic concern are especially concerned not
about others awareness of their empathy but about others awareness of their helping
response.
Fultz, Batson, Fortenbach, McCarthy, and Varney (1986) tested this more plausible negative-
social-evaluation explanation in the remaining two studies reported in Appendix C. In each,
female undergraduates feeling either low or high empathy for a lonely young woman, Janet,
were given an opportunity to help by arranging to meet her with an eye to becoming friends.
The first study employed a correlational rather than an experimental design. Empathic
concern for Janet was assessed by self-reports, and all participants were led to believe that no
one else would know if they did not help, not the experimenter, not even Janet. This was
accomplished by having information about Janets loneliness come directly from her (without
the experimenter knowing) and information about the opportunity to meet her come directly
from the experimenter (without Janet knowing).
The second study used an experimental design. Level of empathic concern was
experimentally manipulated using perspective-taking instructions. To manipulate others
awareness of the opportunity to help, research participants were led to believe either that both
the experimenter and Janet knew that they had an opportunity to help and that both would
know if they chose not to help (public) or, as in the first study, that no one else knew that they
had the opportunity to help and that no one would know if they chose not to help (private).
Dispositional empathy was also assessed in the second study.

116
In each of these studies, Fultz et al. (1986) found more helping among participants feeling
high empathy than among individuals feeling low empathy even when no one else knew
about the opportunity to help. Contrary to the predictions of the negative-social-evaluation
explanation, Fultz et al. found no evidence that the association between empathy and helping
was eliminated when participants were free from fear of negative social evaluation. Nor was
the pattern of results in their second study qualified by scores on the measure of dispositional
empathy, contrary to what Archer et al. (1981) had found.
Overall, results of these three studies cast serious doubt on the social-evaluation version of
the empathy-specific-punishment hypothesis. Although higher scores on measures of
dispositional empathy may be associated with increased concern about negative social
evaluation (Archer et al., 1981), the motivation produced by empathic concern does not
appear to be directed toward the ultimate goal of avoiding negative social evaluation.

Version 2: Avoiding Negative Self-Evaluation

The second version of the empathy-specific punishment hypothesis claims that individuals
feeling empathic concern help not to avoid social censure but to avoid self-administered
punishments and negative self-evaluation (Batson, 1987; Dovidio, 1984; Schaller & Cialdini,
1988). Three behavioral differences that distinguish between an altruistic motive and a
motive to avoid negative self-evaluation were identified in Chapter 3.

Competing Predictions
First is the likelihood of helping when failure to help is or is not justified. If I have a good
justification, I need not castigate myself for failing to help. But regardless of justification,
leaving the need unmet brings me no nearer the goal of an altruistic motive. A second
diagnostic difference is negative mood change after learning that my helping effort was not
effective. If I learn thatthrough no fault of minea sincere attempt to help on my part
failed to relieve the need, once again I need not castigate myself or feel bad. But, regardless
of justification, if the need remains, I have failed to reach the goal of an altruistic motive, so
learning that my helping effort was not effective and the person for whom I feel empathy is
still in need should make me feel worse. Third, there is a difference in the words that should
produce cognitive interference. If my ultimate goal is to avoid negative self-evaluation for a
failure to help, thoughts about guilt and shame should be salient when I contemplate helping,
and words related to these thoughts should interfere with my ability to make an unrelated
reaction-time responsenaming the color of the ink in which the words appear on a Stoop
task. If my ultimate goal is to relieve the empathy-evoking need, then thoughts about the need
situation should be salient, and words related to these thoughts should interfere with my
ability to make an unrelated reaction-time response. Section 3 of Appendix A presents
competing predictions for designs employing each of these behavioral options.

117
Experimental Evidence
Results of six experiments designed to test these competing predictions are summarized in
Appendix D. Each of these six experiments also provides a further test of the social-
evaluation version of the empathy-specific-punishment hypothesis because in each case that
version makes the same predictions as the self-evaluation version. Competing predictions for
the effects of having good justification for not helping have been tested in three experiments
(Batson, Dyck, Brandt, Batson, Powell, McMaster, & Griffitt, 1988, Studies 24). Competing
predictions for the mood effects of learning that failure of an attempt to help was justified
have been tested in two experiments (Batson & Weeks, 1996, Experiments 1 & 2).
Competing predictions for effects on reaction-time latency of punishment-relevant and
victim-relevant words have been tested in one experiment (Batson et al., 1988, Study 5).
Results are highly consistent across the six studies. In each, the results patterned as predicted
by the empathy-altruism hypothesis not as predicted by the negative-self-evaluation
explanation.

a. Justification for not helping.

The three experiments assessing helping in a Justification Empathy design provided
justification for not helping in three different ways. In the first, it was provided by
information about the inaction of other potential helpers. Batson et al. (1988) reasoned that if
most other people who have been asked said no to a request for help, then one should feel
justified saying no as well. Accordingly, in this experiment individuals induced to feel either
low or high empathic concern for a young woman in need were given an opportunity to
pledge time to help her. The young womans plight was such that being helped by others did
not affect her need for help from the participant. Information on the pledge form about the
responses of previously asked peers indicated that either 5 of 7 had pledged to help her (low
justification for not helping) or only 2 of 7 had pledged (high justification). The negative-
self-evaluation explanation predicted less helping in the high-justification condition than in
the low-justification condition by individuals feeling high empathy. In contrast, the empathy-
altruism hypothesis predicted high helping in both justification conditions by individuals
feeling high empathy. Results conformed to the latter pattern. Only among individuals feeling
low empathy did high justification reduce helping. This pattern of results suggested that only
the motivation of low-empathy individuals was directed toward avoidance of negative self-
evaluation.
In the second experiment, justification was provided by attributional ambiguity. Batson et al.
(1988) reasoned that if individuals can attribute a decision not to help to helping-irrelevant
features of the decision, then they should be less likely to anticipate self-punishment.
Individuals who felt either low or high empathy for a peer assigned to receive negative
consequences (electric shocks) were given a chance to work on either or both of two task
options. For each correct response on Option A, they would receive a positive consequence
for themselves (a raffle ticket for a $30 prize). For each correct response on Option B, they
would avoid a negative consequence for the peer (removing one of the peers shocks).
Information about helping-irrelevant attributes of the two task
118
options indicated either that the two tasks were quite similar and neither was preferred (low
justification for not helping) or that one task involved numbers, the other letters, and most
people preferred to work on the numbers (letters), whichever was paired with the non-helpful
Option A (high justification). Once again, results patterned as predicted by the empathy-
altruism hypothesis, not as predicted by the negative-self-evaluation explanation. Individuals
feeling low empathic concern helped significantly less when not helping was justified,
indicating that they were motivated at least in part to avoid negative self-evaluation.
Individuals feeling high empathic concern helped at a high rate regardless of justification.
In the third experiment, justification for not helping was provided by information about
difficulty of the performance standard on a qualifying task that had to be passed in order to be
eligible to help. Batson et al. (1988) reasoned that if potential helpers knew that they would
be allowed to help only if they met the performance standard on a qualifying task, then
performance on the qualifying task would provide a behavioral measure of motivation to
reduce the victims suffering (which required qualifying) or to avoid social and self-
punishment (which did not). However, this would be true only if poor performance on the
qualifying task could be justified, which it could if the performance standard was difficult
enough that most people failed. If the performance standard was difficult, a person could not
be blamed for not qualifyingeither by self or by others. In this case, individuals motivated
to avoid negative-self-evaluation should either (a) decline to help because of the low
probability of qualifying or (b) offer to help but not try very hard on the qualifying task,
ensuring failure. Difficulty of the standard would justify failure, allowing them to avoid both
the cost of helping and guilt. Altruistically motivated individuals should both (a) offer to help
and (b) try even harder when the qualifying task is difficult. Only by qualifying would they
be able to reach their goal of relieving the empathy-inducing need.
Building on this reasoning, undergraduates who felt either low or high empathic concern for a
peer whom they believed was reacting badly to a series of uncomfortable electric shocks were
given a chance to help the peer by taking the remaining shocks themselves. They knew that
even if they said they wished to help, they had to meet the performance standard on a
qualifying task to be eligible. Information about the difficulty of the standard indicated either
that most college students qualified (low justification for not helping) or most did not (high
justification).
Once more, results supported the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Performance on the
qualifying task by low-empathy individuals was lower when the qualifying standard was
difficult than when it was easy, indicating the effectiveness of this manipulation in providing
justification for failure. Performance by high-empathy individuals was higher when the
qualifying standard was difficult than when it was easy. This interaction suggested that the
motivation of low-empathy individuals was at least in part directed toward avoiding negative
self-evaluation, whereas, contrary to the negative-self-evaluation explanation, the motivation
of high-empathy individuals was not. The observed interaction was the pattern expected if the
motivation of high-empathy individuals was altruistici.e., directed toward the ultimate goal
of relieving the others suffering.

119
In each of these three experiments, then, justification for not helping reduced the helping of
low-empathy individuals, but it had very little effect on the helping of high-empathy
individuals. The relatively high rate of helping by high-empathy individuals even when
justification for not helping was high is precisely what we would expect if feeling empathic
concern for the person in need produces altruistic motivation to have that persons need
reduced. It is not what we would expect if empathic concern produces increased egoistic
motivation to avoid negative self-evaluation.

b. Justification for ineffective helping.

Turning to the second diagnostic difference, Batson and Weeks (1996) reported two relevant
experiments. In each, the negative-self-evaluation explanation predicted more negative mood
change by high-empathy participants after learning that a sincere helping effort was not
effective only when the ineffectiveness was not justified. The empathy-altruism hypothesis
predicted more negative mood change by high-empathy participants even when the
ineffectiveness was clearly justified.
In the first experiment, all participants were given an opportunity to perform a low-cost task
(circling digit combinations) to help another research participant avoid receiving electric
shocks. After they performed the task (which all chose to do), a performance standard was
ostensibly randomly chosen. All participants learned that they had failed to meet the standard
and so had not enabled the other participant to avoid the shocks. Mood was measured both at
the beginning of the study and after participants learned that their helping effort had failed to
relieve the other participants need.
Empathic concern was manipulated by the perspective that participants were asked to adopt
while listening to an audio communication in which the other participant expressed concern
about the shocks (objective vs. imagine-other perspective). Justification was manipulated by
informing participants that the randomly chosen performance standard they failed to meet
was either moderately easy (failure-not-justified condition) or was absolutely impossible
(failure-justified condition). The major dependent variable was mood change (i.e., post-
failure mood minus pre-failure mood).
The second experiment employed a simple two-cell design. To avoid any possible doubts
about justification for lack of success, all participants in this experiment learned that they had
succeeded on the task they performed to help the other participant. All then learned that the
other participant had been randomly assigned an impossible standard on her task, so in spite
of their help, she failed to avoid the shocks. Thus, even though all participants successfully
provided help and could in no way be held responsible, the other participant was still in need.
Once again, empathic concern was manipulated by perspective-taking instructions. In this
second experiment, however, these instructions were not presented prior to communication,
as was done in the first experiment, but were embedded in the written communication (a
note) from the other participant itself. The major dependent variable was, as in the first
experiment, mood change.
It is important to note that these two experiments are not vulnerable to the concern raised by
Batson (1991), and elaborated by Stich, Doris, and Roedder (2010), that
120
participants may not accept justification for not helping because they endorse a norm that
says, if empathy, then help, and brooks no exceptions. In both of the Batson & Weeks
(1996) experiments all participants helped, but in the crucial conditionthrough no fault of
their ownthe help did not relieve the empathy-inducing need.
In each experiment, low-empathy participants showed clear negative mood change when their
failure was not justified but relatively little negative mood change when their failure was
justified, whereas high-empathy participants showed substantial negative mood change even
when failure was justified. This was the pattern predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis
not the negative-self-evaluation explanation.

c. Reaction-time latency due to cognitive interference.

The final behavior that produces competing predictions for the negative-self-evaluation
explanation and the empathy-altruism hypothesis is reaction-time latency due to cognitive
interference. The negative-self-evaluation explanation predicts that for individuals feeling
empathic concern for a person in need, thoughts about guilt and shame should underlie the
decision to help and, therefore, should be the thoughts to produce cognitive interference,
increasing reaction-time latency on a Stroop (1938) task. The empathy altruism hypothesis
predicts instead that thoughts about the need should be salient and, therefore, produce
cognitive interference.
To test these predictions, Batson et al. (1988, Study 5) used perspective-taking instructions to
induce either low or high empathy for Katie Banks, the young woman who had lost her
parents in a tragic automobile accident and was struggling to avoid having to put her younger
brother and sister up for adoption (first used by Coke et al., 1978, Experiment 1see Chapter
3). While deciding whether to volunteer to help Katie, research participants performed a
reaction-time task (ostensibly to provide baseline data for comparison with other participants
reactions to the content of the broadcast about Katies need). On this task, participants named
as quickly as possible the color of the ink in which a series of words appeared. Some words
were self-punishment-relevant (DUTY, GUILT, SHAME, OBLIGE); some were reward-
relevant (NICE, PROUD, HONOR, PRAISE); some were need-relevant (LOSS, NEEDY,
ADOPT, TRAGIC); and some were neutral (PAIR, CLEAN, EXTRA, SMOOTH).
The only positive association in the high-empathy condition was between helping and
reaction time for color-naming latency to the need-relevant words. This was the association
predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis. There was no evidence that the helping of
high-empathy individuals was positively associated with thoughts of empathy-specific self-
punishment. Once again, the negative-self-evaluation explanation failed to find support.
In sum, all attempts to date to find evidence for either the social-evaluation version or the
self-evaluation version of the empathy-specific-punishment hypothesis have failed to provide
any clear support. Instead, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. Apparently, the motivation produced by empathic concern is not directed toward
the ultimate goal of avoiding empathy-specific punishments, whether social punishments or
self-punishments.

121
Empathy-Specific Reward
The final egoistic alternative to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, the empathy-specific-
reward hypothesis, claims that we learn through socialization that special rewards in the form
of praise, honor, and pride are attendant on helping a person for whom we feel empathic
concern. When we feel empathy, we think of these rewards and help out of an egoistic desire
to gain them.
As discussed in Chapter 3, three versions of this empathy-specific-reward hypothesis have
been proposed. The first is the most straightforward. It claims that we learn to expect a
special pat on the backeither from others in the form of praise or from ourselves in the
form of enhanced self-imageafter helping those for whom we feel empathic concern. The
second version is the empathic-joy hypothesis proposed by Smith et al. (1989), which claims
that empathy-induced helping is motivated by a desire to experience vicarious joy at knowing
the person in need feels better. The third version is the negative-state-relief hypothesis
proposed by Cialdini et al. (1987), which claims that empathic concern increases the desire
for the mood enhancing self-rewards that helping can provide.

Version 1: Seeking Social or Self-Rewards for Helping

Three behaviors identified in Chapter 3 permit competing predictions for the first version of
the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis and the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

Competing Predictions
First, if the ultimate goal of the motivation produced by empathic concern is to gain rewards
for helping, then when helping involves little cost, individuals feeling high empathy should
be disappointed if the persons need is removed before they have chance to help. This should
be reflected in less positive mood. In contrast, if the ultimate goal is to have the need
removed (i.e., the motivation is altruistic), then high-empathy individuals should be pleased if
the need is removed, regardless who gets the credit. They should be in a less positive mood
only if they are deprived of the chance to help and the need is not removed. Second, like the
self-evaluation version of the empathy-specific-punishment hypothesis, this first version of
the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis predicts that if high-empathy individuals learn that,
through no fault of their own, their sincere attempt to help failed to relieve the need, they
should feel no worse. After all, its the thought that counts. In contrast, the empathy-altruism
hypothesis predicts that regardless of the noble effort, if the need remains, then individuals
feeling high empathy have failed to reach an ultimate goal, so they should feel worse. Third,
there is a difference in the words that should produce cognitive interference leading to
reaction-time latency on a Stroop (1938) task. If the ultimate goal is to gain rewards, then
words related to thoughts of honor and praise should increase latency. If the goal is to relieve
the need, then words related to thoughts about the need situation should increase latency.
Section 4 of

122
Appendix A presents competing predictions for designs employing each of these behavioral
options.

Experimental Evidence
Evidence from four studies designed to test these competing predictions is summarized in
Appendix E. Batson et al. (1988, Study 1) examined the mood effects of being deprived of
the opportunity to help; the two experiments by Batson and Weeks (1996), described earlier,
examined the mood effects of learning that ones helping effort was unsuccessful; and the
Stroop study described earlier (Batson et al., 1988, Study 5) examined effects on reaction
time for color-naming latency to reward-relevant and victim-relevant words. Results are,
once again, highly consistent across the four studies. In each, results patterned as predicted by
the empathy-altruism hypothesis, not as predicted by the first version of the empathy-
specific-reward hypothesis.

a. Being deprived of the opportunity to help.

To test the mood effects of being deprived of the opportunity to help, Batson et al. (1988,
Study 1) led individualssome feeling low empathy and others feeling high empathy for a
person about to receive electric shocksto believe that they would have a no-cost, no-risk
opportunity to help the person avoid the shocks. Later, half of the individuals learned that by
chance they would not have the opportunity to help after all. Moreover, both among the
individuals who would have the opportunity to help and those who would not, half learned
that the person was still scheduled to receive the shocks; the other half learned that the
schedule had been changed and the person would receive no shocks. These variations
produced an Empathy (low vs. high) Prior Relief of Victims Need (no prior relief vs. prior
relief) Perform Helping Task (perform vs. not perform) design. The major dependent
measure was change in self-reported mood after participants learned that they would or
would not be allowed to help.
The pattern of mood change for individuals reporting high empathic concern was as predicted
by the empathy-altruism hypothesis not the empathy-specific-reward explanation. Among
these individuals, there was more positive mood change in the three cells in which the
victims need was relieved than in the one in which it was not. Being deprived of the
opportunity to help because of prior relief of the victims need did not lead to less positive
mood change, as predicted by the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis. Moreover, this pattern
of results was specific to individuals reporting high empathy; it did not approach statistical
reliability among individuals reporting low empathy.

b. Justification for ineffective helping.

Predictions for mood change following ineffective helping (unjustified vs. justified) are the
same for the first version of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis as for the self-evaluation
version of the empathy-specific-punishment hypothesis. Therefore, results of the two
experiments reported by Batson and Weeks (1996) count against this egoistic alternative, just
as they count against that one.

123
c. Reaction-time latency due to cognitive interference.
Finally, as already mentioned, reward-relevant words (NICE, PROUD, HONOR, PRAISE)
were also included in the Stroop study reported by Batson et al. (1988, Study 5). Contrary to
predictions of the first version of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis, the reaction time
for color-naming latency produced by these words was not correlated with helping among
individuals induced to feel empathic concern for Katie. The only positive association in the
high-empathy condition was between helping and reaction time for color-naming latency to
the need-relevant words. This was the association predicted by the empathy-altruism
hypothesis.
In sum, the results of these four experiments failed to provide any support for the first version
of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis. Results of each instead patterned as predicted by
the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

Version 2: Seeking Empathic Joy

The second version is the empathic-joy hypothesis proposed by Smith et al. (1989). As
described in Chapter 3, their idea was that, rather than seeking the rewards of being seen as a
helpful person (either by others or by oneself), empathically aroused individuals help in order
to gain the good feeling of sharing vicariously in the joy of the needy persons relief. Smith et
al. (1989) identified a condition that should distinguish between an altruistic motive and a
motive to seek empathic joy: anticipation of feedback about improvement in the needy
persons state.

Competing Predictions
As described in the fifth section of Appendix A, one can either anticipate feedback about the
result of ones helping effort or anticipate feedback about the needy persons state even
though one has no opportunity to help. The empathic-joy hypothesis predicts that individuals
feeling high empathic concern will be more likely to help or to seek further information about
the empathy-inducing need than will individuals feeling low empathic concern only when
they anticipate learning that the needy persons condition has improved. The empathy-
altruism hypothesis predicts that high-empathy individuals will be more likely to help or seek
further information than will low-empathy individuals even in the absence of anticipated
positive feedback.

Experimental Evidence
Appendix F summarizes four experiments designed to test these competing predictions. The
first two include a manipulation of anticipated feedback about the result of ones helping
effort. The last two include a manipulation of anticipated feedback about a needy persons
condition in a situation in which there was no opportunity to help.

a. Feedback about the result of ones helping effort.

Smith et al. (1989) conducted the first experiment. In a Feedback (anticipated vs. not)
Empathic Concern (low vs. high)
124
design, they found an empathy-helping relationship in both anticipated-feedback and no-
feedback conditions. This was the pattern predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis not
the empathic-joy hypothesis. However, an unsuccessful check on their empathy manipulation
led Smith et al. (1989) to disregard these results and focus instead on an internal analysis in
which low- and high-empathy conditions were created by a median split on a measure of self-
reported empathy minus self-reported distress. In this internal analysis, they found a positive
association between relative empathy and helping in the anticipated-feedback condition but
no association between relative empathy and helping in the no-feedback condition. This was
the pattern predicted by the empathic-joy hypothesis. Smith et al. (1989) concluded that their
results supported the empathic-joy hypothesis not the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
This conclusion seems premature. In the particular research procedure used by Smith et al.,
self-reported empathy minus distress was probably not an appropriate index of empathic
concern. The need situation did not involve physical suffering; it involved trouble adjusting
to college. As a result, it seems likely that the distress that participants reported was other-
oriented empathic distress for the student in need rather than self-oriented personal distress
produced by awareness of the need (see Batson, Batson, Slingsby, Harrell, Peekna, & Todd,
1991, for extensive discussion of this point). Moreover, to disregard the results of the
experimental design because of the unsuccessful manipulation check may not have been
appropriate. The problem may have been with the manipulation check rather than the
empathy manipulation. Given this uncertainty, a more appropriate conclusion might have
been that the empathic-joy hypothesis needed more testing. In subsequent tests, it has not
fared well.
Batson et al. (1991, Experiment 1) conducted the second experiment. To assess the effect of
feedback on the empathy-helping relationship, they used a situation in which a manipulation
of empathic concern was known to be effective. Participants listened to the pilot radio
interview with Katie Banks. Empathy was manipulated by listening-perspective instructions
(objective; imagine her feelings). Feedback was manipulated by whether or not participants
expected to learn the results of their helping efforts. Manipulation checks indicated that both
manipulations were quite successful, avoiding the uncertainty that plagued interpretation of
the Smith et al. (1989) results. Batson et al. (1991) found significantly more help in the no-
feedback/high-empathy cell than in the no-feedback/low-empathy cell. This was the pattern
predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis not the empathic-joy hypothesis. Interestingly,
feedback significantly increased helping among participants induced to feel low empathy; not
among those induced to feel high empathy. This was just the opposite of what the empathic-
joy hypothesis predicted.

b. Feedback about the needy persons condition.

Batson et al. (1991, Experiments 2 & 3) also conducted the two experiments that included a
manipulation of anticipated feedback when there was no opportunity to help. In each,
participants heard an interview with a young woman experiencing difficulty adjusting to
college. They were then given a choice of whether to hear a second interview with her or an
interview with someone else. Before choosing, participants received information (ostensibly
from experts) on the
125
likelihood that the young womans situation would be substantially improved by the time of
the second interview. Some participants were told the likelihood was only 20 percent; some
were told it was 50 percent; and some were told it was 80 percent. Perspective-taking
instructions were used to manipulate empathic concern, producing a 2 (low vs. high empathy)
3 (20, 50, 80 percent likelihood of improvement) factorial design.
In the low-empathy condition, both hypotheses predicted little incentive to choose to hear
from the young woman again regardless of the likelihood of improvement. In the high-
empathy condition, predictions differed. The empathic-joy hypothesis predicted a linear
relation between likelihood the young woman would be better and choice to hear from her
again: Few high-empathy participants should make this choice in the 20 percent condition;
more should make this choice in the 50 percent condition; and the most should in the 80
percent condition. The empathy-altruism hypothesis predicted that this choice would be
preferred by high-empathy participants compared to low across all three likelihood-of-
improvement conditions, producing a main effect for empathy, not the linear increase in the
high-empathy condition predicted by the empathic-joy hypothesis. Even when improvement
was not likely, high-empathy participants, more concerned about the young womans welfare,
should have more interest than low-empathy participants in hearing about how she is doing.
Results of each experiment patterned as predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis not the
empathic-joy hypothesis. Participants in the high-empathy condition were more likely than
participants in the low-empathy condition to choose to hear from the young woman again. In
neither experiment was there evidence of the linear trend in the high-empathy condition
predicted by the empathic-joy hypothesis. Instead, there was evidence of a linear trend in the
low-empathy condition. Once again, this was just the opposite of the empathic-joy prediction.
Considering the results of these four experiments, it now seems clear that the internal analysis
conducted by Smith et al. (1989) was misleading. Overall, the evidence indicates that
individuals feeling empathic concern are not motivated to gain the pleasure of sharing
vicariously in the needy persons relief. The empathic-joy hypothesis does not appear capable
of accounting for the motivation produced by empathic concern.

Version 3: Seeking Negative-State Relief

In contrast to the first two versions of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis, the third
claims that it is the need for the rewards of helping, not the reward itself, that is empathy
specific. This is the negative-state-relief hypothesis proposed by Cialdini et al. (1987). They
argued that feeling empathic concern involves a state of temporary sadness, and this sadness
can be relieved by any mood-enhancing experience, including obtaining the social and self-
rewards that accompany helping. Because helping contains a rewarding component for most
normally socialized adults..., it can be used instrumentally to restore mood (Cialdini et al.,
1987, p. 750).

126
The empathy-altruism hypothesis does not dispute the Cialdini et al. (1987) claim that
individuals feeling empathic concern are likely to feel sadness and sorrow for this person.
Indeed, expressions of sadness and sorrow at learning of anothers suffering have been used
as an index of empathy by some researchers (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes, Miller, Fultz, Shell,
Mathy, & Reno, 1989). The empathy-altruism hypothesis also does not dispute the claim that,
following successful helping, empathically concerned individuals are likely to feel better (see
Chapter 1 and Batson et al., 1988, Study 1). What it disputes is the claim that empathically
concerned individuals help in order to feel better. Disagreement is over the nature of the
motivation underlying the empathy-helping relationship, not over the presence of feelings of
sadness or over the improvement of mood following successful helping.

Competing Predictions
As outlined in the last section of Appendix A, the negative-state-relief hypothesis predicts
that the increased helping produced by empathic concern will disappear if individuals feeling
empathic concern (a) are provided with a mood-enhancing experience before being given a
chance to help, (b) believe that helping will not enhance their mood, or (c) anticipate a mood-
enhancing experience even if they do not help. In addition, the negative-state-relief
hypothesis predicts that individuals feeling empathic concern will help more even when the
need to be relieved by helping is not the one for which empathy was induced. This hypothesis
also predicts that individuals feeling empathic concern who try to help but fail to relieve the
empathy-inducing need will experience enhanced mood, as long as the failure is justified
(again, the thought counts). Finally, the negative-state-relief hypothesis predicts that among
high-empathy individuals helping will correlate with color-naming latency for reward-
relevant words (e.g., praise, proud).
In contrast, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts that the empathy-helping relationship
will remain even if individuals feeling empathic concern (a) are provided with a mood-
enhancing experience before being given a chance to help, (b) believe that helping will not
enhance their mood, or (c) anticipate a mood-enhancing experience even if they do not help.
In addition, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts that individuals feeling empathic
concern will help more only when the need relieved by helping is the one for which empathy
was induced. This hypothesis also predicts that empathically concerned individuals who try
to help but fail to relieve the empathy-inducing need will not experience enhanced mood,
even if the failure is justified. Finally, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts that the
helping of empathically concerned individuals will be correlated with color-naming latency
for need-relevant words not reward-relevant words.

Experimental Evidence
Results of ten experiments that provide evidence relevant to these competing predictions are
summarized in Appendix G.

127
a. Mood enhancement prior to the chance to help.
Cialdini et al. (1987) sought to test their negative-state-relief explanation of the empathy-
helping relationship by conducting two studies. In the first, they used an experimental
procedure that included essentially the same need situation, opportunity to help, and escape
manipulation used by Batson et al. (1981) to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis against the
aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesisElaine reacting badly to random electric shocks
(described in Chapter 4). Into this procedure, Cialdini et al. introduced both perspective-
taking instructions to manipulate empathy and, following Cialdini, Darby, and Vincent
(1973), mood-enhancing experiences (payment or praise) to provide negative-state relief
prior to the chance to help.
Results of this first experiment patterned in part as predicted by the negative-state-relief
hypothesis, but the results were neither very strong nor very consistent. Although the rate of
helping was somewhat lower for easy-escape/high-empathy individuals who had a rewarding
experience prior to the opportunity to help, as predicted by the negative-state-relief
hypothesis, the decrease was clear only for those paid, not for those praised. Moreover,
payment decreased the rate of helping in the difficult-escape condition as much as in the
easy-escape condition, which suggested that processes other than negative-state relief were at
workmost likely, psychological reactance (Brehm & Cole, 1966).

b. Belief that helping will not enhance mood.

In their second experiment, Cialdini et al. (1987) did not interpose a mood-enhancing
experience between exposure to the victims suffering and the opportunity to help. Instead,
they interposed information designed to convince some participants that because they had
taken a mood-fixing drug, helping would not enhance their mood (this manipulation was first
used by Manucia, Baumann, & Cialdini, 1984). Perspective-taking instructions similar to
those in the previous experiment were used to manipulate empathy.
For a scaled measure of helping (amount of help offered), results of this experiment patterned
as predicted by the negative-state-relief hypothesis not the empathy-altruism hypothesis. The
increased helping of individuals in the high-empathy condition relative to the low
disappeared when they were informed that helping would not enhance their mood. For a
dichotomous measure of helping (proportion of participants agreeing to help), however, this
pattern was weaker and did not approach statistical significance.
Cialdini et al. (1987) concluded that the results of their two experiments appear to support
an egoistic (Negative-State-Relief model) interpretation over a selfless (Empathy-Altruism
model) interpretation of enhanced helping under conditions of high empathy (p. 757). They
were careful to point out, however, that their case was not airtight because distraction could
have been a confound in each experiment: The reward procedures of Experiment 1 or the
placebo-drug procedures of Experiment 2 may have turned subjects attention away from
their empathic emotions (Cialdini et al., 1987, p. 757). Cialdini et al. recognized that their
results offered no strong disconfirmation of a distraction explanation, and they called for
subsequent research to address this issue.

128
The possibility that distraction produced the apparent support for the negative-state-relief
hypothesis in these first two experiments was underscored by the results of an experiment
reported by Schroeder, Dovidio, Sibicky, Matthews, and Allen (1988). Working at the same
time as Cialdini et al., but independently, Schroeder et al. also tested the relative merits of the
negative-state-relief and empathy-altruism hypotheses using a perspective-taking
manipulation of empathy and the Manucia et al. (1984) mood-fixing manipulation. But
Schroeder et al. obtained quite different results. They failed to find the significant drop in
helping in the fixed-mood/high-empathy condition predicted by the negative-state-relief
hypothesis. Accordingly, they concluded that their results were more supportive of the
empathy-altruism hypothesis than of the negative-state-relief hypothesis.
The conflicting results of the Schroeder et al. (1988) experiment and Cialdini et al.s (1987)
Experiment 2 may be due to an important procedural difference. In the Schroeder et al.
experiment, participants were informed of the drugs effects (not mood fixing vs. mood
fixing) before they were exposed to the person in need. After exposure, those in the fixed-
mood condition were simply reminded that the drug should fix their present mood for the
next 20 minutes or so. In the Cialdini et al. experiment, the mood-fixing side effect was
introduced for the first time after participants had been exposed to the victims need. The
Schroeder et al. procedure seems less likely to cause distraction.

c. Anticipated mood enhancement.

Recognizing that both of the Cialdini et al. (1987) experiments were subject to a distraction
explanation, Schaller and Cialdini (1988) conducted an experiment in which they used the
same need situation and empathy manipulation as had Cialdini et al. (1987) in their
Experiment 2. However, rather than interposing mood-enhancing or mood-fixing information
between the empathy induction and opportunity to help, Schaller and Cialdini led some
participants to expect that their mood would soon be enhanced even if they chose not to help.
They were to listen to an audiotape of comedy routines. Other participants did not expect a
mood-enhancing experience. To keep distraction to a minimum, information about the
upcoming tape was presented at the beginning of the study; only a brief reminder was
inserted between the empathy induction and opportunity to help. Combined with the
perspective-taking manipulation of empathy, this information produced an Anticipated Mood
Enhancement (no anticipated enhancement vs. anticipated enhancement) Empathic Concern
(low vs. high) design.
The negative-state-relief hypothesis predicted increased helping by high-empathy individuals
only in the no-anticipated-enhancement condition. The empathy-altruism hypothesis
predicted increased helping by high-empathy individuals even in the anticipated-
enhancement condition. Schaller and Cialdinis (1988) results did not provide unambiguous
support for either hypothesis. On the scaled measure (amount of help offered), the results
were more consistent with the negative-state-relief hypothesis, but they were not statistically
significant except when using an unadjusted post hoc analysis including time of semester as a
factor. On the dichotomous measure (proportion of participants helping), results seemed at
least as consistent with the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

129
In an independent effort to assess the relative merits of the negative-state-relief hypothesis
and the empathy-altruism hypothesis, Batson, Batson, Griffitt, Barrientos, Brandt,
Sprengelmeyer, and Bayly (1989) conducted two experiments using an Anticipated Mood
Enhancement Empathic Concern design much like the one used by Schaller and Cialdini
(1988). Results of their two experiments were highly consistent. In each, there was a
significant main effect for empathy; high empathic concern produced relatively high helping
even among individuals who anticipated mood enhancement without helping. This was the
pattern predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis not the negative-state-relief hypothesis.

d. Help that does not relieve the empathy-inducing need.

As described in Chapter 3, Dovidio et al. (1990) tested the specificity of the empathy-helping
relationship. Using a perspective-taking manipulation of empathic concern, participants were
induced to feel either low or high empathy for Tracy, a female undergraduate who had been
ill and needed help posting notices across campus to solicit information for an undergraduate
survey on student activities. The survey was being done either for her senior honors project or
for a university committee. Participants were then either given a chance to help Tracy with
the need for which empathy had been induced, or they were given a chance to help her with
the other need.
Dovidio et al. (1990) reasoned that helping with either need would provide an opportunity for
mood-enhancing self-rewards, but only helping with the empathy-inducing need would
satisfy an empathy-induced altruistic motive. Therefore, if high-empathy individuals are
seeking mood-enhancing self-rewards (negative-state relief), they should help more than low-
empathy individuals whether or not the need being addressed is the one for which they were
induced to feel empathic concern. If they are seeking to remove the empathy-inducing need
(altruism), they should help more only when given a chance to remove that need. Contrary to
what the negative-state-relief hypothesis predicted, empathy did not increase the likelihood of
helping with the other need, only with the empathy-inducing need. This was what the
empathy-altruism hypothesis predicted.

e. Justification for ineffective helping.

The two experiments reported by Batson and Weeks (1996) that have already been described
provide data relevant to competing predictions about the effects on mood of learning that the
ineffectiveness of ones attempt to help either was or was not justified. Neither of these
experiments supported the negative-state-relief hypothesis predictions, which are the same as
predictions for the first version of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis. Instead, as
discussed earlier, results of each experiment patterned as predicted by the empathy-altruism
hypothesis.

f. Reaction-time latency due to cognitive interference.

Finally, predictions for color-naming latency in the Stroop study reported by Batson et al.
(1988, Study 5) are, once

130
again, the same for the negative-state-relief hypothesis as for the first version of the empathy-
specific-reward hypothesis, so results of that experiment count against the negative-state-
relief version, just as they count against the first version.
In the first few years after it was proposed, there was some uncertainty about the status of the
negative-state-relief version of the empathy-specific-reward hypothesis. Cialdini and his
colleagues claimed support, although they noted ambiguities and inconsistencies in their
evidence. In subsequent years, other researchers using procedures less subject to
interpretational ambiguity have consistently found support for the empathy-altruism
hypothesis not the negative-state-relief hypothesis. At this point, the evidence strongly
indicates that negative-state-relief is not the ultimate goal of the motivation produced by
empathic concern.

Sequential Testing and Multiple Egoistic Motives

The evidence is now before us from all experiments published between 1978 and 1996
designed to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis against one or more of the six egoistic
alternatives. As can be seen, the evidence clearly fails to support any of the alternatives. With
only a few exceptions, results have consistently patterned as predicted by the empathy-
altruism hypothesis. And for each of the exceptions, subsequent research has indicated that
the results that appeared contrary to the empathy-altruism hypothesis were produced by
confounds or other design limitations.
With all the evidence at hand, let us return to the issue of sequential testing raised at the end
of Chapter 3. There, I rejected the strategy of trying to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis
against all egoistic alternatives in a single experiment as unwieldy and unwise. I
recommended a sequential strategy, but noted that such a strategy requires care. When
moving from testing one egoistic alternative to testing another, experimental situations
should, insofar as possible, remain comparable so that results across studies can be
aggregated. The best way to maintain comparability is to use the same need situations, the
same techniques for manipulating empathy, and the same dependent measures, changing only
the cross-cutting variables as needed to test the new alternative. In addition, each alternative
should be tested in multiple experiments using different need situations, different techniques
for inducing empathic concern, and if possible, different cross-cutting variables.
Consistent with these principles, when moving from testing the aversive-arousal reduction
hypothesis to testing the empathy-specific punishment and empathy-specific reward
hypotheses, the ability to escape exposure to the empathy-inducing need was kept easy so
that aversive-arousal reduction would not predict the same pattern of results as the empathy-
altruism hypothesis. In addition, care was taken to use at least some of the same need
situations and helping measures that had been used when testing the aversive-arousal
reduction hypothesis, such as taking shocks to help Elaine (or Charlie, Elaines male
counterpart) and volunteering time to help Katie Banks. Finally, to provide generalized

131
replication, each egoistic alternative was tested using more than one procedure, often three or
four, and empathic concern was induced in different ways.
This sequential strategy seems appropriate and effective for testing each of the six proposed
egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. But what if, rather than empathic
concern evoking one of the six egoistic motives, it evokes more than one? (See Cialdini,
1991; Hoffman, 1991; and Sorrentino, 1991, for various expressions of this worry.) Consider
the most extreme, least parsimonious, and arguably least plausible possibility, but also the
most difficult to rule out: Empathic concern evokes all six egoistic motives at once. That is,
empathic concern produces motivation to (a) reduce aversive empathic arousal, (b) avoid
socially administered and (c) self-administered punishments for failure to help, (d) gain social
and self-rewards for helping, (e) experience empathic joy, and (f) gain mood-enhancing
rewards. Although it may seem unlikely that empathic concern would produce six distinct
ultimate goals at once, let us consider this possibility.
An all-at-once alternative can account for many of the results summarized in Appendix B
through Appendix G that have been interpreted as supporting the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. For example, it can account for the finding that individuals feeling high empathy
help as much when escape without helping is easy as when escape is difficult (Appendix B)
because helping is necessary even when escape is easy in order to (a) avoid anticipated social
and self-punishments for failure to help and (b) gain social and self-rewards for helping. It
can account for helping when escape is easy and social punishment is not possible (Appendix
C) because helping is still necessary in order to (a) avoid self-punishments and (b) gain social
and self-rewards. It can account for helping when escape is easy and justification for not
helping is provided (Appendix D) because helping is still necessary in order to gain social
and self-rewards. It can account for negative mood change occurring only when the need
remains and one cannot help (Appendix E) because aversive empathic arousal has not been
reduced. It can account for helping when escape is easy and no feedback is anticipated
concerning the success of ones helping effort (Appendix F) because helping is still necessary
in order to (a) avoid social and self-punishment and (b) gain social and self-rewards. It can
account for helping when escape is easy and one anticipates a mood-enhancing experience
(Appendix G) because, once again, helping is still necessary in order to (a) avoid social and
self-punishment and (b) gain social and self-rewards.
There are, however, some results that cannot be accounted for by an all-at-once alternative.
First, there are the results of the Dovidio et al. (1990) experiment in which some participants
were given the chance to help with the need for which empathy was induced and others, to
help the same person with a different need. Given that escape without helping was easy, none
of the six egoistic alternatives make the same prediction as the empathy-altruism hypothesis:
more helping in the high-empathy condition than the low with the need for which empathy
was induced but not with the different need. Yet this is what was found (see Appendix G).
There are also the results of experiments in which the major dependent measure is something
other than helpinge.g., mood (Batson et al., 1988, Study 1; Batson & Weeks, 1996,
Experiments 1 & 2), performance on a qualifying task (Batson et al., 1988,

132
Study 4), color-naming latency (Batson et al., 1988, Study 5), or choosing to receive update
information (Batson et al., 1991, Experiments 2 & 3). Such experiments are particularly
useful for comparing predictions from the empathy-altruism hypothesis and the all-at-once
alternative because four of the six possible egoistic motives arise only when the person
feeling empathic concern is trying to decide whether to help: (a) avoiding social punishments
and (b) avoiding self-punishments for a failure to help; (c) gaining social and self-rewards for
helping, including (d) mood-enhancing rewards (negative-state relief). These motives either
do not arise or cannot be addressed if the dependent measure is not response to an
opportunity to help. Therefore, results on dependent measures other than helping that pattern
as predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis cannot be attributed to any of these egoistic
motives, either singly or as part of a combination. To account for the results on these
dependent measures, the all-at-once alternative must rely on one of the two remaining
possibilities: aversive-arousal reduction and empathic joy.
For two experiments summarized in Appendix F (Batson et al., 1991, Experiments 2 & 3),
neither of which used helping as the dependent measure, the empathy-altruism hypothesis
makes different predictions from those made by each of these remaining two possibilities. In
these experiments, participants induced to feel either low or high empathic concern for a
person in need were given an opportunity to get update information about the persons
condition after being told that there was a 20 percent, a 50 percent, or an 80 percent chance
that the condition would have substantially improved. As pointed out by Batson and Shaw
(1991b), both the aversive-arousal reduction and empathic-joy hypotheses predict a linear
increase in choosing to get update information across the 20 percent, 50 percent, and 80
percent conditions among high-empathy individuals. This is because the likelihood of
reaching the ultimate goal of each of these motives increases as the likelihood of
improvement increases. In contrast, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts that, compared
to those feeling low empathy, individuals feeling high empathy will be likely to choose to get
update information even when the chance of improvement is low.
Results of each of these two experiments patterned as predicted by the empathy-altruism
hypothesis, not as predicted by the aversive-arousal reduction alternative, the empathic-joy
alternative, and, therefore, the all-at-once alternative. The linear increase predicted by these
alternatives was found among individuals feeling low empathy, but not among those feeling
high empathy. Participants induced to feel high empathy were more likely than those feeling
low empathy to choose to get update information, even when the chance of improvement was
low.
Although results of the Dovidio et al. (1990) experiment and these two experiments provide
the most clear-cut test, results of the other experiments that use dependent measures other
than helping are difficult for the all-at-once alternative to explain, especially when coupled
with these results. So, in addition to lacking parsimony and plausibility, the all-at-once
alternative also lacks empirical support. One might, of course, turn from an all-at-once
alternative to a combination of some subset of the possible egoistic motives. But for any
subset, even more experiments summarized in Appendix B through

133
Appendix G provide adequate tests. (Over a half-dozen experiments provide tests of the
empathy-altruism hypothesis against any possible combination of three or four of the egoistic
motives.) And for whatever subset one chooses, results consistently support the empathy-
altruism hypothesis. At least for the egoistic alternatives proposed to date, no combination
seems able to explain the array of evidence supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
Conclusion
Having tested the six egoistic alternatives, and having failed to find support for any of them
either singly or in combination, should we conclude that empathic concern does indeed
produce altruistic motivation, as claimed by the empathy-altruism hypothesis? We are not yet
to that point. Because of the asymmetry in the relationship between the potential ultimate
goals of increasing the others welfare and increasing ones own welfare, with the former
leading to the latter but not the reverse (see Chapter 4), there is always the possibility that a
plausible new alternative explanation of the motivation produced by empathic concern may
be proposed. If so, this alternative should be tested. However, to be plausible, the new
alternative must be able to explain all the existing evidence supporting the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. As that evidence has grown, such an alternative has become increasingly hard to
find. It is well over a decade since a new egoistic alternative has been proposed. Still, there
have been two further challenges to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Chapter 6 presents
these challenges, and evidence relevant to each.

134
6 Two Further Challenges

The two challenges to the empathy-altruism hypothesis that have attracted attention in recent
years are: (a) physical versus psychological escape and (b) self-other merging. The first
argues that the research reviewed in Chapter 5 that tests the aversive-arousal-reduction
explanation is flawed because it relies on physical escape to produce psychological escape.
The second argues that when people experience empathic concern for another, they become
merged with the other; the distinction between self and other blurs. To the extent that self and
other become one, the distinction between motivational states with the ultimate goal of
increasing ones own welfare and increasing the others welfarethe distinction between
egoism and altruismalso blurs.

Does Physical Escape Permit Psychological Escape?

In Chapter 5, I summarized evidence from ten different experiments that tested the aversive-
arousal-reduction explanation for the motivation to help produced by empathic concern. Each
was based on an Ease-of-Escape Empathic-Concern design. The experiments used three
different techniques for manipulating ease of escape, seven different techniques to identify or
create low- versus high-empathy groups, and six different need situations. Results
consistently conformed to the 1-versus-3 pattern predicted by the empathy-altruism
hypothesis (Table 4.3), not to the ease-of-escape main-effect pattern predicted by the
aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis (Table 4.2). These results led me to conclude that this
popular egoistic alternative to the empathy-altruism hypothesis should be rejected.

The Challenge
Such a conclusion may, however, be premature. There is a potential design problem with
these experiments. As discussed in Chapter 3 (also see Batson, 1987, 1991), for escape to
provide an effective means of reducing aversive arousal, one must be able to escape
psychologically, not just physically. If I anticipate continuing to dwell on anothers suffering,

135
and as a result, I anticipate continued aversive arousal, then I cannot expect to reduce my
aversive arousal simply by walking away. Yet, all but one of the ten experiments testing the
aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis relied on easy physical escape to produce easy
psychological escape. The one exception is the experiment by Eisenberg et al. (1988) in
which children were either asked directly for help (difficult escape) or were not asked (easy
escape), and as noted in Chapter 5, this manipulation may be less relevant to escape from
aversive arousal than to escape from anticipated social censure.
The use of physical escape to produce psychological escape assumes the truth of the adage,
Out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps, however, this adage is wrongor does not apply to
empathy-induced helping. If so, doubt is cast on the evidence against the aversive-arousal-
reduction hypothesis. Several scholars have noted this potential problem. For example,
Hoffman (1991) suggested:
The major problem is one of design. Namely, the easy-escape condition may not actually
provide an easy escape for high-empathy subjects, because these subjects were adults who are
capable of cognitively representing events. Being able to represent events, they must be
credited with the capacity to respond emotionally when they know someone is suffering even
though they are not directly witnessing the suffering.... Out of sight is not out of mind. (p.
131)
Similar concerns have been raised by Hornstein (1991), Nichols (2001, 2004), Sober (1991),
Sober and Wilson (1998), Stich, Doris, and Roedder (2010), and Wallach and Wallach
(1991).
Two points of clarification are needed before this challenge carries force. First, in spite of
what Hoffman says, the issue is not whether, in the absence of physical cues, research
participants are capable of responding emotionally when they think about someone who is
suffering. No one would doubt that adult humans have this capacity. The issue is not even
whether under these conditions participants do respond emotionally. The issue is whether,
when deciding whether to help, participants anticipate continuing to respond emotionallyto
experience aversive empathic arousalif they do not help.
Second, for the challenge to fit existing data, this anticipation must be specific to high-
empathy individuals. Such a stipulation is necessary to account for the frequently observed
finding that when physical escape is easy, individuals experiencing low empathy help less
than individuals experiencing high empathy (see Appendix B). Again quoting Hoffman
(1991):
What about the low-empathy subjects? These subjects may be presumed to lack the high-
empathy subjects motivation to sustain the image of the suffering victim in the victims
absence. For them, the easy-escape condition [physical escape] may thus have truly provided
an easy escape. (pp. 131132)
With these two points in place, the force of the challenge is clear. It suggests that the 2 2
designs presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 have only one easy-escape conditionthe easy-
escape/low-empathy celland three difficult-escape conditions. The aversive-arousal-
reduction hypothesis has not been fairly tested because high-empathy participants were only
tested under difficult escape. If those feeling high empathic concern are motivated to remove
their aversive empathic feelings, but they do not believe that easy

136
physical escape will allow them to do so, then helping is the only way to reach this goal.
Predictions for the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis no longer differ from predictions
for the empathy-altruism hypothesis. To provide an adequate test, high-empathy participants
must be tested under both easy and difficult psychological escape.
Clearly, this is a reasonable and important challenge, one that deserves to be addressed.
Before doing so, however, another point of clarification is needed. In his critique, Hoffman
(1991) added the following: Indeed, the subjects in the easy-escape condition might not have
felt right about turning away and avoiding a victim in distress. This could have added a bit of
anticipatory guilt to their response... (p. 131). Hornstein (1991) and Sober and Wilson
(1998) make similar statements.
Although anticipatory guilt is a possibility in the experiments in question, this possibility
needs to be kept distinct from the proposed challenge. The aversive arousal at issue when
using physical escape to produce psychological escape is the empathic concern one
anticipates continuing to feel as a result of knowing that the other is still in need. It is not
guilt one anticipates feeling as a result of knowing that one failed to help. Anticipated
empathic concern and anticipated guilt are both anticipated aversive emotional states, but
they are quite different emotions and are associated with different egoistic alternatives to the
empathy-altruism hypothesis. Guilt is a product of negative self-evaluation and so falls under
the second version of the empathy-specific punishment hypothesis (see Chapter 4). As
summarized in Chapter 5, this version has been tested in six different experiments, and in
each, results have patterned as predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis not as predicted
by the negative self-evaluation explanation. Although several of these experiments employed
a manipulation of ease of psychological escape from negative self-evaluation, none used
physical escape to provide this escape (see Appendix D). So these experiments are not
vulnerable to the proposed challenge. The use of physical escape to provide psychological
escape is a concern for tests of the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis, not for tests of guilt
avoidance.

Relevant Evidence
With the challenge now clearly before us, we can consider relevant evidence. The claim that
physical escape does not permit psychological escape raises two empirical questions. First, in
spite of the voiced concerns, is there any evidence that physical escape does provide
psychological escape in the experiments designed to test the aversive-arousal-reduction
hypothesis? Second, has this hypothesis been tested in any experiments, not in Appendix B,
that provide psychological escape without relying on physical escape? If it has, does the
evidence still pattern as predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis rather than the
aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis? The answer to each of these questions is yes.

Evidence that Physical Escape Provides Psychological Escape

Stich et al. (2010) point out that there are almost certainly cases in which easy physical
escape does not provide easy psychological escape. As an example, they ask you to

137
imagine your mother in grave distress. It seems most unlikely that you would anticipate being
able to reduce your empathic concern for her by walking away.
Quite true. Of course, in the experiments designed to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis
against the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis, research participants mothers were not in
grave distress. In all except the Eisenberg et al. (1988) experiment, the person in need was an
adult stranger whom participants had never met, with whom they had no face-to-face contact,
and whom they had no reason to anticipate meeting in the future. Information about this
persons plight came via either audio interview or video intercom. Under these
circumstances, it seems far more plausible that physical escape might provide psychological
escape. Even research participants who saw themselves as prone to feel empathic concern
may have believed that if they moved on to other things, this persons plight would quickly
fade from their thoughts, and with it out of mind, their empathic concern would fade as well.
Although not designed to test this possibility, the experiment by Batson et al. (1986)
summarized in Appendix B provides some relevant data. Batson et al. (1986) used the shock
procedure described in some detail in Chapter 4, the procedure that provides the mostand
most convincingevidence supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis over the aversive-
arousal-reduction hypothesis. Ease of escape was manipulated physically by having female
participants believe that if they did not help Elaine by taking her place, either they would be
free to go (easy escape), or they would have to watch her undergo eight more shock trials
(difficult escape).
At an unrelated session several weeks earlier, participants in this experiment had completed a
number of personality measures, including Daviss (1983) Empathic Concern scale described
in Chapter 2. Recall that the Empathic Concern scale is thought to measure a general
disposition toward empathic concern, not ones feelings for a specific person in need, such as
Elaine. People scoring high on the Empathic Concern scale report that they are very likely to
feel sympathetic and tender toward those in distress. (Whether this is actually true is,
however, not clearsee Chapter 2.) When faced with Elaines obvious discomfort, if any
people should anticipate that out of sight would not mean out of mind, it would seem to be
people scoring high on the Empathic Concern scale. For them, if for anyone, easy physical
escape should not provide easy psychological escape. As a result, following the logic of
Hoffman and others, high scorers on the Empathic Concern scale should be quite likely to
help under easy physical escape because they would anticipate continued aversive empathic
arousal.
But they were not. Across all participants in this experiment, the proportion in the easy-
escape condition who helped (.30) was significantly lower than the proportion in the difficult-
escape condition (.63), z = 2.64, p .01, indicating an overall ease-of-escape main effect.
Moreover, among those scoring above the median on the Empathic Concern scale, there was
a clear effect for ease of escape. The proportion volunteering to take Elaines place in the
easy-escape condition was far less (.23) than the proportion in the difficult-escape condition
(.83), z = 3.57, p .001. In the easy-escape condition, scores on the Empathic Concern scale
did not correlate with the likelihood of helping (r = -.04), whereas in the difficult-escape
condition, they did (r =.41, p .01). In the easy-escape
138
condition, the part of reported empathic concern for Elaine that was not related to scores on
the Empathic Concern scale (and three other altruistic personality measures) correlated
positively with helping, rpartial =.34, p .05.
This pattern of results suggests that participants scoring high on the Empathic Concern scale
may have been attuned to how aversive it would be for them to have Elaines suffering in
sight (difficult-escape condition), but they were not similarly attuned when her suffering
would be out of sight (easy-escape condition). With physical escape available, they were far
less likely to eliminate her suffering by taking Elaines place. Thus, even those participants
we might expect to be most likely to sustain the image of the suffering victim in the victims
absence (Hoffman, 1991, p. 132) seemed to anticipate that out of sight would be sufficiently
out of mind that it dramatically reduced their likelihood of helping. At least in the shock
procedure, a key experimental situation used to test the aversive-arousal-reduction
hypothesis, physical escape apparently does provide psychological escape.

Evidence from Experiments that Provide Psychological Escape Without

Relying on Physical Escape
Four experiments have provided participants with easy psychological escape without relying
on physical escape. Two were not explicitly designed with this goal in mind; two were.

a. Desire for update information.

The two experiments that provided easy psychological escape without being explicitly
designed to do so were reported by Batson, Batson et al. (1991, Experiments 2 & 3) and are
summarized in Appendix F. Each of these experiments was designed to test the empathic-joy
alternative to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. In each, participants who were induced to feel
either low or high empathic concern for a person in need were subsequently given a choice
between (a) hearing an update on this persons situation or (b) hearing about a totally
different persons situation. Before choosing, participants received information (ostensibly
from experts) about the likelihood that the persons situation would be substantially improved
by the time of the update. Some learned that the likelihood was only 20 percent; some learned
that it was 50 percent; and some learned that it was 80 percent. Participants in these
experiments were given no opportunity to help. The dependent variable was simply their
choice of whether to hear the update interview.
If participants induced to feel high empathy in these two experiments were concerned about
reducing their own aversive empathic arousal, especially arousal produced by the knowledge
they anticipated carrying with them in memory, then we would expect the likelihood-of-
improvement information to have a significant effect on their choice. The likelihood of
aversive-arousal reduction would be greatest in the 80-percent condition and least in the 20-
percent condition. Accordingly, those led to believe that the likelihood of improvement was
high (80 percent) should be more inclined to choose to hear the

139
update than those given a moderate expectation (50 percent), who should in turn be more
inclined to choose to hear the update than those given a low expectation (20 percent).
Results did not support this prediction. As reported in Appendix F, a linear increase was not
found among high-empathy participants in either experiment. (There was some evidence of
such an increase among low-empathy participants.) Instead, in each experiment, participants
induced to feel high empathy were significantly more prone to choose to get the update
information than were those induced to feel low empathy, even when there was little
likelihood of improvement. The higher rate of choosing to hear the update information among
high-empathy participants, independent of likelihood of improvement, is what we would
expect if empathic feelings are associated with other-oriented concern for and interest in the
welfare of the person in need (the kind of concern a mother might feel for a sick child), not
what we would expect if these feelings produced a desire to reduce ones own empathic
arousal by means of easy psychological escape.

b. Manipulating ease of psychological escape more directly.

Finally, two experiments have been explicitly designed to provide easy psychological escape
without relying on physical escape. They were reported by Eric Stocks (2005/2006) in his
Ph.D. dissertation and reported more briefly by Stocks, Lishner, and Decker (2009). In each
experiment, participants were presented with information about a person in need under
perspective-taking conditions designed to induce either low empathic concern (objective
perspective) or high empathic concern (imagine-other perspective). Participants were then
given an unexpected opportunity to help this person. Physical escape was always easy; if
participants chose not to help, they would not see or hear about the person in need again.
Stocks sought to provide easy psychological escape by manipulating whether participants
anticipated remembering the needy persons plighti.e., whether they thought the plight
would soon be not only out of sight but also out of mind. Different need situations and ease-
of-psychological-escape manipulations were used in the two experiments.
In Experiment 1, participants (48 male undergraduates) were told at the outset that the study
was part of a final clinical trial for two highly effective memory training techniques, one
designed to enhance memory of targeted information, and one designed to eliminate it. Each
technique involved 10-15 minutes of carefully prepared mental imagery, paired associations,
and conditioning. To make the memory-altering effects of these (actually fictitious)
techniques plausible, the written explanation invoked a computer analogy:
As you may already know, the human memory system works very much like the hard drive
of a computer. Our research suggests that one training technique can be used to permanently
save an experience in your memory whereas a different training technique can be used to
permanently delete an experience from your memory. In todays study, you will be
randomly assigned to either undergo a training session designed to enhance the vividness and
retention of a specific memory (the Saving Memories training) or to undergo a different
training session designed to reduce the vividness and retention of a specific memory (the
Deleting Memories training).

140
Obviously, the ability to save or delete certain memories is quite important and
potentially has a great many practical applications (e.g., improving academic performance,
improving eyewitness testimony in courtrooms, treating post-traumatic stress disorder, etc.).
Fortunately, our previous research has shown very promising results. During the first three
phases of this study (which involved more than 670 participants), our success rate for
saving memories was 93 percent and our success rate for deleting memories was 97
percent. The present study is the final testing phase that we must complete before we can put
our very effective and inexpensive brief training techniques into widespread use in such
varied settings as schools, psychological clinics, courtrooms, and hospitals. (Stocks,
2005/2006, p. 66)
Ostensibly to provide a target memory for the training technique, participants were to listen
to a brief audiotape containing a pilot radio broadcast. One of the two techniques would then
be focused specifically on the memory of this broadcast, either saving or deleting it. The pilot
broadcast that all participants heard informed them of the plight of Katie Banks, a senior at
the University who was struggling to take care of her younger brother and sister after her
parents were killed in an auto accident. This broadcast, first used by Coke et al. (1978), had
provided the need situation in a number of previous tests of the empathy-altruism hypothesis
(see Chapter 5 for summaries).
Supposedly to standardize the type and vividness of initial memory for the broadcast, all
participants were to adopt the same perspective while listening. Actually, half were asked to
remain objective (low empathic concern); half were asked to imagine how the person
interviewed in the broadcast felt about what had happened and how it was affecting her life
(high empathic concern). Within each empathic-concern condition, half of the participants
were randomly assigned to the Deleting Memories training (easy psychological escape);
half were randomly assigned to the Saving Memories training (difficult psychological
escape). After listening to the broadcast from their assigned perspective, participants
completed two reaction measures that included manipulation checks. (Both manipulations
appeared to be effective, although the check on the ease-of-escape manipulation was only
indirect.) Finally, participants were provided an unexpected opportunity to volunteer time to
help Katie in any of a variety of waysbabysitting her younger brother and sister while she
attended class, helping out around the house, providing transportation, and assisting with a
fund-raising drive.
The design of this experiment was, then, the same Ease-of-Escape (easy; difficult)
Empathic-Concern (low; high) factorial that had been used to test the aversive-arousal-
reduction hypothesis against the empathy-altruism hypothesis in the past. Now, however,
psychological escape was manipulated directly by altering participants expectations about
their continuing awareness of Katies plight. Those in the easy-escape condition expected
their awareness to be deleted; those in the difficult-escape condition expected it to be saved.
Competing predictions were the same as before. The aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis
predicted the ease-of-escape main effect depicted in Table 4.2; the empathy-altruism
hypothesis predicted the 1-versus-3 pattern depicted in Table 4.3.
Rates of helping in the four cells of this experiment are presented in Table 6.1. As can be
seen, even with the more direct manipulation of psychological escape, the data still conform
to the 1-versus-3 pattern predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis, not to
141
Table 6.1 Rate of Volunteering to Help Katie Banks (Stocks, 2005/2006, Experiment 1)
Empathic Concern
Ease of Psychological Escape Low High
Easy (memory deleted) .08 .67
Difficult (memory saved) .42 .58

Note: N = 48 men (12 per cell). Adapted from Stocks (2005/2006) by permission of the
author. Also see Stocks et al. (2009).
the main-effect pattern predicted by the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis. The 1-versus-
3 pattern is statistically significant, 2 (1, N = 48) = 5.72, p .02, and accounts for all reliable
between-cell variance, residual 2 (2, N = 48) = 1.56, p .40 (Stocks, 2005/2006, p. 36).

c. Manipulating two forms of easy escape.

In his second experiment, Stocks (2005/2006) tested the out of sight is not out of mind
assumption of Hoffman (1991) and others even more directly by comparing (a) easy physical
and psychological escape combined and (b) easy physical escape only. If the not-out-of-mind
assumption is correct, then this comparison pits easy escape against difficult escape among
high-empathy individuals. Among low-empathy individuals, easy physical escape alone is
assumed sufficient to produce easy psychological escape (see Appendix B and the second
point of clarification above).
Crossing this manipulation with a perspective-taking manipulation of empathy produces a
Form-of-Easy-Escape (only physical; physical and psychological) Empathic-Concern (low;
high) design. In such a design, the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis predicts a high rate
of helping in the only-physical-escape/high-empathy cell (the one cell where psychological
escape is assumed to be difficult) and a low rate in the other three cells. In contrast, the
empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts an empathy main effectmore helping in the high-
empathy conditions than in the lowindependent of form of easy escape. Only by offering
help can the altruistic goal of relieving the others suffering be reached. (Should high-
empathy participants anticipate that out of sight will be out of mind [as suggested by the
Batson et al., 1986, results], then the design simply involves two different forms of easy
psychological escape. In this case, the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis predicts low
helping across the entire design; the empathy-altruism hypothesis still predicts an empathy
main effect.)
Participants in this experiment (again, 48 male undergraduates) learned at the outset that the
purpose was to pilot test several recently proposed features for the campus newspaper. Of the
eight features being considered, each participant would read and react to a pilot article for
two (ostensibly due to time constraints) while adopting a particular reading perspective so
your responses to each article can be better understood. To determine which articles they
would read, participants selected two numbers from

142
1 to 8. In fact, only two articles were used. Which of the two was read first depended on the
participants randomly assigned form-of-easy-escape condition. The experimenter simply
slipped the two articles in the appropriate order into folders labeled with the two numbers the
participant selected.
For participants in the only-physical-escape condition, the first article was for a new feature
called, Heroes on the Homefront. The article told of the plight of a 20-year-old student at
the University, Candice Durden. Candice was suffering from a debilitating and potentially
fatal genetic defect of her hearts aortic semilunar valve.
From dawn to dusk, there is one goal driving 20-year-old KU junior Candice Durdento
make it through another day.... Sometimes I cant even muster the strength to walk up the
library stairs. It is so frustrating, but I just close my eyes, grit my teeth, and tell myself that I
can do it.... Her prognosis is not pleasant to think about, says Dr. Pijmarni. Candice has
already passed all of our expectations; without treatment, most people with this form of
genetic defect dont live past their early teen years.
But the final chapter of Candices story has yet to be written. A new technique involving
open-heart surgery has been developed that allows surgeons to replace the aortic semilunar
valve with a synthetic one.... As with all procedures of this type, however, substantial costs
are involved. And in Candices case, as is true with a majority of persons with her ailment,
insurance companies refuse to pay for the procedure.
I try to remain hopefulI keep telling myself that somehow, with a little luck, well find a
way to get the money for my surgery. I know it sounds silly, but I have always dreamed about
graduating from college. Whenever I think I cant make it through another day, I just think
how proud my mother will be when I graduate. Even if I cant get my operation and have a
normal life, this one accomplishment will make my mothers sacrifices worthwhile....
(Stocks, 2005/2006, p. 87)
Before reading the article, participants were given perspective instructions, ostensibly the
same for all participants. In fact, instructions in the low-empathy condition were to remain as
objective as possible about what had happened to the person described. Instructions in the
high-empathy condition were to imagine how the person felt about what had happened and
how it had affected his or her life. After reading, participants completed an emotional
response questionnaire that assessed their level of empathic concern. Then they were
provided with an unexpected opportunity to volunteer time to help Candice raise money for
her needed treatment by preparing letters to be mailed to potential donors in a fund drive.
For participants in the physical-and-psychological-escape condition, the article about Candice
was not the first article they read; it was the second. Their first article was for a feature called
Science and Technology Today. This article described the results of recent research
(actually fictitious) on memory for information depending on type (factual vs. emotional
information) and mode of presentation (television vs. newspapers). The research clearly
indicated that information about emotional events in the lives of others, especially when
presented in newspapers, is not likely to be retained in memory. As the article explained:
People do not form long-term memories of emotional appeals, especially those that appear in
newspapers.... According to the latest research, television and news concerning world events
143
dominates our brain space when it comes to remembering the messages to which we are
exposed. The big losers are newspapers and magazines, especially when the stories focus on
emotion-producing events. Our brains are not very efficient at putting messages from print
media into long-term memory. Reading a sad story simply is not enoughin order to have a
long-term memory for that story, people need to experience the vividness of the TV-movie
version instead. (Stocks, 2005/2006, p. 83)
Graphs included in the article showed that the likelihood of retaining a mental representation
of read information about another persons plight was less than 5 percent.
The perspective that all participants in the physical-and-psychological-escape condition were
asked to adopt while reading this article was: Try to fully comprehend the impact that this
information will have on your life.... Think about the information thoroughly and make an
attempt to apply what is being discussed to all of the relevant aspects of your past, present,
and future experiences.
After reading the article, participants in this condition completed a brief questionnaire
designed to strengthen its impact. The questionnaire had them summarize the main points of
the article and list at least four ways the information presented applied to their life. Then they
were given their second article, the one about Candice Durden, with the same perspective
instructions used in the only-physical-escape condition (objective for participants in the low-
empathy condition; imagine-her-feelings for those in the high-empathy condition). After
reading the Candice article, these participants completed the emotional reaction questionnaire
and received the unexpected opportunity to help Candice, just as had participants in the only-
physical-escape condition.
Once again, the empathic-concern manipulation proved effective. To check the effectiveness
of the form-of-easy-escape manipulation, all participants completed a final questionnaire after
responding to the opportunity to help Candice. This questionnaire assessed reactions to the
story about Candice and included the following item: Over the next few hours and days, to
what extent do you anticipate that you will continue to think about the story you read? (1 =
Not at all; 9 = All the time). Responses to this question were clearly affected by reading the
article about poor retention of emotional information in newspapers. Participants in the
physical-and-psychological-escape condition anticipated thinking about Candices story
significantly less (M = 3.71) than did participants in the only-physical-escape condition (M =
5.04), F (1, 44) = 5.14, p .03. Responses also cast further doubt on the assumption of
Hoffman (1991) and others that when physical escape is easy, research participants feeling
high empathic concern anticipate continuing to think about the plight of the person in need,
whereas participants feeling low empathic concern do not. Among participants in the only-
physical-escape condition, those induced to feel high empathic concern had only slightly
higher scores (M = 5.25) than participants induced to feel low empathic concern (M = 4.83);
the difference did not approach statistical significance (p .60).
Rates of helping Candice in the four cells of this experiment are presented in Table 6.2. As
can be seen, the data clearly conform to the empathy main-effect pattern predicted by the
empathy-altruism hypothesis, not to either the 1-versus-3 or the no-effect pattern predicted by
the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis. Participants induced to
144
Table 6.2 Rate of Volunteering to Help Candice Durden (Stocks, 2005/2006, Experiment
2)
Empathic Concern
Form of Easy Escape Low High
Only physical .33 .67
Physical and psychological .33 .58

Note: N = 48 men (12 per cell). Adapted from Stocks (2005/2006) by permission of the
author. Also see Stocks et al. (2009).
feel high empathic concern for Candice were more likely to volunteer to help her (.62) than
were participants induced to feel low empathic concern (.33), 2 (1, N = 48) = 3.98, p .05.
This empathy main effect accounted for all reliable between-cell variance, residual 2 (2, N =
48) 1.0, p .70. Further supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis, self-reported empathic
concern significantly correlated with helping, rpb (46) =.37, p .01, even after any effect of
anticipated future thought about the story was removed using a partial correlation, rpartial =.34,
p .05.

Conclusion
Do people feeling empathic concern help because physical escape does not permit
psychological escape? The answer to this question appears to be no. Although plausible, this
possibility has failed to receive any empirical support. Instead, the available evidence
suggests, first, that in the situations used to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis against the
aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis, even research participants who consider themselves
prone to feel empathic concern believe that physical escape will provide psychological
escape. The evidence suggests, second, that when ease of psychological escape is provided
without relying on physical escape, responses still conform to the predictions of the empathy-
altruism hypothesis not the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis. Based on the evidence, it
seems that this first new challenge can be laid to rest. And if it is, the research summarized in
Appendix B standsas does the conclusion based on that research: The aversive-arousal-
reduction explanation of the motivation produced by empathic concern should be rejected.
Indeed, we now have even more evidence against this popular egoistic alternative to the
empathy-altruism hypothesis.

Is Empathy-Induced Helping Due to Self-Other Merging?

As defined in Chapter 1, altruism is a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing
anothers welfare. It is contrasted with egoism, a motivational state with the ultimate goal of
increasing ones own welfare. For these definitions and the contrast between

145
altruism and egoism to be meaningful, the motivated individual must perceive self and other
to be distinct individuals. The empathy-altruism hypothesis that lies at the core of the
proposed theory of human altruism is an expression of value extension (Nussbaum, 2001). In
order to experience empathic concern and altruistic motivation, the others welfare must
become an object of interest or value, creating what Fritz Heider (1958) called a positive
sentiment relation. A value vector extends from the self to the other, but self and other
remain distinct. (In the case of egoism, a value vector extends from self as agent to self as
object.) If the other is perceived to be in need, one feels empathic concern, and altruistic
motivation to reduce the need. A difference in value distinguishes cases in which we are apt
to experience empathy-induced altruistic motivation from cases in which we are not (see
Chapter 2).

The Challenge
There is, however, another possibility. Rather than a difference in value or sentiment, the
difference may be perceptual/cognitive. In cases in which we are apt to feel empathic
concern, we may see self and other in what Heider (1958) called a unit relation. Several
social psychologists have argued that the merging of self and other into a psychological one
is the reason that empathic concern increases helping. Actually, these psychologists have
proposed four distinct forms of merging. Some claim that one feels empathic concern for
another in need because of identification of self with the other; some claim that it is because
the other becomes included in the self; some claim that it is because one sees aspects of the
self in the other; and some claim that it is because self and other are seen as interchangeable
exemplars of a common group identity.

Self-Other Identification
Exponents of the first view include Hornstein (1978, 1982) and Lerner (1980; Lerner &
Meindl, 1981). Hornstein (1978) related empathy to a feeling of oneness and mutual
identification:
In some circumstances human beings experience others as we, not as they. When this
happens, bonds exist that permit one persons plight to become a source of tension for his or
her fellows.... Some distinctions between self and other are transcended. (pp. 188189)
Hornstein (1978) listed three conditions under which such identification can arise: When the
others welfare promotes ones own welfare, when self and other are linked by similarity, and
when self and other share common membership in a social category or group.
Although Hornstein was not entirely clear about the degree to which his we involves self-
other merging (i.e., the loss of self-other distinctiveness), Lerner was. He too spoke of
identification as the basis for empathic concern:
It seems that we respond sympathetically, with compassion and a sense of concern, when we
feel a sense of identity with the victim. In effect, we are reacting to the thought of ourselves
in

146
that situation. And, of course, we are filled with the milk of human kindness for our sweet,
innocent selves. (Lerner, 1980, p. 77)
Lerner and Meindl (1981) developed this idea of identity, claiming that when we are in an
identity relationship we are psychologically indistinguishable from the other and we
experience that which we perceive they are experiencing (Lerner & Meindl, 1981, p. 224).
In contrast to Hornstein, Lerner and Meindl separated identity relations, in which self and
other are seen as the same, from unit relations based on similarity; they suggested that
similarity produces cooperation but not the nurturant and vicarious relationshipand the
empathic concernproduced by identity (Lerner & Meindl, 1981, p. 225).
Neither Hornstein nor Lerner offered an explicit explanation for the empathy-helping
relationship, but an explanation based on their writing is easy to provide: Having identified
with the person in need, we feel empathic concern and act to help, just as we would feel
personal concern and act were we ourselves in need. We feel the others need as our own
(Hornstein) and are filled with the milk of human kindness for our sweet, innocent selves
(Lerner).

Including the Other in the Self

Among exponents of the second view are Wegner (1980) and Aron (Aron & Aron, 1986;
Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). Wegner (1980) claimed that empathy involves an
extension of self to include the other (p. 132). Empathic feelings stem in part from a basic
confusion between ourselves and others (p. 133). When we feel empathy, we consider
others as though they were ourselves (p. 131). Wegner went on to qualify these claims
somewhat, noting that effective helping requires some appreciation of the difference between
self and other, lest one mistakenly help oneself. He suggested that role taking (i.e.,
perspective taking) enables empathic emotion to evoke effective helping, presumably because
recognition of different roles involves some self-other distinctiveness.
Aron and Aron (1986), in the context of their general account of close relationships as
involving inclusion of the other in the self, offered empathy as an example of inclusion:
Students of prosocial behavior often mention the notion of empathy, that individuals
personally experience at least the suffering of another (pp. 2829). Outlining the
consequences of this inclusion, Aron and Aron (1986) proposed:
As P [Person] includes more and more aspects of O [Other] into Ps self, P comes in a sense
to include Onot just aspects of Ointo Ps self. That is, P feels as much or nearly as much
satisfaction when O is satisfied, or pain when O is hurt, as P would if these had happened to
P. P plans for Os happiness and welfare as if it were Ps. P identifies with O, or is even in
some sense united with O. (p. 29)
Aron et al. (1991) cited Wegners (1980) view of empathy as congruent with their view of
close relationships, which they summarized as follows:
Much of our cognition about the other in a close relationship is cognition in which the other
is treated as self or confused with selfthe underlying reason being a self-other merging. (p.
242)

147
This merging involves a lessened self-other distinction that affects thought and action
(Aron et al., 1991, p. 243).

Seeing Aspects of the Self in the Other

Exponents of the third view include Davis et al. (1996) and Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce,
and Neuberg (1997). Davis et al. (1996) invoked the view of Aron and colleagues, although
Davis et al. recognized that their view was actually the reverse:
The mental processes associated with perspective taking cause an observers thoughts and
feelings about a target to become, in some sense, more selflike.... At the level of mental
representation, the effect of active perspective taking will be to create a merging of self and
other.... [We focus] on the projective processes by which self-traits are ascribed to others,
whereas Aron et al. focused more on the inclusive process by which target traits come to be
ascribed to the self. (Davis et al., 1996, pp. 713714)
Similarly, Cialdini et al. (1997) suggested that When one takes the perspective of another
(either through instructions or a feeling of attachment) and vicariously experiences what the
other is experiencing, one comes to incorporate the self within the boundaries of the other
(p. 482). Specifically with regard to empathy-induced helping, Cialdini et al. (1997) claimed
that the conditions producing empathic concern lead to increased helping of individuals to
whom one is closely attached
not because individuals feel more empathic concern for the close other but because they feel
more at one with the otherthat is, because they perceive more of themselves in the other....
[There is] the symbolic merging or expansion of the self into the other. (p. 482483)
As Cialdini et al. (1997) correctly observed: If true, such a process would seriously
undermine the logic of the empathy-altruism hypothesis (p. 482). It would do so because, as
noted earlier, if the distinction between self and other vanishes then so does the distinction
between altruism and egoism, at least as these terms are used in the empathy-altruism
hypothesis.

Self and Other as Interchangeable Exemplars of Group Identity

In his theory of self-categorization, Turner (1987) proposed that the self may be defined at
multiple levels, including not only the personal level (me vs. you) but also the group level (us
vs. them). When defined at the group level, there is a depersonalization of self-perception.
Turner considered this depersonalization to have sweeping consequences:
Depersonalization of self-perception is the basic process underlying group phenomena (social
stereotyping, group cohesiveness, ethnocentrism, cooperation and altruism, emotional
contagion and empathy, collective action, shared norms and social influence processes,
etc.).... Group behavior is assumed to express a change in the level of abstraction of self-
categorization in the direction which represents a depersonalization of self-perception, a shift
towards the perception of self as an interchangeable exemplar of some social category and
away from

148
perception of self as a unique person defined by individual differences from others. (1987,
pp. 5051)
Turner (1987) went on to emphasize the importance of the perceptual identity of people in
the sense of their forming a cognitive unit (p. 52), which has direct effects for empathy-
induced helping:
To the degree that the self is depersonalized, so too is self-interest. It may be hypothesized
that the perception of identity between oneself and ingroup members leads to a perceived
identity of interests in terms of the needs, goals, and motives associated with ingroup
membership. Such an identity of interests may be assumed to imply an empathic altruism
whereby the goals of other ingroup members are perceived as ones own.... (p. 65)
Clearly, these four forms of self-other merging invoke very different psychological processes,
some of which are mutually exclusive (presumably, one cannot simultaneously perceive the
other in the self and the self in the other). Still, all four converge on a common consequence:
Self and other are no longer seen as distinct individuals. At least in terms of needs, self and
other are seen either as one or as interchangeable equivalents. Each form of self-other
merging accounts for the increased attention to the others welfare associated with empathic
concern, not by postulating an extension of interest and care (value) beyond the self to the
other (as does the empathy-altruism hypothesis) but by postulating that self-interest applies to
all or part of the otheror, more precisely, that self-interest applies to the self-other unit.

Empirical Evidence
Claims that self-other merging accounts for the increased helping associated with empathic
concern are plentiful, but empirical evidence supporting these claims is quite sparse. First, let
me mention some evidence cited by advocates of self-other merging that is of questionable
relevance because it does not really address the claim that empathy-induced helping is due to
merging.

Of Questionable Relevance
In support of his views, Hornstein (1978) cited his own and others research showing that
people are more likely to provide anonymous help (e.g., mailing a lost letter or returning a
wallet) to a stranger when the stranger agrees with their opinions, shares their values, or is a
member of their national or ethnic group. Unfortunately, no measures of empathic concern or
self-other merging were taken in this research, so we are left in the dark as to why these
effects occurred. Turner (1987) cited Hornsteins research as the primary basis for his claim
that group-level self-categorization produces perception of oneself and other group members
as interchangeable exemplars with an identity of interests. However, Hornsteins research
provides no clearer support for Turners form of merging than for his own.

149
More recently, Strmer, Snyder, and Omoto (2005, Study 2) presented undergraduates with a
same-sex peer who had contracted hepatitis. They found an empathy-helping relationship
when the peer was heterosexual but not when he or she was homosexual. Strmer, Snyder,
Kropp, and Siem (2006, Experiments 1 & 2) found a stronger empathy-helping relationship
when the person in need was a member of ones own group as opposed to a member of
another group. Although Strmer and colleagues related these findings to Turners (1987)
group-level self-definition perspective, the findings do not really support it. From Turners
perspective, there should be an ingroup-outgroup difference both in empathy and in helping,
but Strmer and colleagues did not find either difference in any of their studies. Instead, they
consistently found an empathy-helping relationship when the person in need was an ingroup
member, but this relationship was weak or absent when the person in need was from an
outgroup. Of course, many factors other than empathy can affect outgroup helping
perceived appropriateness of doing so, perceived expertise, perceived obligation, desire not to
appear prejudiced, and so on. One or more of these factors may have obscured the empathy-
helping relationship in an outgroup condition.
Aron et al. (1991) found that people were slower to report whether or not they had a trait
when they and a close other (e.g., their spouse) did not share the trait. Aron et al. interpreted
this finding as indicative of self-other merging (specifically, including the other in the self),
reasoning that because self and other were one, it was harder for people to decide whether
they had the trait. There are, however, other possible explanations. For example, traits on
which you and a close other differ may be more emotionally charged, producing distraction,
which would slow reaction time. Further, Aron et al. (1991) took no measures of empathic
concern, so their research could not address the claim that the empathy-helping relationship is
due to self-other merging.
Davis et al. (1996) reported two studies in which, compared to those in a low-empathy
condition, participants in high-empathy conditions (created by perspective-taking
instructions) were more likely to ascribe traits to the target of empathy that they had earlier
indicated were self-descriptive. However, this effect was found only for positive traits. Given
that most people view themselves positively, it is unclear whether self-other merging
occurred or whether high-empathy participants simply viewed the target more positively,
producing more overlap with a positive self-perception.
Once again, even though Davis et al. (1996) employed a perspective taking manipulation,
their research could notnor was it intended toaddress the question of whether the
empathy-helping relationship is due to self-other merging. It could not for three reasons:
First, the other was not in need but was an average student with no unusual characteristics
or problems, who was asked to describe his or her social and academic experience in college.
Second, no measures of empathic concern were taken. Third, no opportunity to help was
provided.

Of Clear Relevance
Cialdini et al. (1997) published the first research designed explicitly to test a self-other
merging explanation of the empathy-helping relationship. Across three experiments, they

150
found that when they statistically controlled effects of self-reported oneness with another
(measured by perceived self-other overlap and rated appropriateness of the term we when
speaking of the other), the association between self-reported empathic concern and
willingness to help disappeared.
Based on this finding, Cialdini et al. (1997) concluded that the empathy-helping relationship
is artifactual; it exists only because empathy and helping are both associated with oneness.
The real relationship is between perceived oneness and helping:
empathic concern and oneness are both influenced by a crucial feature of relationship
closeness: perspective taking.... When one feels empathic concern, it is normally due to the
perspective taking that attends relationship closeness and that leads to self-other overlap.
Upon experiencing empathic concern for another, then, an individual is consequently
informed of a likely degree of oneness with that other, and prosocial action is more probable
as a result. (Cialdini et al., 1997, p. 491)
People help those with whom they feel at one because they perceive more of themselves in
the other (Cialdini et al., 1997, p. 483). Or as Neuberg, Cialdini, Brown, Luce, Sagarin, and
Lewis (1997) put it: Empathy-associated helping is not selfless but is rooted in the (usually
implicit) desire to help that part of the self that is located in the other (p. 510).
Unfortunately, there are a number of features of the Cialdini et al. (1997) research (and of the
follow-up research by Maner & Gailliot, 2007) that leave these conclusions in doubt. Let me
mention four obvious ones. (a) They studied only imagined needs and self-reports of
imagined willingness to help. (b) They did not manipulate empathy or perspective taking
instead, they manipulated relationship closeness to the person in need (ranging from a near
stranger to your closest male/female family member, a sibling if possible). (c) Rather than
presenting a uniform need situation and opportunity to help, they presented participants with
different needsranging across experiments from needing assistance making a phone call, to
being evicted from ones apartment, to being killed in an accident and leaving two surviving
children without a homeand different possible ways to helpfrom giving directions to the
nearest pay phone or offering an apartment guide, to cutting a class or exam to assist, to
having the person or the surviving children move in with you. (d) They measured empathic
concern after reported willingness to help.
Neuberg et al. (1997) effectively addressed the last of these problems in a subsequent study,
but the other three leave open the possibility that participants reports of both helping and
empathy simply reflected socially normative scripts for how one ought to feel and act when a
person with whom one has a certain type of relationship has a certain need. To illustrate: It
seems far from surprising that, quite independent of reported empathic concern, people are
more likely to say they would have a brother or sister move in with them than to say they
would have a near stranger do soor are more likely to say they would cut a class or exam to
help a brother or sister than a near stranger (for further discussion of these procedural
problems, see Batson, 1997).
Batson, Sager, Garst, Kang, Rubchinsky, and Dawson (1997) sought to provide a less
ambiguous test of whether the empathy-helping relationship is due to self-other merging.

151
In each of two experiments, they presented research participants with an apparently real need
situation and opportunity to help. Empathic concern, manipulated by means of perspective
instructions, was measured before participants had any knowledge of the chance to help. All
participants were presented with exactly the same person in need, exactly the same need, and
exactly the same (unexpected) opportunity to help, avoiding differences in normative scripts
for appropriate behavior.
As in several previous experiments testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis, Batson, Sager et
al. (1997) had participants listen to the pilot broadcast in which Katie Banks described her
struggle to care for her younger brother and sister after the death of her parents. To test
Turners (1987) ideas about the necessity of shared group membership to produce empathic
concern and helping, half of the participants in each empathy condition learned that Katie
was a student at their university (shared group membership); half learned that she was a
student at a rival university (unshared group membership). Three measures of self-other
merging were taken: (a) an adapted version of the self-other overlap item used by Cialdini et
al. (1997), (b) an adapted version of the trait similarity measure used by Davis et al. (1996),
and (c) a measure of perceived similarity to Katie.
In each experiment, Batson, Sager et al. (1997) found an empathy-helping relationship,
replicating much previous research (see Chapters 3 & 5). More important for the issue at
hand, this relationship was unqualified by group membership, and it could not be accounted
for by any of the merging measures. This led Batson, Sager et al. (1997) to a very different
conclusion from the one reached by Cialdini et al. (1997):
Across the three merging measures and across the two experiments, we found little evidence
that empathy-inducing conditions [i.e., perspective taking] produced self-other merging. We
found even less evidence that empathy-induced helping was due to self-other merging. There
was no evidence that participants in the high-empathy condition helped more because they
became psychologically indistinguishable from the other and experienced what they
perceived the other was experiencing (Lerner), that they confused self and other or
considered the other as self (Wegner), that they expanded the self to include the other or
lessened the self-other distinction (Aron), or that their perception of Katies attributes became
more selflike (Davis et al.). Instead, consistent with the assumptions of the empathy-altruism
hypothesis, individuals induced to feel high empathy perceived much the same distinction
between themselves and the person for whom they felt empathy as did individuals induced to
feel low empathy. (p. 507)

An Attempt at Clarification
Faced with these conflicting conclusions, Maner, Luce, Neuberg, Cialdini, Brown, and
Sagarin (2002) sought to clarify matters by conducting a new experiment. To avoid the
problems with the Cialdini et al. (1997) procedures noted above, they used the Katie Banks
need situation and a perspective-taking manipulation of empathy, just as had Batson, Sager et
al. (1997). They also included a clever manipulation of similarity in an effort to induce
perceived oneness.

152
Their similarity manipulation involved ostensibly taking measures of research participants
brain-wave patterns, which were described as a fingerprint of personality and indicator of
fundamental similarities and differences between people (Maner et al., 2002, p. 1603).
Some participants were told that their patterns were very similar to Katies patterns (91
percent similar); some were told their patterns were very different from Katies (12 percent
similar); and some were given no information about the similarity of their brain-wave
patterns to Katies. After listening to the interview with Katie, participants reported their
emotional reactions (including feelings of empathic concern, sadness, and distress) and their
perceived oneness with Katie (using the same self-other overlap and use of the term we
items used by Cialdini et al., 1997). Then participants received an unexpected opportunity to
help Katie, as in the Batson, Sager et al. (1997) experiments.
Maner et al. (2002) found by using path analysis that participants reported emotional
response and perceived oneness each had independent effects on helping; perceived oneness
did not account for the empathy-helping relationship. This was, of course, contrary to the
self-other merging account, and contrary to what Cialdini et al. (1997) had found. However,
Maner et al. conducted an additional path analysis in which they included a measure that
combined three of the empathic concern items (sympathetic, compassionate, and softhearted)
and three of the sadness items (sad, low-spirited, and heavy-hearted) into a general negative
affect factor. This additional analysis revealed that the three empathic concern items did not
have an association with helping independent of the association with helping of this six-item
general negative affect factor.
What does this finding mean? Maner et al. (2002) claimed that the additional path analysis
succeeded in statistically controlling for a full set of plausible nonaltruistic mediators (p.
1608). They then concluded: Our data indicate that helping was functionally mediated by
only nonaltruistic constructions (perceived oneness, nonempathic negative affect) and not by
empathic concern (p. 1608).
There is, however, a very different possibility. It is possible that after listening to the Katie
Banks interview, responses to the three sadness items included in the general negative affect
factor tapped sadness felt for Katie, i.e., empathic sadness, rather than direct, personal
sadness (a distinction discussed in Chapter 1). If so, by statistically controlling for general
negative affect, Maner et al. actually controlled for general empathic concern. To find that
general empathic concern has a relationship with helping that is independent of perceived
oneness is entirely consistent with the findings of Batson, Sager et al. (1997)and with the
empathy-altruism hypothesis. It is also consistent to find that the small amount of variance in
response to the three empathic concern items that was not related to general empathic concern
was also not related to helping. (This variance could easily reflect a more positive halo for
these items than for the sadness items.) Thus, in spite of their claim to the contrary, Maner et
al. (2002) may simply have replicated the results of Batson et al. (1997)and contradicted
the results of Cialdini et al. (1997)by finding that the association of general empathic
concern with helping is independent of perceived oneness.

153
Interpretation of the Maner et al. (2002) results rests crucially on whether the sadness
reported by participants in their experiment was empathic sadness for Katie or was direct
personal sadness. Is there any evidence to help us decide? One piece of evidence from the
Maner et al. experiment is the very high correlation of responses on the empathic-concern
items with responses on the sadness items, r =.79 (and the distress items, r =.72). It certainly
seems that all of these items are measuring essentially the same thing.
Second, some relevant evidence is reported by Eisenberg, Fabes et al. (1989). As summarized
in Appendix B, they had participants watch a video in which a single mother described her
struggle to care for her two children who were recovering after being injured in an auto
accident. Eisenberg et al. (1989) concluded, based on participants facial expressions, that
their self-reports of sadness reflected empathic sadness:
On the basis of our facial data..., it seems reasonable to conclude that empathically induced
sadness in our experimental situation did not result in feelings of self-focused personal
sadness and the egoistic motive to reduce ones own distress; rather it was associated with
other-oriented cognitions and concern. (p. 64)
Third, previous research has suggested that self-reports of sadness and distress mean different
things depending on the need situation (see Chapter 1; also see Batson, Batson et al., 1989;
Batson, Batson et al., 1991; Batson, Dyck et al., 1988). When seeing a stranger in acute
physical pain (e.g., Elaine receiving electric shocks), reported distress is likely to include at
least some direct personal distress (feeling upset, anxious, and distressed by seeing the
suffering). When hearing about someones struggles adjusting to a difficult chronic situation
(e.g., Katie Banks), reported distress is likely to be empathic distress for this person.
To provide an explicit test of the nature of the distress reported after listening to the Katie
Banks interview, Batson, Early, and Salvarani (1997) had participants indicate the degree to
which their distress was distress for Katie (empathic distress) or direct personal distress.
They found that participants instructed to imagine Katies feelings while listening to the
interview (as Maner et al., 2002, instructed their high-empathy participants to do) reported, in
addition to high empathic concern, a high level of distress for Katie and a low level of direct
personal distress.
Unfortunately for our present concern, Batson et al. (1997) did not also assess whether any
reported sadness was sadness for Katie (empathic sadness) rather than direct personal
sadness. However, the correlations among empathic concern, sadness, and distress reported
by Maner et al. (2002), as well as the evidence of empathic sadness in the Eisenberg et al.
(1989) research (in which participants encountered a need similar to Katies), suggest that
reports of sadness after listening to Katie are at least as likely to be empathic as are reports of
distress. Consistent with this suggestion, many research participants who listen to the Katie
Banks tape spontaneously report in debriefing that they feel sad or sorry for her; virtually
none report being made personally sad or sorrowful as a result of listening.
In sum, it seems quite likely that the sadness reported in the Maner et al. (2002) experiment
was empathic and the measure they labeled general negative affect actually

154
tapped general empathic concern. If so, their results are quite consistent with those of Batson,
Sager et al. (1997) and with the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

Conclusion
Regardless of interpretation of the general affect factor, the Maner et al. (2002) results
provide no support for a self-other merging explanation of the empathy-helping relationship.
Maner et al. found that the association of perceived oneness with helping and the association
of the affect measures (including empathic concern) with helping were independent of one
another. Also finding no support for a merging explanation, Strmer and colleagues (2005,
Study 2; 2006, Experiments 1 & 2) reported that the empathy-helping relationships they
observed were all independent of perceived oneness.
To date, six experiments have tested the merging explanation using less ambiguous
procedures than those of Cialdini et al. (1997): Batson, Sager et al. (1997, Experiments 1 &
2), Maner et al. (2002), Strmer et al. (2005, Study 2), and Strmer et al. (2006, Experiments
1 & 2). All six have found that self-other merging does not account for the empathy-helping
relationship. Other relevant research points to the same conclusion.

Other Relevant Research

One Step Back; One Step Forward

A key assumption of each of the merging explanations is that the association between
empathic concern and helping is not due to empathic emotional arousal but to
perceptual/cognitive changes in the self-concept, especially changes associated with
perspective taking. Interestingly, even though not designed with the idea of self-other
merging in mind, one of the first experiments that looked at the empathy-helping relationship
provided a direct test of this assumption, and did so using the Katie Banks need situation.
As described in Chapter 3, Coke et al. (1978, Experiment 1) crossed a perspective-taking
manipulation of empathy (objective perspective; imagine-feelings perspective) with a
misattribution-of-arousal manipulation (relaxed; aroused) in a 2 2 design. Ostensibly as part
of a different experiment, participants received a dose of the drug Norephren (a placebo)
before they listened to the interview with Katie. They were also informed that Norephren had
a side effect. Some learned that the Norephren would make them feel relaxed; some learned
that it would make them feel aroused.
The idea was that participants told the Norephren would make them feel aroused would be
led to misattribute any empathic arousal felt for Katie to the Norephren, whereas participants
told it would make them feel relaxed would not. If the effect of perspective taking on helping
is due to the empathic concern aroused rather than to perceptual/cognitive changes, then this
effect should be found only in the relaxed condition; it should disappear in the aroused
condition, where participants were led to misinterpret their empathic arousal as due to
Norephren. As a result, helping should be higher in the relaxed/imagine-feelings cell than in
the other three cells.

155
If the effect of perspective taking on helping is due to perceptual/cognitive changes, including
self-other merging, then this effect should be found in both the relaxed and the aroused
conditions because interpretation of the source of any empathic arousal would be irrelevant to
perceptual/cognitive changes. As a result, helping should be higher in the two imagine-
feelings cells than in the two objective cells.
Responses in this experiment clearly conformed to the 1-versus-3 pattern predicted if the
effects of perspective-taking on helping were emotionally mediated. There was no evidence
of the perspective main-effect predicted by perceptual/cognitive mediation.
After the issue of self-other merging came to the fore, Stocks (2001) replicated the Coke et al.
(1978, Experiment 1) procedure, and he too found the 1-versus-3 pattern, indicating
emotional not perceptual/cognitive mediation. Stocks also took a variety of merging
measures, including self-other overlap, use of the term we, and perceived similarity. None
could account for the pattern of helping. These two experiments provide evidence that neither
self-other merging nor any other perceptual/cognitive process accounts for the association of
empathic concern with helping.

Two More Steps Forward

a. Assessing thoughts.
Davis, Soderlund, Cole, Gadol, Kute, Myers, and Weihing (2004, Experiment 1) used a
thought-listing procedure to assess cognitive effects of imagining how another person feels
(imagine-other perspective) compared to the effects of imagining how you would feel in the
others situation (imagine-self perspective) or of remaining objective. They had participants
watch a 150-second video segment of a talk-show interview with a woman named Jackie who
had serious kidney problems. As Jackie spoke about her physical weakness and experience
with dialysis, she began to cry. After seeing the video, participants were asked to write down
all thoughts that occurred to them as they watched. Davis et al. (2004) found that participants
in the imagine-other condition reported more target-related thoughts and more other-oriented
emotion felt for Jackie (e.g., sympathy), as well as fewer self-related thoughts, than did
participants in the imagine-self condition (p .01 for each comparison). Thus, the imagine-
other perspective, the perspective used to evoke empathic concern in the empathy-altruism
research, was associated with other-oriented thoughts, not with thoughts about oneself. Only
the imagine-self perspective was associated with much thought about oneself. (The objective
perspective was associated with more distancing thoughtsthoughts about Jackies
appearance or off-putting characteristicsthan either the imagine-other or imagine-self
perspective, p .03 for each comparison.)
Davis et al. (2004) conducted a second experiment and found different results. The
differences are instructive. In their second experiment, participants watched a relatively bland
video interview in which Lisa, an average student with no particular need, talked about her
experiences at college (the same interview used by Davis et al., 1996). A measure of self-
related thoughts suggested that participants in both the imagine-other and imagine-self
perspective conditions of this experiment had more self-related thoughts
156
than did participants instructed to remain objective. One ready explanation for the different
results of these two experiments is that in Experiment 2, with no clear need or strong
reactions, participants who were instructed to imagine Lisas feelings found they had to
imagine themselves in her situation as a stepping-stone, producing more self-related thoughts
(as suggested in Chapter 1). This explanation could also account for why the imagine-other
and imagine-self perspectives produced similar effects in the Davis et al. (1996, Experiment
1) research.

b. Neuroimaging.
Finally, three neuroimaging studies by Jean Decety and colleagues provide data suggesting
that an imagine-other perspective and the empathic concern it evokes are associated with self-
other differentiation rather than self-other merging. First, Ruby and Decety (2004) had
research participants imagine a number of possible life situations that would induce various
emotions (e.g., shame, guilt, pride), as well as situations that were emotionally neutral. For
example, one emotion-inducing situation was to imagine that someone opens the door of a
toilet stall in which you are sitting, having forgotten to lock the door. Across trials,
participants were asked either to imagine how they would feel were they in the situation or to
imagine how their mother would feel were she in the situation.
In both the imagine-self and imagine-mother conditions, neuroimagining scans (fMRI)
revealed activation of brain regions involved in the experience of emotion, such as the
amygdala and temporal poles. Additionally, in the imagine-mother condition, there was
increased activation of regions critical for distinguishing the self from the other and for
distinguishing self-agency from other-agency. These regions included the right inferior
parietal cortex or right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), the ventromedial (and medial)
prefrontal cortex, and the posterior cingulate cortex (see Decety & Lamm, 2007).
Second, Jackson et al. (2006) showed participants pictures of people with their hands or feet
in painful or non-painful everyday life situations. The painful situations included, for
example, shutting a door on ones finger or setting a heavy object on ones toe. Non-painful
situations paralleled the painful ones (e.g., a hand on the pull of a drawer rather than being
caught in the drawer). Across trials, participants were asked to imagine the hand or foot being
their own (imagine-self perspective), to imagine it was the hand or foot of a specific but
unfamiliar person (imagine-other perspective), and to imagine that it was a plastic limb
(artificial-limb perspective).
Using fMRI scans, Jackson et al. (2006) found that both the imagine-self perspective and the
imagine-other perspective produced increased activation of areas involved in the affective
experience of pain, including the anterior insula (AI) and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).
They also found that the imagine-other perspective uniquely produced increased activity in
the posterior cingulate/precuneus and the right TPJ, regions associated with distinguishing
self and other. These findings led Jackson et al. (2006) to suggest: Empathy for pain does
not rely on a full overlap between Self and Other.... Self and Other must be distinguished
rather than merged (p. 760).

157
Third, Lamm et al. (2007) took fMRI scans while research participants observed brief video
clips of the faces of patients undergoing a therapeutic treatment in which the patients received
painful, aversive sounds. Across trials, participants were instructed either to imagine the
feelings of the patient (imagine-other perspective) or to imagine themselves in the patients
situation (imagine-self perspective). As a cross-cutting factor, on some trials participants
were told that for this patient the treatment had been successful; on other trials, that the
treatment had not been successful. Participants also rated the intensity and unpleasantness of
the imagined pain on each trial. Following the scans, participants again viewed videos in each
of the four conditions and were asked to report their emotional response on both the empathic
concern and distress adjectives used by Batson, Early, and Salvarani (1997).
Lamm et al. (2007) found that participants reported more empathic concern in the imagine-
other conditions and more personal distress in the imagine-self conditions. Additionally,
consistent with the Batson, Early, and Salvarani (1997) finding that distress reported in the
imagine-other condition tended to be empathic distress for the person in need, Lamm et al.
found heightened distress accompanied by high empathic concern in the imagine-other
condition when the treatment was not effective.
Of greatest relevance for the issue at hand, the different perspective-taking instructions
produced different activation in the parietal cortex. Imagine-other instructions produced
higher activity in the right inferior parietal cortex, whereas imagine-self instructions produced
higher activity in the left. As noted above, the right inferior parietal cortex (TPJ) has been
associated with the self-other distinctiveness, specifically with the distinction between self-
produced actions and actions generated by others (also see Blakemore & Frith, 2003; Jackson
& Decety, 2004), as well as physical discrimination between self and a personal friend or
colleague (Uddin, Molnar-Szakacs, Zaidel, & Iacoboni, 2006). It has also been associated
with imagining others feelings based on individuating information (Saxe & Wexler, 2005)
and, more generally, with generating, testing, and correcting predictions about external events
(Decety & Lamm, 2007; Mitchell, 2008). Further indicating self-other differentiation rather
than merging, Heatherton, Wyland, Macrae, Demos, Denny, and Kelley (2006) found that
making judgments about the self or about a close other (best friend) produced distinct
patterns of activation in the medial prefrontal cortex, a region known to be important in self-
referential tasks.
Taken together, these studies provide initial neuroimaging evidence of self-other
differentiation as opposed to self-other merging. The finding of Lamm et al. (2007) that the
imagine-other perspective not only increased empathic concern but also activated the right
inferior parietal cortex (TPJ)a region associated with distinguishing self from other and
self-agency from other agencysupports the idea that the empathic concern produced by this
perspective is not associated with self-other merging but with self-other distinctiveness (also
see Heatherton et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2006; Ruby & Decety, 2004). The finding of
Lamm et al. (2007) that the imagine-self perspective increased personal distress and activated
the left inferior parietal lobule (TPJ)a region associated with self-agencysupports the
idea that this perspective may be associated with some loss of self-other differentiation
(although when adopting an imagine-self perspective, the

158
self may simply have been inserted into the position of the other, which would be substitution
rather than merging). Further indicating the neurological difference between the two
perspectives, Ames, Jenkins, Banaji, and Mitchell (2008) found that, when judging another
persons preferences, the level of activity in a region of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex
preferentially engaged by self-referential thought was more similar to the activity in that
region when judging ones own preferences if one had previously thought about the other
person from an imagine-self perspective rather than from an imagine-other perspective.
A word of caution about the neuroimaging evidence I have cited. Although intriguing and
suggestive, this evidence should be regarded as preliminary. Neither the effects nor the
interpretations are well established. More research is needed before we fully understand the
meaning of these neurological differences.

Summing Up
There is much evidence that our self-concept is malleable (see Baumeister, 1998; Smith,
1998). How we think of ourselves changes depending on with whom we are (friends, family,
professional colleagues, strangers), where we are (home, work, play, abroad), and what we
are doing (fixing dinner, losing at tennis, giving a professional talk). This malleability should
not, however, lead us to conclude that there are no constraints. Our self-concept is
constrained both by our personal history and by our body. I may see myself as a father, a
husband, a psychologist, or an American, but in each case the person in question is me.
Antonio Damasio (1999), reflecting on what is known both from neuroimaging research and
from the study of neurological patients, concluded that the self is constrained by our personal
history of felt experiencesthe feeling of what happens.
In all the kinds of self we can consider one notion always commands center stage: the notion
of a bounded, single individual that changes ever so gently across time but, somehow, seems
to stay the same.... Continuity of reference is in effect what the self needs to offer. (Damasio,
1999, pp. 134135)
... One body goes with one self. (Damasio, 1999, p. 142)
In retrospect, we should perhaps have known that phrases such as two shall become one,
self-other confusion, self-expansion, including the other in the self, seeing oneself in
the other, oneness, interchangeable exemplars, and self-other merging are best taken
metaphorically rather than literally, at least when applied to the empathy-helping relationship.
The human capacity for empathic concern has a very wide range. Empathic concern has been
induced not only for total strangers, such as Katie Banks, but also for members of stigmatized
groups, including a convicted murderer serving life without parole (Batson, Polycarpou et al.,
1997), and even for members of other species, such as dogs (Batson, Lishner et al., 2005) and
whales (Shelton & Rogers, 1981). Merging with and seeing oneself as psychologically
indistinguishable from a convicted murderer seems unlikely; expanding the self to include a
whale even less likely. Far more likely, the research we have reviewed suggests, is that
empathic concern reflects an extension of

159
value to include an interest in the welfare of the other, distinct from oneself, that is beyond
self-interest.
The only clearly relevant research to produce even possible support for the suggestion that
empathy-induced helping is due to self-other merging is that reported by Cialdini et al.
(1997). But their research procedure was quite problematic; it relied on hypothetical
responses to hypothetical needs of people with whom research participants had very different
relationships, inviting normatively scripted responses. Given the consistent contrary evidence
produced by the six experiments not relying on such a procedure, the validity of the Cialdini
et al. (1997) research is in grave doubt. Other lines of research also consistently indicate that
perspective taking and empathic concern are not associated with a lack of perceived self-other
differentiation. Overall, the existing research provides a clear answer to the question of
whether empathy-induced helping is due to self-other merging: It is not.

A Tentative Conclusion
Having reviewed the evidence from research designed to test the empathy-altruism
hypothesis against the six egoistic alternatives (in Chapter 5), and having considered the two
further challenges (in the present chapter), it is time to come to a conclusionalbeit
tentativeabout the status of this hypothesis. The idea that empathy produces altruistic
motivation may seem improbable given the dominance of Western thought by the doctrine of
universal egoism. Yet, in the words of Sherlock Holmes, When you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth (Doyle, 1890, p. 111,
italics in original). It seems impossible for any known egoistic explanation of the empathy-
helping relationshipor any combination of themto account for the research evidence we
have reviewed. So what remains? The empathy-altruism hypothesis. Pending new evidence
or a plausible new egoistic explanation of the existing evidence, we seem forced to accept
this improbable hypothesis as true.
If the empathy-altruism hypothesis is true, broad implications follow. As noted in the
Introduction, we must radically revise our views about human nature and the human capacity
to care. To say that we are capable of altruistic motivation is to say that we can care about the
welfare of others for their sakes and not simply for our own. Our sphere of value extends
beyond self-interest to include the interests of certain others. And if this is true, then we are
far more social animals than our psychological theories, including virtually all of our social-
psychological theories, would lead us to believe. Once one removes the theoretical blinders
of universal egoism, one can see new possibilities. Part III explores some implications of
recognizing empathy-induced altruism as part of the human motivational repertoire.
160
Part III Altruism In Action

Most people would say that altruism, if it exists, is good. But a lesson of life is that nothing is
all good. Even chocolate cake has calories and cholesterol. So, many might quickly add that
altruism does not really exist; it is too good to be true. In light of the evidence reviewed in
Part II, this second belief seems wrong. Empathy-induced altruism apparently does exist,
which means we need to think more carefully about the first belief. How good is altruism? It
may have its own calories and cholesterol.
In Part III, I wish to consider the role of empathy-induced altruism in human life, once again
relying insofar as possible on existing research. Most of the research reviewed does not
address the nature of the motivation produced by empathic concern; it addresses behavioral
implications of either empathic concern or one of its antecedents discussed in Chapter 2.
Although not directly testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis, much of the research was
stimulated by that hypothesis, and results are quite consistent with it. This consistency
increases confidence in the tentative conclusion of Part II that the empathy-altruism
hypothesis is true.
The research reviewed in Part III suggests that empathy-induced altruism is not all good.
There are potential benefits, but also liabilities. To highlight both, I consider potential
benefits in Chapter 7 and liabilities in Chapter 8. Existing research indicates that both the
benefits and the liabilities are extensive, important, and sometimes surprising. Chapter 9
addresses broader theoretical and practical implications of moving beyond the assumption of
universal egoism to accept a pluralism of prosocial motives that also includes altruismand
perhaps two other motives: collectivism and principlism. Once again, this pluralism offers
both benefits and liabilities.
Altruism is a more pervasive and powerful force in human affairs than has been recognized.
Failure to appreciate its importance has handicapped attempts to understand what motivates
our action and what brings us satisfaction. It has also handicapped efforts to build better
interpersonal relations and a more caring, humane society. Recognizing the scope and power
of altruism is not all that is needed to overcome these handicaps. But it is a crucial first step.

161
162
7 Benefits of Empathy-Induced Altruism

The most obvious benefits of empathy-induced altruism are those for the individuals whose
needs elicit empathic concern, but there are other benefits as well. Research suggests that
empathy-induced altruistic motivation can also benefit groups in need. It may even benefit
the person experiencing this motivation. Let us consider these different benefitsand the
relevant researchin turn.

More, More Sensitive, and Less Fickle Help

Clearly, empathy-induced altruism is not the only motive for helping. One can help to gain
rewards, avoid punishments, or reduce ones own distress caused by witnessing anothers
distress (see Chapter 3). But empathy-induced altruistic motivation can produce more, more
sensitive, and less fickle help than these egoistic motives.

More Help
The research reviewed in Chapter 5 reveals a number of specific circumstances in which
empathy-induced altruism can increase the likelihood of help being offered: when escape
from the need situation is easy (see Appendix B), when helping is anonymous (Appendix C),
when failure to help is justified (Appendix D), when there will be no feedback about the
effectiveness of ones helping effort (Appendix F), and when one anticipates a mood-
enhancing experience even if one does not help (Appendix G). In each of these situations,
empathy-induced altruism has been found to produce more help than egoistic motives alone.

More Sensitive Help

Not only can empathy-induced altruistic motivation produce more help across a range of
circumstances; it can produce more sensitive help as well. Because altruistic motivation

163
is directed toward enhancing the welfare of the person in need, the behavior it evokes is
likely to be responsive to the need. Egoistic goals of gaining rewards and avoiding
punishments can often be reached even if the help offered does not effectively address the
needy persons suffering. To satisfy these motives, the thought counts. When the motivation
is altruistic, its the result that counts, not the thought. Failure to address the need, even when
the failure is in no way ones fault, will be disappointing. Research reviewed in Chapter 5
again supports this reasoning. Unlike those feeling little empathic concern, empathically
aroused individuals feel bad if their own or another persons helping effort does not succeed,
even when they can in no way be blamed for the ineffectiveness (Batson, Dyck et al., 1988;
Batson & Weeks, 1996). Capitalizing on this distinction, economists have used concern for
the effectiveness of ones help to differentiate egoistic and altruistic motives for contributing
to charities (Ribar & Wilhelm, 2002). Empathy-induced altruism is directed toward what is
good for the target(s) of empathy, not toward a display of ones own goodness.
An experiment by Sibicky, Schroeder, and Dovidio (1995) provided a nice demonstration of
the sensitivity that characterizes help evoked by empathic concern. Participants in their
experiment either were or were not induced to feel empathy for a person in need; then they
were given a chance to help this person. In addition to the typical condition in which helping
would provide benefit, there was also a condition in which helping beyond a minimal level
would provide short-term benefit but could harm the person in the long-term. Based on the
empathy-altruism hypothesis, Sibicky et al. expected that participants induced to feel
empathic concern would help at a lower level in the new condition. Results supported this
expectation. In contrast, those not induced to feel empathy did not lower their level of help in
the new condition. Sibicky et al. concluded that empathic concern enhances sensitivity to the
real need of the person for whom empathy is felt, prompting consideration of the long-term as
well as short-term consequences of ones help.
Even more dramatic are the findings of Penner, Cline, Albrecht, Harper, Peterson, Taub, and
Ruckdeschel (2008). These researchers assessed the level of empathic concern felt by parents
for their child when he or she was about to undergo an invasive and stressful treatment for
pediatric cancer. They found a significant negative correlation between the parents level of
empathic concern and the level of pain and distress the child experienced during the treatment
(as assessed by the child, by nurses, and by trained observers).
What produced this correlation? The parents faced a situation in which sensitive care did not
involve freeing the child from pain. That was not possible. Instead, it involved being there
with and for the child during the pain. Penner et al. observed that parents feeling high
empathy differed from those feeling low empathy in both verbal and nonverbal behaviors
when interacting with their child during the treatment. High-empathy parents were more
likely to offer supportive and normalizing communication (e.g., comforting, reassuring, and
engaging the child in everyday, non-medical activities such as reading and play) rather than
invalidating communication (e.g., denying or minimizing the childs pain). These findings are
consistent with the possibility that empathy-induced altruistic motivation led to more
sensitive care by the parent, which in turn enabled the child to endure the cancer treatment
with less pain and distress.

164
Less Fickle Help
In addition to producing more and more sensitive help, altruistic motivation is also likely to
be less fickle than egoistic motivation. Research reviewed in Chapter 5 indicates that
individuals experiencing relatively low empathic concern and, hence, a relative predominance
of egoistic over altruistic motivation are far less likely to help when they can easily escape
exposure to the need situation without helping, or when they can easily justify to themselves
and others a failure to help (Batson et al., 1981; Batson et al., 1988; Toi & Batson, 1982see
Appendix B and Appendix D). The practical implications of these findings are more than a
little troubling. Easy escape and high justification are common features of many helping
situations we face in life. Amidst the blooming, buzzing confusion, we can almost always
find a way to direct attention elsewhere, or to convince ourselves that inaction is justified.
Given this fact, the practical potential of empathy-induced altruistic motivation looks
promising indeed. Individuals experiencing relatively high empathic concern show no
noticeable decrease in readiness to help under conditions of easy escape, high justification, or
the two combined.

Less Aggression
A second possible benefit of empathy-induced altruism is inhibition of aggression. Altruistic
motivation should inhibit any inclination to aggress against or harm the person for whom
empathic concern is felt, even in the face of provocation. Empathy-induced altruism should
not inhibit all aggressive impulses, only those directed toward the target of empathy. Indeed,
it is easy to imagine altruistic aggression, in which empathic concern felt for Person A leads
to empathic anger and, thereby, to increased aggression toward Person B if B is perceived to
be a threat to As welfare (Hoffman, 2000; Vitaglione & Barnett, 2003).

Miller and Eisenbergs Meta-Analysis

In apparent support of the idea that empathy-induced altruism can inhibit aggression, Miller
and Eisenberg (1988) concluded from a meta-analysis of approximately fifty studies that
empathy is negatively related to aggression, externalizing [i.e., threatening, attacking, and
fighting, as well as general disobedience], and antisocial behaviors (p. 338). However, a
close look at the studies reviewed by Miller and Eisenberg suggests the need for a more
guarded conclusion.
First, in many of the reviewed studies, the negative relation between empathy and aggression
was weak. Overall, there was modest but not entirely consistent support for the notion that
empathic responsiveness may be an inhibitor of aggression (Miller & Eisenberg, 1988, p.
339). Second, the clearest evidence for inhibition was found in studies that assessed empathy
using self-report questionnaire measures of a general disposition to experience empathic
concern. As noted in Chapter 2, responses on questionnaire measures of dispositional
empathy may reflect desire to present oneself as a nice, sensitive,

165
caring person rather than readiness to feel empathy (Batson et al., 1986). Thus, the lower
aggression associated with these measures may not be the result of empathic concern but of
desire to beor to appearnice. Such a desire could easily reflect egoistic motivation either
to avoid social and self-censure or to gain social and self-rewards.
Third, virtually all of the reviewed studies that assessed empathy toward a specific person
assessed empathy toward someone other than the target of aggression. To find that reporting
empathic concern for one person is associated with displaying less aggression toward another
could indicate a general disposition toward empathic concern that produces a general
inhibition of aggression. But, once again, this association could also indicate a desire to be or
to appear nice.
Miller and Eisenberg reported only four studies in which attempts were made to induce
empathic concern for the target of potential aggression by experimental manipulation, either
manipulation of perceived similarity or of perspective taking. The evidence from these four
studies is inconclusive. Eliasz (1980) failed to find a negative relation between empathy and
aggression. However, before the empathy manipulation in his study, participants received a
harsh evaluation designed to provoke anger and retaliatory aggression. This ordering of
events may have prevented empathic concern from ever developing. In each of the other three
studies, the experimental induction of empathy significantly inhibited harming the person for
whom empathy was felt. But these other three studies were all reported in unpublished
dissertations.
Subsequent to the Miller and Eisenberg review, Richardson, Hammock, Smith, Gardner, and
Signo (1994, Study 2) attempted to induce male undergraduates to feel empathic concern for
a target before the target aggressed against them. Richardson et al. found that these
undergraduates aggressed no less in return than did male undergraduates not induced to feel
empathy. But no measure of empathic feeling for the target was taken in this study, so we
cannot be sure that the empathy induction was successful or that empathy existed at the point
of the opportunity to retaliate. There is no reason to expect empathy to inhibit aggression
unless it is present when participants have the chance to aggress.
In the one study reported by Miller and Eisenberg in which self-reported empathic concern
for the target of aggression was assessed and found to be present after provocation (Gaines,
Kirwin, & Gentry, 1977), the empathy-inhibition association was highly significant. But the
causal relationship is unclear in this study because assessment of empathy was based on
retrospective self-reports after the opportunity to harm the victim. Those who harmed the
victim less may have inferred that they felt more empathic concern, rather than empathic
concern inhibiting their impulse to aggress. Overall, then, results of research prior to 1995 on
the empathy-aggression relationship are far from clear.

More Recent Research

Three more recent lines of research provide clearer evidence that empathy-induced altruism
can inhibit aggression. First, research on forgiveness has found that an important step in the
forgiveness process is to replace feelings of anger toward a harm-doer with

166
empathic feelings (Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002; McCullough, Rachal, Sandage,
Worthington, Brown, & Hight, 1998; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; Witvliet,
Ludwig, & Vander Laan, 2001; Worthington, 1998). Of course, replacing feelings of anger
with empathic feelings is often easier said than done.
Second, research suggests that empathic concern may be an important antidote to child abuse
and neglect, as well as to sexual assault. Milner et al. (1995) examined the empathic
responsiveness of mothers while they watched video clips of an infant who was (a) smiling
and laughing, (b) looking around, or (c) crying. The mothers were from two matched groups,
a group identified as being at high risk of physically abusing a child and a group identified as
being at low risk. Low-risk mothers showed a significant increase in empathic concern while
watching the crying infant, whereas high-risk mothers showed no reliable change regardless
of whether the infant was laughing, looking around, or crying. Instead of empathy, high-risk
mothers reported feeling more personal distress and hostility while watching the crying infant
(see Frodi & Lamb, 1980, for parallel results using physiological measures). This pattern of
response by the high-risk mothers is congruent with clinical reports that physical child
abusers experience less empathic concern and more hostility in response to a crying child (de
Pal, Prez-Albniz, Guibert, Asla, & Ormaechea, 2008).
Turning from child abuse to neglect, de Pal and Guibert (2008) provided a thoughtful
analysis of the ways in which child neglect can result from breakdown of the process leading
from (a) perception of need and valuing the others welfare to (b) empathic concern and,
thereby, to (c) altruistic motivation. However, de Pal and Guibert provided no direct
evidence to support their analysis. Regarding sexual abuse, clinical interventions aimed at
increasing empathy have been found to reduce the reported likelihood of abuse, rape, and
sexual harassment by men identified as being at high risk for committing sexual assault (e.g.,
Schewe, 2002; Schewe & ODonohue, 1993).
Third, in an intriguing and ambitious experiment, Harmon-Jones, Vaughn-Scott, Mohr,
Sigelman, and Harmon-Jones (2004) sought to assess the effect of empathic concern on
anger-related left-frontal cortical electroencephalographic (EEG) activity. In the initial phase
of the experiment, Harmon-Jones et al. used a perspective-taking manipulation (remain
objective; imagine the others feelings) to induce undergraduate men and women to
experience either low or high empathic concern for another student who was suffering from
multiple sclerosis. (Checks indicated that the manipulation was effective.) Later, this other
student provided either (a) a harsh and insulting (aggression provoking) evaluation of an
essay that the participant had written or (b) a neutral evaluation. EEG activity was recorded
immediately after participants received the evaluation. Attitudes toward the other student
were also measured. As predicted based on the empathy-altruism hypothesis, relative left-
frontal cortical EEG activity, which typically increases after insult and is associated with
aggressive behavior (and which increased in the low-empathy condition), was inhibited in the
high-empathy condition. Hostile attitudes toward the other student were too. This experiment
provides the clearest evidence to date that empathic concern can directly inhibit the desire to
aggress, at least when the empathy is in place before provocation.

167
Reduced Derogation and Blaming of Victims of Injustice
More broadly, empathic concern may be effective in counteracting a particularly subtle and
insidious form of hostility: blaming the victims of injustice. In his classic work on the just-
world hypothesis, Melvin Lerner (1970) found that research participants were likely to
derogate an innocent victim of suffering. Lerner argued that this derogation was motivated by
desire to maintain a belief in a just worlda belief that people get what they deserve and
deserve what they get. Those who get undesirable outcomes must be undesirable people.
Protecting ones belief in a just world in this way can lead to what William Ryan (1971)
called blaming the victim. Ryan suggested that we are likely to react to the victims of
unjust discrimination and oppression by unconsciously blaming them: If they have less, they
must be less deserving. Ryan further suggested that the prototypical victim blamer is
someone who is fairly well-off financially but not entirely secure. By blaming the victims of
poverty and social injustice, such people can reassure themselves about their own financial
situation; they really do deserve their relative advantage.
Derogation and blaming the victim are all too common alternatives to caring about poverty
and social injustice. These alternatives can lead to smug acceptance of the suffering of others
as just and right. But empathy-induced altruism may counteract this tendency. In an
important follow-up to Lerners classic experiments, Aderman, Brehm, and Katz (1974)
found that perspective-taking instructions designed to induce empathic concern eliminated
the tendency for participants to derogate an innocent victim.

Increased Cooperation and Care in Conflict Situations

There is also evidence that empathy-induced altruistic motivation can increase cooperation
and care in conflict situations. Paradigmatic of such situations is a one-trial Prisoners
Dilemma like the following (adapted from Rapoport and Chammah, 1965): Two people must
each choose between two optionscooperate or defectwithout knowing the others choice.
If both choose to cooperate, each receives a payoff of +15; if both defect, each receives a
payoff of +5. If one cooperates and the other defects, the former receives nothing and the
latter receives a payoff of +25. Given these payoffs, if both people defect, they are each
individually worse off (+5) than if they both cooperate (+15). On the other hand, it is best for
each person (P) to defect regardless what the other (O) does. To illustrate, if O cooperates, P
receives +25 by defecting but only +15 by cooperating; if O defects, P receives +5 by
defecting but nothing by cooperating. There is ironyand fascinationin this simple
dilemma.
If one faces a Prisoners Dilemma repeatedly over a number of trials, it is in ones interest to
cooperate on at least some trials. Strategies like tit-for-tat, where P cooperates on the first
trial and then responds on every subsequent trial as O responded on the

168
previous trial, are likely to produce more overall personal gain than a strategy of relentless
defectioneven though defecting is optimal on each individual trial (Axelrod & Hamilton,
1981; Nowak, May, & Sigmund, 1995). However, in a one-trial situation, the situation in
which the Prisoners Dilemma was originally conceived, tit-for-tat and other strategies for
inducing reciprocity are irrelevant (Dawes, 1991). Why would anyone cooperate in a one-trial
Prisoners Dilemma?

Cooperation in a One-Trial Prisoners Dilemma

Narrow versions of game theory and the theory of rational choice both predict no cooperation
in a one-trial Prisoners Dilemma because each theory assumes that there is only one motive
in play: material self-interest. Regardless of what the other person does, material self-interest
is best served by defecting. However, broader versions of rational choice allow for forms of
self-interest that can be served by cooperating, such as feeling good about oneself or avoiding
pangs of guilt. These broader versions can account for the finding that as many as one-third
to one-half of people placed in a one-trial Prisoners Dilemma cooperate.
What about empathy-induced altruistic motivation? The empathy-altruism hypothesis
predicts that if one person in a Prisoners Dilemma is induced to feel empathic concern for
the other, then this person should be even more likely to cooperate. In addition to the various
forms of self-interest, this person should also be motivated by interest in the others welfare.
And the other is always better off if one cooperates than if one defects.

An Initial Test
To provide an initial test of this prediction, Batson and Moran (1999) conducted an
experiment in which undergraduate women faced a one-trial Prisoners Dilemma. These
women learned at the outset that they would never meet the other woman participating in the
dilemma (who was actually fictitious). Payoffs were the same as those just described, but
were made concrete and real in the form of the number of raffle tickets (from 0 to 25)
received. The prize was a $30 gift certificate at any store the winner chose.
All participants in the experiment were told that one factor being studied was type of
interaction between participants prior to choosing, and that they were in a condition with
indirect rather than face-to-face interaction. What participants were told indirect interaction
meant differed across experimental conditions. One-third of the participants learned that it
meant no communication would occur between themselves and the other woman. The other
two-thirds learned that it meant one-way written communication, and that they had been
randomly assigned to be the Receiver of the communication. As Receiver, they would read a
note the other womanthe Senderhad written before knowing anything about the study.
The note was to be about something interesting that happened to the Sender recently.

169
The Senders note was always the same. It told of being down after suffering a breakup with
her boyfriend. The note ended: Ive been kind of upset. Its all I think about. My friends all
tell me that Ill meet other guys and all I need is for something good to happen to cheer me
up. I guess theyre right, but so far that hasnt happened. It was assumed participants would
think that giving the Sender more tickets and a better chance at the raffle by cooperating
might cheer her up, whereas reducing her chances by defecting would not.
Perspective-taking instructions given prior to reading the note manipulated empathic concern
for the Sender. Participants in a low-empathy condition were instructed to take an objective
perspective toward what was described in the note. Those in a high-empathy condition were
instructed to imagine how the Sender felt about what was described.
After reading the note from the assigned perspective (or reading no note), participants made
their decision to cooperate or defect. Results revealed that cooperation was much higher
among participants induced to feel empathic concern for the other woman (75 percent) than
among those not induced to feel empathywhether those in the no-communication condition
(30 percent) or the communication/low-empathy condition (35 percent). (For other evidence
of empathy-induced cooperation in dilemmas, see Cohen & Insko, 2008; Van Lange, 2008;
Wade-Benzoni & Tost, 2009.)

A More Stringent Test

In a subsequent experiment, Batson and Ahmad (2001) used a similar procedure to conduct
an even more stringent test of the ability of empathic concern to increase cooperation. Rather
than the standard one-trial Prisoners Dilemma, in which participants make their decisions
simultaneously without knowing what the other has done, Batson and Ahmad altered the
procedure so that decisions were made sequentially. All participants learned that the other
woman had been randomly chosen to go first, and that she defected. Thus, when each of the
undergraduate women in this experiment made her decision, she knew that the other woman
(again, actually fictitious) had already defected. This meant that possible payoffs for the
participant were either to receive 5 tickets if she also defected (in which case, the other
woman would receive 5 tickets as well) or to receive 0 tickets if she cooperated (in which
case, the other woman would receive 25 tickets).
Predictions from game theory, from the theory of rational choice, and even from theories of
justice and social norms are clear. In this sequential situation, there is no longer a dilemma at
all; the only rational thing to do is to defect. Not only will defecting maximize your own
outcome but it will also satisfy the norms of fairness and distributive justice. Moreover, there
is no need to worry about feeling guilty should you defect and the other person cooperate, as
can happen in a simultaneous-decision dilemma. The other woman has already defected. Not
surprisingly, in the very few previous studies that even bothered to look at such a situation,
the rate of cooperation was extremely low (around 5 percentsee Shafir & Tversky, 1992;
Van Lange, 1999).

170
The empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts that even in this sequential situation a dilemma
remains for participants led to feel empathic concern for the defecting woman. For them, self-
interest and fairness counsel defection, but empathy-induced altruism counsels cooperation.
Results again patterned as predicted by the empathy-altruism hypothesis. In the absence of
empathyi.e., in the no-communication condition and the communication/low-empathy
conditioncooperation was extremely low (0 percent and 10 percent, respectively). When
empathy was induced, cooperation rose to 45 percent. Empathy-induced altruism was not
strong enough to override other motives (self-interest, retribution, fairness) for all participants
led to feel empathic concern, but it was strong enough to do so for almost half. Building on
the same logic, Rumble, Van Lange, and Parks (2010) showed that empathy-induced altruism
can also counteract the effects of unintended incidents of defection (negative noise) in an
iterated social dilemma.
Results of these experiments suggest that empathy-induced altruism can add complexity to
economic bargaining situations. When one feels empathic concern for the other, ones interest
lies not only in maximizing ones own gainsor even in maximizing joint gainsbut also in
maximizing the others gains. Insofar as I know, the idea of using empathy to increase
cooperation in a one-trial Prisoners Dilemma had not even been considered in any of the
over 2,000 Prisoners Dilemma studies previously conducted. I suspect this was because no
one thought empathy-induced altruistic motivation could increase cooperation. Yet clearly it
can. Indeed, inducing empathy seems far more effective than most other techniques that have
been proposed to increase cooperation in one-trial dilemmas.

More Positive Negotiations

Might induction of empathy-induced altruism be worth pursuing in real-world conflict
situations, such as business or political negotiations? Or is allowing oneself to feel concern
for the others welfare in these situations too big a risk to take? Think, for example, of
negotiations between management and labor, between Catholics and Protestants in Northern
Ireland, between Palestinians and Israelis, between Pakistanis and Indians. Empathy-induced
altruism might prompt one to give ground. But it might also produce a better outcome for all.
It might even save lives.
Research by Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, and White (2008) suggests that empathic concern may
have both of these effects on negotiations(a) prompting one to give ground and (b) creating
a more positive environment that may, in the long run, produce a better outcome for all. In
one experiment, Galinsky et al. had M.B.A. students in a negotiations course pair up and
engage in a 30-minute two-party negotiation exercise. One student played the role of a Job
Candidate, and the other, a Recruiter. Eight issues were negotiated, including salary, work
location, bonus, vacation time, and so on. Both students knew that some of these issues
mattered more to the Candidate and some mattered more to the Recruiter. Joint gain could be
maximized by being sensitive to which issue mattered most to whom and using this
information to negotiate trade-offs. As a manipulation of

171
perspective taking, the student in the Recruiter role was randomly assigned to one of three
sets of instructions: (a) consider your own role carefully, (b) try to understand what the
Candidate is thinking, and (c) try to imagine what the Candidate is feeling. The imagine-
feelings instructions were similar to instructions used in previous studies to induce empathic
concern.
Dyads with Recruiters assigned to one of the latter two sets of instructions each produced
greater joint gain than dyads with Recruiters assigned to consider their own role. For
Recruiters who focused on the Candidates thoughts, the difference was highly significant;
for those who focused on the Candidates feelings, the difference was marginal. More
interesting was how the greater joint gains were achieved. Recruiters who focused on the
Candidates thoughts got more of what they wanted than did Recruiters who focused on the
Candidates feelings. On the other hand, Candidates negotiating with a Recruiter focused on
their feelings got more of what they wanted than did Candidates negotiating with a Recruiter
focused either on the Recruiters role or (non-significantly) on their thoughts.
These results led Galinsky et al. to conclude that, when negotiating, it is more effective to
think for than to feel for ones adversaries (Galinsky et al., 2008, p. 383). Recruiters who
imagined the Candidates feelingswhich presumably induced empathic concern (we cannot
be sure because no measures of emotion were taken)gave ground, benefiting the Candidate
at cost to self. Recruiters who were able to get inside the adversarys head and strategy, as a
skilled chess-player might, got more of what they wanted.
But these results were in the short term, in a single negotiation. What about long-term effects
in situations where negotiators interact over time? In such situations, it seems possible that
the goodwill produced by giving ground might tip the scales in favor of negotiators who
imagine feelings rather than those who imagine thoughts. In the long run, those who imagine
feelings, not thoughts, might end up with the better overall outcome.
Consistent with this possibility, in a different negotiation exercise Galinsky et al. (2008)
found that Sellers who negotiated with an empathic Buyer (one focused on the Sellers
feelings) were significantly more satisfied with the way they were treated during the
negotiation than were Sellers who negotiated with a Buyer focused on their thoughts. This
was true even though agreement on a sale was (non-significantly) more likely to be achieved
in the latter case than the former. Whether these feelings of satisfaction would produce more
productive subsequent negotiations seems worth exploring in future research.

Reduced Intergroup Conflict

When one thinks of trying to use empathy-induced altruism to reduce intergroup conflict
(e.g., conflict between religious, racial, or ethnic groups), two problems immediately loom.
First, intergroup relations often have a history of disdain and mistrust, if not outright hostility.
To feel empathic concern requires that one be other-oriented, valuing the others welfare and
attending with sensitivity to the others plight. In the face of such

172
history, is other-oriented sensitivity not too much to ask? Second, both empathic concern and
altruistic motivation are interpersonal processes. One feels and cares for another individual or
individuals. Is it possible to feel for a group? Underscoring this second concern, research on
the identified-victim effect has found that when an individual in need is one of a group of
individuals with similar needs, both empathy and willingness to help are diminished (Kogut
& Ritov, 2005b, Experiment 3; Small, Lowenstein, & Slovic, 2007).
To address these two problems, a key element in strategies using empathy-induced altruism
to reduce real-world intergroup conflict has been to work from the interpersonal to the
intergroup level by providing personalizing contact with one or more outgroup members.
Through such contact, members of one group are led to deal with members of the other group
on a personal basis, not simply as one of them. (As I am using the term, personalizing
refers to the nature of ones interaction with members of the outgroup, not to perception of
them along a dimension of similarity to self instead of group membership; see Brewer, 1988,
and Miller, 2002, for discussions of personalization in this second, perceptual sense.)
Personalizing contact addresses the second problem noted above by inducing empathic
concern at the individual not the group level. Such contact should encourage empathic
concern for members of the outgroup in two ways. First, it should increase the likelihood of
accurately perceiving outgroup members needstheir hopes and fears. Second, if positive,
personalizing contact should increase the likelihood of valuing outgroup members welfare.
As discussed in Chapter 2, these two conditions are the antecedents of empathic concern.
Personalizing contact can also address the first problem if care is taken that the contact occur
in a non-adversarial and low-threat situation, one in which mistrust and conflict are either not
evoked or, better yet, are counterproductive.
How can personalizing contact among individuals on opposite sides of an intergroup conflict
be achieved? Obviously, it is not easy. More is required than simply bringing the antagonists
together. Mere contact is likely to invite further hostility and aggression (Pettigrew, 1998).
One structural technique that has proved especially effective in creating non-adversarial
personalizing contact, and thereby reducing intergroup conflict and hostility, is to introduce a
superordinate goal (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). A superordinate goal is
something that both sides in the conflict want but can attain only if the two sides join forces
and work together. Potential antagonists find themselves united in the effort to reach a
common goal. Strange bedfellows, perhaps, but bedfellows nonetheless.
Think of the psychological consequences. When working together toward a common goal,
hostility and aggression are counterproductive. Instead, members of one group must attend to
and understand what members of the other group valuewhat they want and need. And to
coordinate efforts in pursuit of the goal, members of each group must attend to the
perspective of those in the other group. In combination, these two consequences should
increase feelings of empathic concern for members of the outgroup. (Note that these effects
on empathy do not require that group members give up their own group identity in order to
pursue the superordinate goalDovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009.)

173
Sherif et al. (1961) provided the classic demonstration of effectiveness of superordinate goals
in reducing intergroup conflict. In their Robbers Cave experiment, superordinate goals were
used to eliminate the open hostility that had erupted between competing groups of 12- to 14-
year-old boys at a summer camp. Although this experiment dramatically demonstrated the
effectiveness of superordinate goals, it revealed little about the psychological process through
which they work. The following examples of programs designed to reduce intergroup conflict
suggest that empathy may play an important role.

Conflict Resolution Workshops, Peace Workshops, and Peace Camps

Stephan and Finlay (1999) pointed out that the induction of empathy is often an explicit
component of techniques used in conflict resolution workshops, peace workshops, and peace
camps. In conflict-resolution workshops, 3-6 leading figures on opposing sides of an
international conflict are brought together in a non-threatening, neutral situation for a brief
workshop (rarely lasting more than a week). The confidential, off-the-record interaction is
designed to encourage (a) better understanding each others position and (b) finding a path
toward a mutually beneficial negotiated settlement. The exchange is guided by trained
facilitators who establish ground rules and agenda. Perhaps the best-known examples of such
workshops are those organized by Herbert Kelman and his colleagues that have brought
together Israeli and Palestinian representatives (Kelman, 1990, 1997; Kelman & Cohen,
1986; Rouhana & Kelman, 1994; also see Burton, 1986, 1987; Fisher, 1994).
Immediate goals of these workshops are for each side to understand the perspective of the
other side and to begin to trust them. The long-range goal is superordinateto find a
mutually acceptable peaceful solution to the conflict (Kelman, 2005). To these ends,
participants are encouraged to express their hopes and fears and to listen to one anothers
concerns, actively adopting the perspective of those on the other side but not losing track of
real differences. In Kelmans (1997) words, Out of these interactions, participants develop
increasing degrees of empathy, of sensitivity and responsiveness to the others concerns, and
of working trust, which are essential ingredients of the new relationship to which conflict
resolution efforts aspire (p. 219).
Peace workshops and camps are typically designed for the young people (teenagers) of
warring factions. Workshops often last only 3-4 days; camps may last a month or more. In
these workshops and camps, participants from the two sides of the conflict live together,
spend free time together, exchange views in dialogue sessions under the direction of trained
leaders, take part in structured exercises, and share cultural experiences. These activities
provide personalizing contact, superordinate goals, and awareness of outgroup needs. They
encourage cross-group friendships, perspective taking, and empathic concern for outgroup
members.
One well-known example is the workshop program for Jewish and Arab youth at Neve
Shalom/Wahat al Salam (the Hebrew and Arabic names for the same community)

174
(Bargal & Bar, 1992; also see Bar-On & Kassem, 2004). Less well-known, but quite
interesting because of a one-year follow-up assessment of attitudes and behavior toward the
outgroup, was a 4-day peace workshop in Sri Lanka that brought together Sinhalese
(majority) and Tamil (minority) youth (Malhotra & Liyanage, 2005). After one year,
participants in this workshop expressed more understanding of and concern for the well-being
of members of the other group (on a version of Daviss, 1994, Empathic Concern scale
modified to be specific to the other group) than did either of two comparison groups(a)
youth who were nominated for the workshop but did not take part due to budget cuts and (b)
youth from demographically similar schools not involved in nominating students. After
completing the follow-up questionnaire packet, members of each group were given a chance
to donate part of the payment money to a program designed to help poor children of the
outgroup. On average, workshop participants donated more than did those in the non-
participant groups.

Jigsaw Classroom
The Jigsaw Classroom is a learning technique originally developed in the 1970s by Elliot
Aronson and his colleagues to try to overcome racial tension and animosity in desegregated
schools in Austin, Texas (Aronson, 2004; Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978).
This technique is especially revealing of the role of empathy processes in the use of
superordinate goals to improve intergroup relations. In a Jigsaw Classroom, students spend
part of their school day in racially/ethnically mixed groups (ideally, 5-6 students per group).
Each group is given a learning task, and each member of the group has one, but only one, part
of the information the group needs to complete the task. As a result, each person in the group
must rely on the contribution of every other person to succeed. After about eight weeks the
groups are dissolved, new groups are formed, and each student must learn to work effectively
with 4-5 more students in a new racially/ethnically mixed group. After another eight weeks,
new groups are formed again, and so on.
Aronson et al. (1978) reported that liking for fellow group members increased as a result of
the jigsaw experience; so did helping. Unfortunately, Aronson et al. did not report the effect
specifically on interracial liking or helping. However, in an earlier study, Weigel, Wiser, and
Cook (1975) did report effects of interdependent, ethnically mixed (European-, African-, and
Mexican-American) student workgroups on cross-ethnic liking, conflict, and helping. Results
of that study indicated that working together in interdependent groups significantly increased
both cross-ethnic liking and helping behavior; it also reduced cross-ethnic conflict (also see
Johnson & Johnson, 1987).
Why does cooperative interaction in jigsaw groups increase liking and helping? Aronson et
al. (1978) suggested that perspective taking (which they called empathy) was one of the
crucial mechanisms underlying the effects (p. 118also see Aronson & Bridgeman, 1979).
Supporting this suggestion, Diane Bridgeman (1981), in dissertation research under
Aronsons direction, tested students ability to adopt the perspective of

175
characters in brief stories, seeing the story situation from the characters point of view rather
than their own. She found that students from a Jigsaw Classroom were better at this
perspective-taking task than were students from a traditional classroom. Apparently,
perspective-taking abilities learned in jigsaw groups generalize. This finding suggests that the
ability of empathy-induced altruism to increase cooperation may extend to conflict situations
beyond the one in which empathic concern is initially induced. Further, research suggests that
programs like the Jigsaw Classroom, which involve learning cooperatively in racially or
ethnically mixed groups, increase cross-group friendships, especially close friendships (see
Paluck & Green, 2009, and Stephan & Stephan, 2001, for reviews; for other examples of
programs designed to enhance empathy in educational settings, see Eisenberg & Morris,
2001).
Writing in the wake of the tragic shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado,
Aronson (2004) affirmed:
I believe that, if the jigsaw method had been widely used in Littleton, the Columbine
massacre might never have occurred, and those 15 people would still be alive. Admittedly,
that is a bold statementone not usually made by academicians. And, of course, it can never
be proved. But I have a high degree of confidence because 31 years of research on the jigsaw
method have made it undeniably clear: The jigsaw process builds empathy [i.e., perspective
taking], and students in jigsaw classrooms are more open to one another, more
compassionate, and more tolerant of diversity than students in traditional classrooms. (p. 486)

Roots of Empathy Project

The Roots of Empathy project developed by Mary Gordon (2005) and implemented in
primary-school classrooms (kindergarten through Grade 8) in Canada and Australia was not
explicitly designed to reduce intergroup conflict. It was designed to develop empathy
including emotional literacy (the ability to find the humanity in one another) and
perspective takingas a means to (a) increase collaboration and civility and (b) reduce
aggression and bullying (Gordon, 2005, p. 8). However, Gordon saw this empathy as the key
to overcoming intergroup conflict as well:
Normally, our differences define and separate us, providing the fodder for marginalization,
bullying, and exclusion. If we were to listen to the language of the groups who are in a hate
relationship with another group, they somehow manage to speak of the other group as less
humanor so different that there can be no basis for human exchange....
The Roots of Empathy classroom is creating citizens of the worldchildren who are
developing empathic ethics and a sense of social responsibility that takes the position that we
all share the same lifeboat. These are the children who will build a more caring, peaceful and
civil society, child by child. (2005, pp. xvixvii)
The Roots of Empathy project is novel in its approach. The core of the program is a visit to
the classroom monthly throughout the school year by a mother (or sometimes a father, or
both) and infant from the community. Pupils ring a green blanket on which the parent places
the infant. They observe the infant and the parent-infant interaction, interact

176
with the baby themselves, and ask the parent questions about what the infant has learned
since the last visit. The idea is that the relationship between the parent and child is a
template for positive, empathic human relationships (Gordon, 2005, p. 6) and that observing
the babys development and the parent-infant interaction will encourage perspective taking
and valuing of the infants welfare. Using the parent-infant interaction as a catalyst for
empathy development is quite congruent with possibility presented in Chapter 2 that the
biological substrate for empathic concern lies in parental nurturance and tenderness.
A trained Roots of Empathy instructor guides the family visits and meets with the class prior
to and after each visit, providing basic information about infant development, encouraging
pupils to imagine what the infant is thinking and feeling, and extending this perspective
taking to the pupils themselves and to peers. When a Roots of Empathy classroom is racially
or ethnically diverse, explicit attention is given to bringing in parents and infants from the
different groups represented in the class in order to provide a basis for intergroup perspective
taking and affection.
Evaluation research assessing effectiveness of the Roots of Empathy project suggests that the
program increases childrens emotional development and perspective-taking skills and
reduces aggression (Schonert-Reichl, 2005). Compared to children who have not experienced
a Roots of Empathy classroom, children who have were rated by both teachers and peers as
more advanced in emotional and social understanding. This understanding was, in turn,
associated with reduced aggression and increased helping, sharing, and cooperation.
Improving Attitudes Towardand Action on Behalf ofStigmatized Groups
It may be possible to use empathy-induced altruism to improve attitudes toward, and action
on behalf of, stigmatized groups. Moreover, this may be possible without organizing
carefully orchestrated face-to-face contact and introducing superordinate goals. Consider
books such as Uncle Toms Cabin (Stowe, 1852/2002), Manchild in the Promised Land
(Brown, 1965), House Made of Dawn (Momaday, 1968), One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
(Kesey, 1962), The Color Purple (Walker, 1982), and Borrowed Time (Monette, 1988).
Think of movies such as A Raisin in the Sun, The Elephant Man, Rain Man, and Longtime
Companion. Think of the TV documentaries such as Eyes on the Prize and Promises. Each of
these works, and many similar ones, appear designed to improve attitudes toward a
stigmatized groupa racial or ethnic minority, an outgroup, or people with some social
stigma, disability, or disease. Creators of works like these seem to share two beliefs. First is
the belief that by inducing us to imagine the thoughts and feelings of a member of a
stigmatized group as he or she attempts to cope, we can be led to value this persons welfare
and to feel empathic concern. Second, that these empathic feelings will generalize, leading us
to feel more positively toward the group as a whole. Are they right?

177
Improving Attitudes
To make the attitude-change process implicit in these books, movies, and documentaries
explicit, let me outline a three-step model of how empathic concern can serve to improve
attitudes toward a stigmatized group (also see Batson, Polycarpou et al., 1997):
Step 1. Induce adoption of the perspective of a member of a stigmatized group as he or she
describes stigma-related needs. Perspective taking should increase empathic concern for this
person.
Step 2. This empathic concern should lead to increased valuing of the group-members
welfare (through the backward inference described in Chapter 2).
Step 3. Valuing the group-members welfare should generalize to valuing the welfare of the
stigmatized group as a whole, producing more positive beliefs about, feelings toward, and
concern for the group.
This model poses two empirically testable questions: 1. Can perspective taking be used to
arouse empathic concern for the needs of a member of a stigmatized group? 2. If so, will the
increased valuing produced by this empathic concern generalize to the group as a whole? The
answer to each of these questions seems to be yesas long as membership in the stigmatized
group is a salient aspect of the need for which empathy is induced.
In a series of three experiments, Batson, Polycarpou et al. (1997) successfully used
perspective-taking instructions to induce empathic concern for a member of a stigmatized
group and, thereby, to improve attitudes toward the group as a whole. Each experiment
employed this strategy with a different stigmatized grouppeople with AIDS (Experiment
1), homeless people (Experiment 2), and to provide an extreme test, convicted murderers
(Experiment 3). In each of the experiments, the effect of perspective taking on improved
attitudes was clearly mediated by self-reported empathic concern.
Especially interesting was the effect on attitudes toward murderers of inducing empathic
concern for a convicted murderer. When attitudes were assessed in the laboratory
immediately after the empathy induction, there was only a non-significant trend for research
participants in the high-empathy condition to report more positive attitudes toward murderers
than participants in the low-empathy condition. But when attitudes were assessed in an
unrelated telephone interview 1-2 weeks later, participants who had been induced to feel
empathic concern for the convicted murderer in the lab reported significantly more positive
attitudes toward murderers in general than participants who had not. Apparently, the high-
empathy participants resisted letting their empathic feelings for one murderer influence their
attitudes toward murderers in general when these attitudes were assessed immediately and
participants were aware of the influence. Later, with their guard down, the effect on attitudes
surfaced. Similar long-term effects of empathy on attitude change were reported by Clore and
Jeffrey (1972) in a study of attitudes toward the physically disabled.
In related research, inducing empathic concern (including empathic anger) for a member of a
racial or ethnic minority has improved attitudes toward the minority group (Dovidio,
Johnson, Gaertner, Pearson, Saguy, & Ashburn-Nardo, 2010; Dovidio, ten

178
Vergert, Stewart, Gaertner, Johnson, Esses, Rick, & Pearson, 2004; Esses & Dovidio, 2002;
Finlay & Stephan, 2000; Vescio, Sechrist, and Paolucci, 2003). Inducing empathic concern
for a gay man has improved attitudes toward homosexuals (Vescio & Hewstone, 2001). More
broadly, attitude effects of participation in the role-play simulations of discrimination that are
often used in educational settings, such as the Blue Eyes-Brown Eyes simulation developed
by Elliott (Peters, 1987), have been interpreted as being a result of empathy (Byrnes & Kiger,
1990; Weiner & Wright, 1973). And the more positive intergroup attitudes that result from
friendship with an ethnic outgroup member have been interpreted as being a result of
empathic concern (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew, 1997, 1998). Underscoring the wide
applicability of empathy-induced attitude change, Schultz (2000) found that empathic
concern felt for animals being harmed by pollution improved attitudes toward protecting the
natural environment, and Berenguer (2007) found that pro-environmental attitudes produced
by empathy carried over into action on behalf of the environment. Even video computer
games have been designed to foster empathy and, thereby, increase concern for the welfare of
others (Belman & Flanagan, 2010).
Paluck (2009) conducted an ambitious year-long field experiment in Rwanda to test the effect
of a radio soap opera designed to promote reconciliation between Tutsi and Hutu. Along with
didactic messages about the roots and prevention of prejudice, the program presented
characters wrestling with problems known to all Rwandans, such as cross-group friendships,
overbearing leaders, poverty, and memories of violence. The story line featured the struggles
of a young cross-group couple who pursue their love in the face of community disapproval
and who start a youth coalition for peace and cooperation. The story, especially the young
couples struggles, seemed to produce intrinsic valuing, perspective taking, and empathic
concern. Follow-up measures indicated that these effects generalized, producing increased
perspective taking and feelings of concern for a range of people in Rwandan society.
Compared to individuals who listened to a soap opera focused on health issues, those who
listened to the reconciliation soap opera were more accepting of cross-group marriage and
more willing to trust and to cooperate with others in their community, including members of
the other group. Paluck (2009) concluded:
The dramatic narrative form of the radio program may have provoked emotional and
imaginative processes critical to the changes observed.... Listeners emotional empathic
reactions to the soap opera characters may have transferred onto the real-life counterparts of
the groups the characters represented (measured by the increased empathy for real-life
Rwandansprisoners, genocide survivors, the poor, and leaders). (p. 584)

Action
Do these more positive attitudes manifest themselves in action on behalf of the stigmatized
group? Batson, Chang, Orr, and Rowland (2002) provided evidence that they do. Inducing
empathic concern for a convicted heroin addict and dealer led to increased budget allocations
to help drug addicts. Importantly, the increase in helping occurred even

179
when it was clear that the help would not benefit the particular heroin addict for whom
empathy was induced. Again reflecting the breadth of applicability, Shelton and Rogers
(1981) found that empathic concern induced while watching a video clip showing whales
increased readiness to help save whales in general. Apparently, those induced to feel empathy
for a member of an outgroupstigmatized or notare willing to put their money where their
mouth is.

Perceptual/Cognitive Effects of Perspective Taking

Not all of the effects of perspective taking on improved attitudes toward stigmatized groups
are a result of empathy-induced altruistic motivation. Research suggests that there are
perceptual/cognitive effects as well. Moreover, the perceptual/cognitive effects seem to be
different for the two forms of perspective taking identified in Chapter 1. Imagining how a
member of a stigmatized group feels about his or her situation (an imagine-other perspective)
has been found to lead to situational rather than dispositional attributions for this persons
difficulties (e.g., Regan & Totten, 1975). This attributional shift can, it seems, generalize to
the group as a whole, leading to more positive attitudes toward the group (Vescio et al.,
2003). Imagining oneself in the place of a member of a stigmatized group (an imagine-self
perspective) has been found to reduce negative stereotyping of the group member and the
group as a whole (Galinsky & Ku, 2004; Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000).
These perceptual/cognitive effects appear to be distinct from the effects mediated by
empathic concern (Vescio et al., 2003). Whether the perceptual/cognitive effects carry
sufficient motivational force to affect behavior, as do the effects mediated by empathic
concern, remains an open question. Some research suggests that they may not (Dovidio et al.,
2010).

Pragmatic Considerations
Improving attitudes by inducing empathy through novels, movies, and documentaries is
likely to be easier, at least initially, than trying to improve attitudes through other methods,
such as face-to-face intergroup contact. Why? First, as the novels and movies listed earlier
show, it is quite possible for a skilled writer to induce empathic concern for a member of a
stigmatized group, either a real or a fictional member (Harrison, 2008; Oatley, 2002;
Zillmann, 1991; also see Batson, Chang et al., 2002). Second, this concern can be induced in
low-cost, low-risk situations. Rather than the elaborate arrangements required to create direct,
cooperative, personal contact, books and TV can lead us to feel empathy for a member of a
stigmatized group as we sit comfortably in our own home.
Third, media-generated experiences can be controlled to ensure that they are positive and
empathy-inducing far more readily than can live, face-to-face contact. Finally, as long as
membership in the stigmatized group is a salient feature of the need for which empathy is
induced, the attitude change does not seem vulnerable to sub-typing, whereby

180
attitudes improve only toward one or a small subset of exceptional members of the group
(the exceptions that prove the rule). Sub-typing has been found to plague cognitive
approaches to attitude change, such as learning stereotype-inconsistent information about an
individual group member (Brewer, 1988; Pettigrew, 1998).
For these four reasons, media-generated empathy-induced attitude change looks promising as
a first step toward more positive attitudes and action on behalf of stigmatized groups, and
research supports its promise (Graves, 1999; Hayes & Conklin, 1953; Paluck, 2009; Slater,
2002; Strange, 2002). This first step canand shouldbe followed with direct, personalizing
contact and introduction of superordinate goals, lest one simply understand and feel for
imagined or abstract outgroup members, not real ones. (For further discussion of the use of
empathy-induced altruism to improve intergroup attitudes and relations, see Batson &
Ahmad, 2009b.)
Finally, it should be noted that religion also has long sought to expand the circle of care. In
Western religions, the faithful are admonished to love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus
19:18) and that the stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you,
and you shall love him as yourself (Leviticus 19:34), and even to love your enemies, and
do good to those who hate you (Luke 6:27). In the contemplative traditions of the East, such
as Tibetan Buddhism, compassion meditation involves, first, reminding oneself that all beings
wish to avoid suffering and to know happiness and, second, cultivating the desire for that
wish to be granted not only for those near and dear but also for strangers and, again, even
enemies (Ricard, 2006). At this point, the success of these different religious efforts is either
questionable (Batson, Floyd, Meyer, & Winner, 1999) or yet to be systematically studied.

More Positive Close Relationships

Intrinsic valuing of the other in a friendship, romantic relationship, marriage, or family
relationship should set the stage for feeling empathic concern when that other is in need. The
resulting altruistic motivation directed toward having the others need relieved should, in
turn, make for a more positive relationship. There is much evidence that greater intrinsic
value (i.e., love) predicts relationship satisfaction and relationship longevity (Berscheid &
Reis, 1998), but research that has explored the role of empathy-induced altruistic motivation
in producing these effects is quite limited. Researchers have more often focused on personal
needs met through the relationship (Berscheid, 1983; Kelley, 1979; Rusbult, 1980), on
compliance with normative expectations for relationship-appropriate behavior (Clark &
Mills, 1979), and on gaining a safe haven and secure base from which to operate (Bowlby,
1969; Mikulincer & Shaver 2003). The limited research on empathy-induced altruism in
close relationships does, however, suggest positive effects.

Friendships
Beginning with friendship, Schlenker and Britt (1997) extended research on impression
management to show that people will selectively present information about a friend to a

181
third person in order to promote the friends interests. Research participants were asked to
describe a same-sex friend to a person of the opposite sex whom they believed the friend
regarded either as extremely attractive or as unattractive. Even though the friend would not
learn of their description, participants tended to present the friend as having attributes the
attractive person liked, but as not having attributes the unattractive person liked. Thus,
participants promoted their friends chances with the attractive person, while communicating
to the unattractive person that the friend was not your type. Schlenker and Britt (1997)
suggested that the motivation to look out for a friend in this way could be altruistic, although
they recognized that egoistic motives could also account for their results.
Providing some evidence for the role of empathy-induced altruism in friendship development,
Crocker and Canevello (2008) found that first-semester university students who self-reported
other-oriented, compassionate goals for their developing relationships with friends and
roommates (rather than self-image-enhancing goals) also reported more closeness, support,
and trust in their relationships. These findings are suggestive, but clearly, much more
research is needed on the role of empathy and altruism in friendships. To date, there has been
remarkably little.

Romantic Relationships
Turning to romantic relationships, most of the research that has considered the role of
empathy-induced altruism has looked at caregiving in the broad framework of attachment
theory (Bowlby, 1969; Mikulincer & Shaver 2003). The research has focused on antecedents
and consequences of sensitive and responsive care. Relying on self-report measures, Feeney
and Collins (2001, 2003) found, first, people who report that the help and support they
provide to their romantic partner is altruistically rather than egoistically motivated also report
that their care is more sensitive and responsive. Their partners report this as well, but to a
lesser degree. Feeney and Collins found, second, partner assessment of the sensitivity of the
care received was associated with partner satisfaction with the relationship both in the present
and (again, to a lesser degree) two to three months later. Similarly, using daily reports Maisel
and Gable (2009) found need-responsive social support by one partner was associated with
less sadness and anxiety in the second partner, and with more positive ratings of relationship
quality.
Moving beyond general ratings of the quality of caregiving, several studies have employed a
procedure developed by Simpson, Rholes, and Nelligan (1992), in which the caregiving of
one partner in a romantic relationship is observed when the other partner is about to undergo
a stressful experience. As a stressful experience, Feeney and Collins (2001) had the other
partner prepare and give a videotaped speech for evaluation by peers. Level of the speech-
givers need was manipulated by providing the caregiving partner with information
concerning how nervous the speech-giver felt about the speech, either very nervous (high
need) or not (low need). The caregiver then had an opportunity to write a private note to the
speech-giver. Content of the note served as a behavioral measure of caregiving. Self-reports
by caregiving partners of their general empathic

182
tendencies and altruistic motivation had been collected approximately one week earlier.
These self-reports were associated with more sensitive caregivingi.e., with providing a
level of emotional support in the note (as rated both by the speech-giver and by the
researchers) that was sensitive to the speech-givers apparent level of need.
Obviously, caution is needed in interpreting the results of these studies that rely on self-
reported motives. First, there is the general issue of whether people know and will honestly
report their motives (Chapter 4; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), especially motives for providing
care in a romantic relationship. As Kelley (1983) aptly put it:
The rules for showing altruism [in a romantic relationship]... are well known to ordinary
people and therefore afford the basis for favorable self-presentations that may misrepresent a
persons true motives. There is much to be gained from convincing our partners that we are
attuned to their interests and willing to put them before our own. And there is even more to
be gained, for many persons, from convincing themselves of their beneficent motives. (p.
285)
Second, there is the more specific issue of the motives included under the umbrella label of
altruistic. In the study reported by Feeney and Collins in 2001, participants motives were
assessed by presenting them with the phrase: On occasions when I help my partner, I
generally do so because... Participants then rated a number of possible motives (1 = strongly
disagree, 6 = strongly agree). An example of the sixteen items used to assess altruistic
motivation is: I love my partner and am concerned about my partners well-being. Such a
motive seems clearly altruistic, but whether individuals ratings of agreement with this
statement are a valid indicator of the degree to which they are altruistically motivated is less
clear. In the study reported by Feeney and Collins in 2003, altruistic motivation was assessed
by this item and six others. Unfortunately, the other six were not as clearly altruistic (e.g., I
cant stand to see my partner hurting), casting further doubt on the validity of this measure.
In an as yet unpublished follow-up to the Feeney & Collins (2001) research, Collins, Ford,
Guichard, Kane, and Feeney (2008, Study 1) used the same stressorgiving a videotaped
speechand the same manipulation of level of need. However, they moved beyond self-
report assessment of general tendencies toward empathic concern and altruistic motivation to
assess empathic concern and altruistic motivation in the specific situation. To assess empathy,
they measured both partner focus (i.e., perspective taking) and situation-specific empathic
concern felt by the caregiving partner for the speech-giver. To assess altruistic motivation,
they measured how often the caregiver checked for a message from the speech-giver
requesting help with the speech. They also measured the caregivers willingness to forego
working on enjoyable puzzles in order to give the speech in the partners place. Collins, Ford,
Guichard, Kane, and Feeney (2010) summarized results from this study as follows: Secure
individuals (those low in relationship anxiety and avoidance) in the caregiver role, compared
to insecure individuals, showed clear evidence of responsiveness. They experienced more
emotional empathy and were more cognitively focused on their partner (thinking about their
partners feelings, being distracted by thoughts of their partner while working on their own
puzzle task) in the high-need condition (when they were led to believe that their partner was
highly distressed about an
183
upcoming speech task) than in the low-need condition (when they were led to believe that
their partner was not at all distressed about the task). They also provided more behavioral
support in the high-need condition, as evidenced by an increase in the number of times they
check a computer monitor for messages from their partner and by an increased willingness to
switch tasks with their partner (volunteering to give the speech in place of their partner).
(Collins et al., 2010, p. 382)
From this report we cannot be sure that empathic concern mediated the effect of security on
vigilance and helping. However, research by Mikulincer et al. (2005) suggests that such
mediation is likely. Using subliminal as well as supraliminal primes of relationship security,
Mikulincer et al. found consistent evidence that priming relationship security led to increased
empathic concern and, as a result, to increased willingness to help a person in needeven a
stranger with whom the helper had no close relationship. Both Mikulincer et al. (2005) and
Collins et al. (2010) concluded that relationship security enables individuals to shift from
self-focus and self-concern to other-oriented empathic concern and altruistic motivation.
Finally, as noted earlier, empathic concern for ones relationship partner after the partner
transgresses has been found to be a strong predictor of forgiveness in a variety of close
relationshipsromantic relationships, family relationships, and friendships (McCullough et
al., 1997, 1998). Fincham et al, (2002) found that empathic emotion predicted forgiveness of
an imagined transgression in long-term marriages, especially among husbands. Willingness to
forgive should make for more positiveand enduringrelationships.
Better Health for the Altruistic Helper
Evidence reviewed thus far suggests that when you experience empathy-induced altruistic
motivation, those who are the target of your empathic concern can benefit in various ways.
Can you benefit as well? Quite possibly. The evidence is largely circumstantial at this point,
but empathy-induced altruism may contribute to your psychological and even physical health.

Circumstantial Evidence
Anecdotal testimony to the elixir of altruism runs the gamut from Dickenss classic fictional
depiction of the happiness and self-fulfillment experienced by Ebenezer Scrooge after his
transformation in A Christmas Carol (1843/1913) to the following words of an elderly widow
who adopted a dog from her local Humane Society:
Six months a widow, I had found my empty home unbearable. Adopting Mandy was my
answer, and I became her savior as well.... She was malnourished and dehydrated. The
steadfast love and loyalty we have given each other has been a quiet joy unlike any other!
(Cohen & Taylor, 1989, p. 2)
There is also circumstantial evidence from more systematic research. Several studies suggest
that adolescents who volunteer to tutor feel better about themselves (e.g., Yogev

184
& Ronen, 1982), although other studies have found that volunteering has no effect on
adolescents depression, self-esteem, and well-being (e.g., Johnson, Beebe, Mortimer, &
Snyder, 1998). Newman, Vasudev, and Onawola (1985) conducted a survey of older adults
(55 to 85 years old) who volunteered to help in schools and found that 65 percent reported
improved life satisfaction, 76 percent reported feeling better about themselves, and 32 percent
reported improved mental health. The Changing Lives of Older Couples Study produced
evidence that giving support to others reduces risk of mortality and also increases resiliency
in the face of grief over spousal loss (Brown, Nesse, Vinokur, & Smith, 2003; Brown, Smith,
Schultz, Kabeto, Ubel, Poulin, Yi, Kim, & Langa, 2009). Midlarsky and Kahana (1994, 2007)
suggest that such effects may be due, in part, to feeling other-oriented empathic concern and
to altruistic motivation.
Among adults in general, Thoits and Hewitt (2001) found that the number of hours a person
engaged in volunteer activities correlated positively with reported self-esteem, life
satisfaction, and physical healthand correlated negatively with depression. Luks (1991)
collected self-report testimonials from over 3,000 volunteers in a range of settings across the
U.S., all of whom were regularly involved in helping others. Analogous to feelings
experienced during and after vigorous exercise, many of these volunteers reported feeling a
high while helpinga sense of stimulation, warmth, and increased energyand a calm
afterwarda sense of relaxation, freedom from stress, and enhanced self-worth. These
reports more often came when the help involved close personal contact with a person in need
not previously known, suggesting that empathic concern and altruistic motivation may play a
role. Such effects were less frequent when the help involved either obligatory helping of
family and friends or anonymous donations of time and money (Luks, 1991).
Reviewing much of this circumstantial evidence of health benefits from helping, Dovidio,
Piliavin, Schroeder, and Penner (2006) raised several methodological concerns. First, most of
these studies, especially those examining psychological rather than physical benefits, rely on
self-reports. It is not clear how valid these self-reports are. Second, the research is almost
exclusively correlational. In some cases, attempts are made to control factors other than
helping that might produce the benefits in question (socioeconomic status, prior health,
staying busy, social interaction, and so on), and in some cases longitudinal data are collected.
But one can never be sure that all of the relevant other factors have been adequately
controlled. And even when longitudinal data are collected, rarely have cross-lagged
correlations been adequately tested (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Thus, what is actually being
measured often remains unclear, and what is causing observed associations does too.
In an effort to respond to such concerns, Oman (2007) focused on six studies that made some
attempt to control confounds when testing the hypothesis that volunteering increases
longevity among older adults (55 years old or older). His conclusion was encouraging:
Although these studies do not agree in the precise details of their findings, the overall pattern
seems clear: Volunteering is associated with substantial reductions in mortality rates, and
these reductions are not easily explained by difference in demographics or socioeconomic

185
status, or by prior health status or other types of social connections and social support, or by
prior level of physical activity and exercise. (Oman, 2007, pp. 2526)

Is Empathy-Induced Altruism the Cause?

Still, whether the reported health benefits are due to helping and, more specifically, to
altruistically motivated helping, is far from clear. Many if not all of the benefits may be a
result of (a) displaying competence and control (Langer, 1989), (b) increased social
connection (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001), or (c) focusing on something outside oneself
(Midlarsky, 1991; Schwartz, 2007). If so, caring for another persons welfare may be one
way to produce these effects, but not the only way. Joining a tennis team, a bird-watching
group, or a bridge club might be as effective. In spite of some optimistic claimse.g., It
seems that human beings are wired to do well by doing good (Post, 2007, vi)it is not yet
clear that empathy-induced altruism deserves credit for the health benefits associated with
doing good.
That said, the possibility certainly deserves serious consideration. Beyond surveys, where
might we find relevant evidence? If, as suggested in Chapter 2, empathy-induced altruism has
its biological roots in parental nurturance and tenderness, then one might expect this altruism
to be associated with oxytocin release, and oxytocin release has, in turn, been found to be
associated with beneficial effects on the immune system and on response to stress (Carter
2007; Marques & Sternberg, 2007). So, to the extent that it is a generalized expression of
parental nurturance, empathy-induced altruism may tap neurochemical resources that
promote health.
One potentially fruitful context beyond parent-child relations for exploring possible
neurochemical links is care for animals. There is preliminary evidence that positive, caring
human-dog interactions produce oxytocin release in both the human and the dog (Odendaal &
Meintjes, 2003). Care for animals, especially pets, has long been thought to promote
psychological and physical health, producing greater meaning in life, less stress, lower blood
pressure, and even longer life (Allen, 2003; Dizon, Butler, & Koopman, 2007). In particular,
care for companion animals has been associated with health benefits for the sick and lonely in
nursing homes and for prison inmates (Netting, Wilson, & New, 1987). As one young woman
prisoner explained, In prison time is endless, yet with a dog to love, time has meaning
(Cohen & Taylor, 1989, p. 62). However, the degree to which health benefits of human-
animal interaction are a result of care for the animal as opposed to care by the animal is, as
yet, unclear. So is the role of oxytocin and other neurochemicals in mediating these benefits.

Two Boundary Conditions

Even if empathy-induced altruism proves to be an antidote for depression, meaninglessness,
and tension, two potentially important boundary conditions need to be noted. First, just as too
much of almost any medicine can do you harm, too much selfless concern for others may
lead to caregiver burnout (Maslach, 1982). It appears that both

186
volunteer and professional helpersAIDS buddies, hospice workers, doctors, social workers,
and therapistswho take on too heavy a load of other peoples burdens may find they run
dry and have nothing more to give (Omoto & Snyder, 2002; Schultz, Williamson, Morycz, &
Biegel, 1991). Our capacity to experience empathic concern is not a bottomless well. Perhaps
we can feel only so much compassion before we go numb. If so, there may be biological and
psychological limits to the health-giving properties of empathy-induced altruism.
A second boundary condition is even more fundamental. It is possible that those who turn to
altruism as an antidote for depression, meaninglessness, and tension will find it does not
work. To use altruism as yet another self-help cureproviding a means to the ultimately self-
serving ends of gaining more meaning and better healthinvolves a logical and
psychological contradiction. As soon as benefit to the other becomes an instrumental means
to gain these self-benefits, the motivation shifts from altruistic to egoistic. So, if it is
empathy-induced altruistic motivationrather than simply helping behaviorthat produces
the health benefits noted above, intentional pursuit of these benefits may be doomed to
failure. Altruism may enhance health as an unintended consequence but not be useful as a
strategy to produce them. (See Batson, 1991, and Wallach and Wallach, 1983, for further
discussion of this issue.)

Conclusion
More, more sensitive, and less fickle help for individuals in need. Less aggression. Less child
abuse and neglect. Reduced sexual assault. More forgiveness. Less derogation and blaming of
victims of injustice. Increased cooperation in conflict situationsincluding one-trial
Prisoners dilemmas, negotiations and bargaining, political disputes, and tension between
racial and ethnic groups in schools. More positive attitudes toward stigmatized groups.
Increased willingness to help these groups. Increased concern for endangered species. More
sensitive and responsive care in friendships, romantic relationships, and marriages. More
happiness and increased self-esteem. A sense of fulfillment and meaning in life. Less stress.
Increased longevity.
The list of potential benefits of empathy-induced altruism for which there is at least
preliminary empirical evidence is impressive. Empathy-induced altruism is, it seems, a
potentially powerful force for good. But it is no panacea. Empathy-induced altruism can
create problems as well as cure them. To fully understand the role of altruism in human life,
we need to recognize and appreciate its liabilities. Only then can we tap its power
responsibly.

187
8 Liabilities

We can consider liabilities of empathy-induced altruism following roughly the same

sequence as in Chapter 7liabilities for individuals in need, then for groups in need, and
finally, for the person experiencing altruistic motivation. Unfortunately, there has been much
less research on liabilities than on benefits.
Empathy-Induced Altruism Can Harm Those in Need
At times, empathy-induced altruism can harm those for whom empathy is felt. Altruistic
motivation is not always accompanied by wisdom, and when it is not, genuine concern for
anothers welfare can prompt action that hurts rather than helps. Balzac, one of our most
astute observers of human foibles, graphically portrayed this irony in his classic novel, Pere
Goriot (1834/1962). Goriots selfless love for his daughters spoiled them, drove them from
him, and, ultimately, destroyed both them and him. Balzacs message: Altruism may be
within the human repertoire, but it must be held carefully in check. It is potentially
destructive (also see Oakley, Knafo, Madhavan, & Wilson, in press).
International Aid: Bad Results from Good Intentions
Graham Hancock made a similar point in his scathing indictment of international aid
programs in Lords of Poverty (1989). He condemned the efforts of such esteemed agencies as
the World Bank, UNICEF, UNESCO, the United Nations Development Organization, the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the European Development Fund,
and AID. Many people would admit that these organizations are less successful than one
might wish. Hancocks attack was more fundamental. He claimed that international aid is
nothing more than a transaction between bureaucrats and autocrats in which corruption and
self-defeating dependency are inevitable.
To justify his attack, Hancock cited numerous examples, including an aid-financed dam in
Guatemala that led to a 70 percent rise in residential electricity prices; a Sudanese

188
sugar refinery turning out sugar sold in the Sudan at significantly higher prices than imported
sugar; and World Bank resettlement schemes in Brazil and Indonesia that destroyed rain
forests, contributed to the greenhouse effect, obliterated native cultures, and often left even
the settlers poorer than before. Such examples are not the whole story of international aid, but
they are too numerous and too tragic not to sensitize us to inherent dangers in even the best-
intentioned relief efforts. They underscore the problem of acting on motives evoked by the
suffering of others, including altruistic motives, when we do not fully understand the
situation in which these others live. And we can never fully understand.
Fortunately, there are dramatic and promising examples of more indigenous, context-
sensitive programs to help the poor of the world. Let me mention just two: First is the
Barefoot College program begun in India in 1971 by Bunker Roy (Roy & Hartigan, 2008).
This program was built on the conviction that the poor themselves, when they are provided
the necessary information, can and should decide how they want to improve their quality of
life. The Barefoot approach has spread to seven other countries in Asia, Africa, and South
America, providing potable water from rooftop rainwater harvesting, solar-electrified schools
and homes, and in the process, desperately needed local jobs. Second is Partners in Health.
Beginning with a clinic and hospital founded in 1984 by Paul Farmer in the horribly poor
central plateau of Haiti, Partners in Health has grown into a major force in the treatment of
tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS among poor and prison populations worldwide (Kidder, 2003).

A Warm Heart When You Need a Cool Head

Even when one knows what help is needed, empathy-induced altruism can at times make
matters worse. This is especially true in situations that require a light and delicate touch.
Think, for example, of the work of a surgeon. It is no accident, argued neurophysiologist Paul
MacLean (1967), that surgeons avoid operating on close kin or friends. The problem is not
that the surgeon feels no empathic concern. Quite the opposite. When operating on ones
sister rather than on the patient, empathic concern and desire to do what is best for her may
be so strong as to cause a normally steady hand to shake. Empathy-induced altruistic
motivation could cost the sister her life.
Chilling testimony to another circumstance in which a warm heart can make it more difficult
to do what is needed was offered by survivors of the death camps in Nazi Europe. In the
camps, members of the underground could not save everyone. They sometimes faced the
difficult dilemma of having to decide who would live and who would die. Survivors reported
that empathic feelings interfered with making such decisions.
Compassion was seldom possible, self-pity never. Emotion not only blurred judgment and
undermined decisiveness, it jeopardized the life of everyone in the underground.... Hard
choices had to be made and not everyone was equal to the task, no one less than the kind of
person whose goodness was most evident, most admired, but least available for action. (Des
Pres, 1976, p. 131)

189
Maternalism, Paternalism, and Empathy-Induced Altruism
Empathy-induced altruism can hurt those in need in another way. If, as suggested in Chapter
2, altruistic motivation is based on cognitive generalization of human parental nurturance and
tenderness, then it involves seeing the person in need as metaphorically childlikeas
vulnerable, dependent, and in need of care. It also implies a status difference, at least in terms
of ability to address the need in question. Sometimes, such a difference poses no problem.
Most of us happily defer to the expertise of physicians, police, firefighters, plumbers, and
mechanics when we need their help. At other times, the consequences can be tragic. Teachers
and tutors can, out of genuine concern, fail to enable students to develop the ability and
confidence to solve problems themselves, fostering instead dependence, low self-esteem, and
a reduced sense of efficacy (Nadler, Fisher, & DePaulo, 1983). Physical therapists,
physicians, nurses, friends, and family members can do the same for patients with physical or
mental disabilities, as can social welfare efforts to care for the poor and disadvantaged
(Nadler & Halabi, 2006).
The dangers of paternalism and dependence are real, but there are dangers in the alternative
as well. Indeed, Paul Farmer of Partners in Health reserved some of his most biting criticism
for White liberals who are so concerned not to offend or patronize that they fail to respond to
immediate, crying needs. As Farmer put it, Theres a lot to be said for sacrifice, remorse,
even pity (Kidder, 2003, p. 40).
Effective parenting requires sensitivity about when to intervene and when to stand back, as
well as howif possibleto structure the childs environment to foster coping, confidence,
and independence. Effective help requires much the same. Loving ones child is not all that is
required for sensitive, effective parenting; empathy-induced altruism is not all that is required
for sensitive, effective help (Fisher, Nadler, & DePaulo, 1983). Recall the adage about
teaching the hungry to fish rather than giving them fish.
Imagining how the other feels about his or her situationperspective takingis particularly
important in making generalized parental nurturance sensitive to what another person really
needs. Drawing on her own practice as a physician and psychiatrist, Jodi Halpern (2001)
presented the case of Mr. Smith, a successful executive and family patriarch. Mr. Smith
had experienced sudden paralysis from the neck down and was now ventilator dependent.
Seeing his helpless condition, Halpern feltand tried to provide comfort by
communicatingher deep sympathy and sorrow for him. He reacted with anger and
frustration. Only after Halpern made an active effort to imagine what it would be like to be a
powerful older man, suddenly enfeebled, handled by one young doctor after the next (2001,
p. 87) was she able to appreciate and address his anger and frustrationand to set the stage
for working with him rather than working on him. Halpern (2001) reflects:
My initial sympathy was an unimaginative response to Mr. Smiths obvious vulnerability,
which led me to treat him gently.... [His case] highlights the practical importance of
imagining how a particular upsetting situation feels versus simply recognizing that a patient
is upset. I imagined being unable to move and feeling rage at being an object of pity before
my

190
family. Imagining these specific experiences guided my interactions with Mr. Smith, shaping
the timing of my remarks and my body language to communicate my respect for him and my
capacity to withstand his anger. (pp. 8788)

Empathy-Induced Altruism Can Be Overridden by Self-Concern

In addition to producing misguided attempts to help, empathy-induced altruism can be
overridden by other motives. As discussed in Chapter 3, altruistic motivation prompts an
analysis in which we weigh costs and benefits of each possible action. Even when genuinely
motivated to increase anothers welfare, we may decide to forego this altruistic goal in favor
of more pressing self-concerns. Consistent with this possibility, Batson et al. (1983, Study 3)
found that when the cost of helping was hightaking shocks that were clearly painful but of
course not harmfulthe motivation even of individuals who had previously reported high
empathic concern for a person in need appeared to be egoistic (see Chapter 5). This finding
led to the suggestion that concern for others is a fragile flower, easily crushed by self-
concern (Batson et al., 1983, p. 718; also see Bunzl, 2007).
In Chapter 5, I suggested that the ease with which self-concern can crush altruistic concern is
almost certainly a function of the strength of the altruistic motivation. I also offered a thought
experiment in which a father sees his young daughter suddenly run into the street in front of
an oncoming car, and suggested that the desire to save her might outweigh all self-concern,
even concern for his own life.
Sadly, a near approximation of this thought experiment has actually been run. In December,
2000, the New York Times Sunday Magazine published results of a survey in which they
asked readers to report the most selfless act of generosity youve ever witnessed. Here is
one response:
I was thirteen years old. Our family was climbing out of the car as we headed for our
traditional Friday evening movie. It was a suburban theater located on a wide and busy road.
Across the street was a favorite hamburger spot, and from it we watched a small child
emerge, followed by her grandfather. Unexpectedly the child darted onto the busy road.
Without missing a beat the old man raced behind her into the path of a car that could not stop.
He reached down, scooped her up and threw her out of harms way. Then the inevitable thud.
He was killed immediately. The little girl is now a grandmother.
Clearly, the flower of altruism is not always fragile.
Empathy Avoidance: Egoistic Motivation to Avoid Altruistic Motivation
Not only may competing motives override empathy-induced altruism, but there may also be a
motive to prevent it from arising. As the example just cited underscores, altruistic

191
motivation can cost us. Even if it does not cost us our life, it can lead us to spend time,
money, and energy on behalf of others. To the degree we are aware that empathic concern
produces altruistic motivation, we may experience an egoistic motive to avoid feeling
empathy. This motive may be aroused when we see a homeless person on the street, hear
about the plight of refugees, or see news footage of the ravages of famine. It may lead us to
turn our head, cross the street, switch channels.
What conditions produce empathy avoidance? Shaw, Batson, and Todd (1994) suggested that
this motive is likely to arise when, before exposure to a person in need, we are aware that (a)
we shall be asked to help this person and (b) helping will be costly.
Shaw et al. (1994) tested the idea that these two conditions produce empathy avoidance by
asking undergraduate men and women to choose which of two audiotaped versions of a
homeless mans appeal for help they wished to hear: a high-impact version, described as
likely to evoke emotion and induce empathic concern, or a low-impact version, described as
objective and not emotional. Prior to making their choice, some participants were told that
after they heard the appeal, they would be given a chance to volunteer to help the homeless
man. Of these participants, half were told that volunteering involved low cost (spending 1
hour preparing letters to send to potential contributors), and half were told that volunteering
involved high cost (three 1-hour meetings face-to-face with the homeless man, plus the
possibility of further contact). As expected based on the conditions specified for empathy
avoidance, participants told that they would be asked to help and that helping involved high
cost were significantly less likely to choose to hear the high-impact version of the homeless
mans appeal than were participants either not told about the chance to help or told about the
low-cost help opportunity. Empathy avoidance does seem to exist. Our potential to
experience empathy-induced altruismand our awareness of this potentialcan lead us to
turn away from those in need.
Empathy avoidance may contribute to burnout among those who work in the helping
professions (Maslach, 1982). However, the conditions for empathy avoidance among helping
professionals are probably not the same as those specified by Shaw et al. (1994). Among
professionals, empathy avoidance is more likely due to the perceived impossibility of
providing effective help than to the perceived cost of helping. Faced with incurable needs,
some welfare case workersor therapists and counselors, or nurses caring for terminal
patients (Stotland et al., 1978)may try to avoid feeling empathic concern in order to avoid
the frustration of not being able to satisfy the resulting altruistic motive. They may turn their
clients and patients into objects, and treat them accordingly.
In Chapter 7, I noted that empathy-induced altruistic motivation can inhibit aggression, at
least when empathy precedes the provocation to aggress. Empathy avoidance may help
explain this qualifier. When an insult or other provocation to aggress precedes empathy
induction, the motive to retaliate may produce a desire to avoid empathy and its conflicting
altruistic motivation.
Consistent with this suggestion, Worchel and Andreoli (1978) reported an experiment in
which undergraduate men were insulted by another participant whom they knew they would
later have an opportunity to shock. The insulted men selectively recalled deindividuating,
depersonalizing information about the other participant (Zimbardo, 1970).

192
This kind of information should inhibit awareness of need, perspective taking, and empathy.
Similarly, Zimbardo, Banks, Haney, and Jaffe (1973) reported that the guards in their
famous prison simulation employed various deindividuating strategies, which made it easier
for them to mistreat the prisoners. These strategies may have allowed the guards to avoid
feeling sorry for the prisoners. In a far more extreme example of this same process, the
commandant of Auschwitz Rudolf Hoess reported that he stifled all softer emotions lest he
not be able to carry out his assignmentthe systematic extermination of 2.9 million people
(Hoess, 1959).
Empathy avoidance can, it seems, have devastating consequences, both in what it prevents
and what it permits. As Paul Slovic (2007) reflected:
Confronted with the knowledge of dozens of apparently random disasters each day, what can
a human heart do but slam its doors? Nor mortal can grieve that much. We didnt evolve to
cope with tragedy on a global scale. Our defense is to pretend theres no thread of event that
connects us, and that those lives are somehow not precious and real like our own. Its a
practical strategy, to some ends, but the loss of empathy is also a loss of humanity, and thats
no small tradeoff. (p. 9)

Empathy-Induced Altruism Is Less Likely to be Evoked by Some Needs

In addition to the possibilities of being ineffective, overridden, and avoided, empathy-induced
altruism may not arise in response to certain needs.

Needs of Non-Personalized Others

As discussed in Chapter 7, empathic concern is likely to be evoked by the needs of
personalized others. This positive statement implies a negative. Empathy-induced altruism is
not likely to be evoked by the needs of non-personalized others. Who are non-personalized
others? A half-dozen answers to this question have been offered: (a) those who live far away,
(b) those with whom we do not share group membership, (c) those who are not similar to us,
(d) those who have needs that we have not experienced ourselves, (e) those we dislike, and (f)
those we encounter as one of many individuals with similar needs.
Each of these characteristics has been proposed as a source of depersonalization and so a
limiting condition on empathic concern. However, existing research clearly supports only the
last two. Before considering these two, let me briefly address the other four. (a) As long as
the level of awareness of the others need is held constant, distance per se does not pose a
serious limit on empathic concern. We can feel concern when we hear about a victim of some
natural disaster or human atrocity on the other side of the globe. Distance may reduce felt
responsibility and moral obligation to act, but feelings of responsibility and obligation should
not be confused with either empathic concern or the altruistic motivation it produces. (b)
Although some have claimed that shared group membership is a necessary condition for
empathy-induced altruism (e.g., Strmer et al., 2006;

193
Turner, 1987), research clearly shows that it is not (e.g., Batson, Polycarpou et al., 1997;
Batson, Sager et al., 1997; see Chapter 6). (c) The same is true for similarity. In Chapter 2, I
discussed the use of information about similarity to induce empathy. I noted that as long as
perceived dissimilarity does not evoke antipathy, we can feel empathic concern for a wide
range of targets, including not only people quite unlike ourselves but also members of other
species (see Batson, Lishner et al., 2005; Kahneman & Ritov, 1994; Shelton & Rogers, 1981;
again, see Chapter 6).
(d) Nor is it necessary to have experienced the same need, in spite of claims by Allport
(1924), Bandura (1969), and Hoffman (1981a) that it is. As long as we can understand and
appreciate its impact on the target, prior experience of the need is not required (Batson,
Sympson et al., 1996; Hodges, 2005; Hygge, 1976). Prior experience may heighten
appreciation of the others need and, thereby, empathic concern, but such appreciation also
may come from other sources. When it does, those who have never experienced the particular
need can feel considerable empathy for those suffering illness, injury, or discomfort. As
Adam Smith (1759/1853) put it: A man may sympathize with a woman in child-bed; though
it is impossible that he should conceive himself as suffering her pains in his own proper
person and character (VII.iii.1.4). Indeed, research reveals that having had prior experience
with childbirth may shift some womens attention from the others experience to their own,
diminishing empathic concern (Hodges, 2005; Hodges et al., 2010).
The final two proposed depersonalizing characteristics do provide important limits on
empathic concern. (e) As discussed in Chapter 2, dislike or antipathy for anothera hostile
orientationundermines one of the necessary antecedent conditions for empathic concern:
valuing the others welfare. Batson, Eklund et al. (2007) provided clear evidence of the
inhibiting effect of dislike on empathic concern and helping.
(f) There is also clear evidence of an inhibiting effect on personalization and empathy, as well
as on willingness to help, when an individual in need is one of many individuals with similar
needs (Kogut & Ritov, 2005a, Experiments 1 & 2; Kogut & Ritov, 2005b, Experiment 3;
Small et al., 2007). To paraphrase Stalin, a person in need is a tragedy; a million in need is a
statistic. Many of the pressing social problems we face todaymass starvation, genocide, the
AIDS epidemiccome at us in the form of statistics rather than as individual persons in
need. The consequence, claimed Slovic (2007), is psychic numbing and the collapse of
compassion (also see Epstein, 2006). Given the high cost of effectively helping a large
number of individuals, empathy avoidance also may play a role.

Abstract Needs
A further complication: Many pressing social problems are not about helping either a single
person or a collection of people. Problems such as environmental contamination, nuclear
proliferation, and overpopulation are more abstract. It may be difficult, if not impossible, to
feel empathic concern for the environment or world population, although personalizing
metaphors like rape of the planet may move us in that direction.

194
Not only is it difficult to evoke empathy for such needs, they often cannot be effectively
addressed with a personal helping response. They must be addressed in political arenas,
through institutional and bureaucratic structures. The process is long and slow, not the sort
for which emotion-based motivation such as empathy-induced altruism is likely to be
effective. As Garrett Hardin (1977) said:
Is pure altruism possible? Yes, of course it ison a small scale, over the short term, in
certain circumstances, and within small, intimate groups. In family-like groups one should be
able to give with little thought of nicely calculated less or more. But only the most naive
hope to adhere to a non-calculating policy in a group that numbers in the thousands (or
millions!), and in which many preexisting antagonisms are known and many more
suspected....
When those who have not appreciated the nature of large groups innocently call for social
policy institutions [to act] as agents of altruistic opportunities they call for the impossible. In
large groups social policy institutions necessarily must be guided by what I have called the
Cardinal Rule of Policy: Never ask a person to act against his own self-interest. (Hardin,
1977, pp. 2627, italics in original)

Chronic Needs
Even when addressing the needs of specific individuals, empathy-induced altruism may not
suffice if the need is chronic. Empathic concern, like other emotions (e.g., happiness, sadness,
fear), diminishes over time. As a result, it may not be able to sustain the kind of long-term
helping effort often required of, for example, community-action volunteers (Omoto &
Snyder, 2002). Empathy-induced altruism may lead a person to volunteer to help AIDS
victims or the homeless, but other motives may need to take over if a volunteer is to continue
for the long haul. Similarly, empathy-induced altruism may not be sufficient to sustain
professional helpersphysicians, nurses, social workers, therapists, counselors, and
teacherswho encounter persons in need one after another, day after day. It may motivate a
person to enter a helping profession but, by itself, may not be sufficient to sustain
effectiveness. Not only do emotions diminish over time, but as noted in Chapter 7, there also
are limits to how often one can draw from the emotional well (Epstein, 2006). Over time,
professional helpers may find that their ability to feel empathic concern is exhausted, leading
to what has been called compassion fatigue (Figley, 2002; Rainer, 2000).
Empathy-Induced Altruism Can Produce Immoral Action
One of the more surprising implications of the empathy-altruism hypothesisat least to
many peopleis that empathy-induced altruism can lead us to act immorally. This
implication is surprising because many equate altruism with morality. The empathy-altruism
hypothesis does not (see Chapter 1). In this hypothesis, altruism refers to a motivational state
with the ultimate goal of increasing anothers welfare. The dictionary gives the

195
following first two definitions of morality: (1) Of or concerned with principles of right
conduct. (2) Being in accord with such principles. Given these definitions of altruism and
morality, altruism stands in the same relation to morality as does egoism. Consider, for
example, a moral principle of fairness or justice. An egoistic desire to benefit myself may
lead me to unfairly put my needs and interests ahead of the parallel needs and interests of
others. Similarly, an altruistic desire to benefit another may lead me to unfairly put that
persons needs and interests ahead of the parallel needs and interests of others. In each case, I
have violated the principle of fairness.

Experimental Evidence of Empathy-Induced Immorality

To test this derivation from the empathy-altruism hypothesis, Batson, Klein, Highberger, and
Shaw (1995) conducted two experiments. In the first, sixty female introductory psychology
students were, ostensibly randomly, placed in the role of Supervisor. As Supervisor, they
were to assign two other introductory psychology studentsWorkersto tasks. One of the
tasks had positive consequences; for each correct response, the Worker performing this task
would receive a raffle ticket for a $30 gift certificate. The other task had negative
consequences; for each incorrect response, the Worker would receive an uncomfortable
electric shock 2-3 times the strength of static electricity. To make the moral principle of
fairness salient, before Supervisors made their task-assignment decision they all read: Most
Supervisors feel that flipping a coin is the fairest way to assign the tasks, but the decision is
entirely up to you. You can assign the Workers however you wish. A coin was provided for
Supervisors to flip if they chose. The Workers were not to know how the tasks were assigned,
only which one was theirs.
Empathy was manipulated as in the Prisoners Dilemma studies described in Chapter 7
(Batson & Ahmad, 2001; Batson & Moran, 1999). Supervisors either did or did not receive
communication from one of the Workers, designated simply as Participant C. The
communication was in the form of a note describing something interesting that had happened
to Participant C recently. Ostensibly, the note was written before C had any knowledge about
the nature of the research (so the note would not be perceived as an attempt to play on the
sympathy of the Supervisor), and because there was communication in some research
sessions and not in others, C would not know if her note had been read by the Supervisor.
As in the Prisoners Dilemma studies, Participant Cs note revealed that she had recently
been dumped by her boyfriend, and ended with her saying that she needed something good to
happen to cheer her up. As before, it was assumed that participants would think that giving C
the positive-consequences task (raffle tickets) might cheer her up, whereas assigning her to
the negative-consequences (electric shocks) would not. Of the forty participants who read the
note, half were instructed to do so while remaining objective and detached (low-empathy
condition), and half were instructed to do so while imagining how the student writing the note
felt about what was described (high-empathy condition).

196
How did Supervisors assign the Workers to tasks? In the No-Communication condition, in
which they read no note, all twenty participants reported using a random method (flipping the
coin). Consistent with this report and with a standard of procedural fairness, 50 percent of the
Supervisors in this condition assigned Participant C to the positive-consequences task. In the
Communication/Low-Empathy condition, seventeen of the twenty Supervisors reported using
a random method (flipping the coin); the other three said they assigned C to the positive
consequences without flipping the coin. In spite of these three, the net result in this condition
was the same as in the No-Communication condition: 50 percent assigned C to the positive-
consequences task. Results were quite different in the Communication/High-Empathy
condition. There, only ten of the twenty Supervisors reported using a random method. Of
these ten, five (50 percent) assigned C to the positive consequences. The other ten assigned C
to the positive consequences without flipping the coin. The overall percentage assigning C to
the positive-consequences task in this condition, 75 percent, deviated significantly from the
50 percent that procedural fairness would dictate.
When later asked an open-ended question about the fairest way to assign the tasks, eighteen
of the twenty Supervisors in each experimental condition said that flipping the coin (or use of
some other random method) was most fair. Only one Supervisor in each Communication
condition said that assigning C to the positive consequences without flipping the coin was
most fair. Yet in spite of what they said was fair, half of the Supervisors in the
Communication/High-Empathy condition showed partiality to the participant for whom they
had been led to feel empathy.
In a second experiment, Batson, Klein et al. (1995) increased the consequences of showing
partiality. Participants were placed in the awkward position of, in essence, playing God. Each
of sixty introductory psychology students (thirty men, thirty women) heard an interview with
Sheri Summers, a 10-year old child with a slow-progressing terminal illness. They then were
given an unexpected chance to help Sheri by moving her off a waiting list and into an
immediate-treatment group ahead of other children who either had more severe terminal
illnesses or had been waiting longer for treatment. Empathy for Sheri was once again
manipulated by the perspective from which participants were instructed to listen to the
interview. Those in the low-empathy condition were instructed to remain objective; those in
the high-empathy condition were instructed to imagine Sheris feelings.
Most participants in the low-empathy condition acted fairly, declining the opportunity to
move Sheri into the immediate-treatment group ahead of more deserving children. Only 33
percent chose to move her. Those in the high-empathy condition were far less likely to act
fairly; 73 percent chose to move Sheri into the immediate-treatment group.
Results of these two experiments support the proposal that empathy-induced altruism can
lead us to violate the moral principle of fairness. In each experiment, participants not induced
to feel empathic concern for one of the individuals in need were likely to act fairly.
Participants induced to feel empathy were likely to show partiality toward the target of their
empathy. It was not that the high-empathy participants who showed partiality abandoned
fairness as a principle; they agreed with other participants that partiality was

197
less fair and less moral than impartiality. However, they were willing to act against this
principle to benefit the person for whom they had been led to care.

Immorality from Empathy Outside the Laboratory

One might, of course, ask whether empathy-induced immorality occurs outside the lab. It
appears that it does. For example, there is reason to believe that the altruistic motivation
produced by empathic concern can lead to partiality in our decisions, both individually and as
a nation, about which people among the many in need will get our assistance. Commenting
on the photogenics of disaster, Time magazine essayist Walter Isaacson suggested that the
decision to intervene in Somalia but not the Sudan in 1992 occurred because photos of those
suffering in Somalia evoked empathic concern in a way that photos of those in the Sudan did
not. He also suggested that such decisions may lead to unfair, short-sighted policy.
In a democracy, policy (unless pursued in secret) must reflect public sentiment. But sentiment
can ooze sentimentality, especially in the age of global information, when networks and
newsmagazines can sear the vision of a suffering Somalian child or Bosnian orphan into the
soft hearts of millions. Random bursts of compassion provoked by compelling pictures may
be a suitable basis for Christmas charity drives, but are they the proper foundation for a
foreign policy? Will the world end up rescuing Somalia while ignoring the Sudan mainly
because the former proves more photogenic? (Isaacson, Time, December 21, 1992)
Empathy-induced altruism can, it seems, produce myopia in much the same way as egoistic
self-interest. Each of these motives is focused on the welfare of specific persons, so each is
potentially at odds with appeals to impartial moral principles such as fairness or justice.

Empathy-Induced Altruism Can Be a Threat to the Common Good

In addition to predicting that empathy-induced altruism can lead a person to act immorally,
the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts that it can lead a person to act against the common
good when that good is at odds with the welfare of a cared-for other. Conflicts between
individual welfare and the common good come to the fore in social dilemmas.
Social dilemmas, of which the one-trial Prisoners Dilemma discussed in Chapter 7 is a
simple form, arise when: (a) people have a choice about how to allocate scarce resources
(e.g., time, money, energy) and, regardless of what others do, (b) allocation to the group is
best for the group as a whole, but (c) allocation to a single individual (oneself or another
group member) is best for that individual, and yet (d) if all allocations are to separate
individuals, each individual is worse off than if all allocations are to the group. Social
dilemmas abound in modern society. We face one each time we decide whether to recycle, to
car pool, to vote, to contribute to public TV or the local symphony, and so on.

198
In the list of conditions for a social dilemma, I mentioned the possibility that people can
allocate resources to individuals other than themselves. Interestingly, in the research on and
discussions of social dilemmas, this possibility had never been considered. Guided by the
assumption of universal egoism that underlies game theory and the theory of rational choice,
it was taken for granted that the only individual to whom one would allocate scarce resources
would be oneself. But the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts that if we feel empathic
concern for another member of the group, we will be altruistically motivated to benefit that
person. In addition to the two motives traditionally assumed to conflict in a social dilemma
self-interested egoism and interest in the collective gooda third motive is in play.
When will empathic concern and the altruistic motivation it produces conflict with the
common good in a social dilemma? Whenever three conditions exist: (a) An allocator values
the welfareor is otherwise induced to adopt the perspectiveof some but not all other
individuals in the collective; (b) the allocator perceives the cared-for other(s) to be in need of
resources; and (c) the allocator can give resources to others as individuals. How often do
these conditions exist? Frequently. Indeed, it is hard to think of a real-world social dilemma
in which they do not. These conditions exist every time we try to decide whether to spend our
time or money to benefit ourselves, the community, or another individual about whom we
especially care. A father may resist contributing to the United Way not to buy himself a new
shirt but because he feels for his daughter who wants new shoes. Whalers may kill to
extinction not out of personal greed but to provide for their families. An executive may retain
an ineffective employee for whom he or she feels compassion, thereby hurting the company.
It is possible, of course, that a person may eschew both personal interest and the interests of
cared-for others in order to act for the greater good of all. However, the nobility ascribed to
such action is a clue to the strength of the forces working against it. Rick in Casablanca
charmed and challenged a generation when he chose to put his own and even his beloved
Ilsas desires aside and send her with her husband Viktor because doing so was best for the
Resistance. In those memorable lines: Im no good at being noble, but it doesnt take much
to see that the problems of three little people dont amount to a hill of beans in this crazy
world. No good at being noble? To put aside both his desires and hers was noble indeed.
The examples above suggest the potential for empathy-induced altruism to harm the common
good. Yet, for each example one can easily generate explanations based on self-interest: The
father would feel guilty if his daughter did not get new shoes. Rick knew their love would
soon fade. And so on. To determine whether empathy-induced altruism can pose a threat to
the common good, we need more than examples. Here are four experiments.

Two Initial Experiments

Batson, Batson, Todd, Brummett, Shaw, and Aldeguer (1995) conducted two experiments in
which participants could allocate sixteen raffle tickets, each good for one chance at a $30 gift
certificate. The sixteen tickets were in two blocks of eight. Each block could be

199
allocated to (a) the participant him- or herself, (b) any one of the other three participants in
the group, or (c) the group as a whole. Blocks allocated to the group would increase in value
by 50 percent, to twelve tickets, which would be divided equally among the four group
members, three tickets each. These allocation possibilities created a social dilemma: For each
block, allocation to the group best served the collective good by providing twelve tickets to
the group as a whole; allocation to an individual best served that individuals personal good,
providing him or her eight tickets (but the other group members none). Allocation decisions
were made in private, and the dilemma was one-trial (involving only a single allocation
round) to eliminate the possibility of strategic allocations such as tit-for-tat.
With no empathic concern induced, the theory of rational choice, social norm theories, and
the empathy-altruism hypothesis all predict little or no effect of adding the option to allocate
to other participants. Each participant should remain focused on the conflict between personal
self-interest and group interestbetween allocation to self and allocation to the group as a
whole. But when empathic concern for another group member is induced, the empathy-
altruism hypothesis predicts the resulting altruistic motivation will create additional conflict.
Experiencing empathic concern for another member of a collective does not eliminate
motivation to benefit the self or to benefit the group as a whole. Rather, it adds a third
motive: benefit the other for whom empathic concern is felt. The effect of adding this motive
depends on the relative strength of the three motives. If the empathy-induced altruistic motive
is strong enough that at least some resources are allocated to the participant for whom
empathy is felt, then either the self or the group, or both, must suffer. Which will it be?

Experiment 1: Manipulating Empathic Concern

In their first experiment, Batson, Batson et al. (1995) randomly assigned participants to one
of three experimental conditions. A No-Communication condition provided a baseline.
Participants in this condition made their allocation decision in the absence of information
about the other three same-sex participants (actually fictitious), except their first names. In
two Communication conditions, participants received a note that was ostensibly written by
one of the other participants (Jennifer for women; Mike for men) immediately on arrival
for the experiment, before learning anything about the nature of the experiment.
All participants in the Communication conditions received the same note (handwritten by a
woman and signed Jennifer for female participants; handwritten by a man and signed Mike
for male participants). The note was much the same as the ones used in the Prisoners
Dilemma research reported in Chapter 7 and in the research by Batson, Klein et al. (1995,
Experiment 1) reported in the previous section of this chapter. It described feeling down after
recently being dumped by a long-term boyfriend (girlfriend). Participants in the
Communication/Low-Empathy condition were instructed to remain objective and detached
while reading the note. Participants in the Communication/High-Empathy

200
condition were instructed to imagine how the note-writer felt. As in other research using
perspective instructions to manipulate empathy (e.g., Batson & Ahmad, 2001; Batson, Klein
et al, 1995; Batson & Moran, 1999; also see Chapter 5), participants in the
Communication/High-Empathy condition reported feeling significantly more empathic
concern for Jennifer (Mike) than did participants in the Communication/Low-Empathy
condition.
Table 8.1 summarizes the number of blocks of tickets allocated to self, to the group as a
whole, and to Jennifer (Mike) in each experimental condition. Consistent with the predictions
of the empathy-altruism hypothesis, participants in the Communication/High-Empathy
condition were much more likely than participants in either of the other two conditions (No-
Communication, Communication/Low-Empathy) to allocate a block to Jennifer (Mike).
Further, this increased allocation came at the expense of the group as a whole. Allocations to
the self were not reduced in the Communication/High-Empathy condition.

Experiment 2: Measuring Empathic Concern

In a second experiment, Batson, Batson et al. (1995) used much the same procedure, except
that all participants read the dumped note without receiving any instructions like those used
in Experiment 1 to induce low and high empathy. After reading the note, participants self-
reported the extent to which they felt empathic concern for Jennifer (Mike). A median split
was then used to create low- and high-empathy groups. As can be seen in Table 8.2,
participants who reported relatively high empathic concern were more likely to allocate a
block of raffle tickets to Jennifer (Mike). And once again, this shift in allocations came at the
expense of the group. Allocations to self by high-empathy participants were not reduced (also
see Van Lange, 2008).
Results of these two experiments support the idea that motivation to serve the common good
can be undermined by empathy-induced altruism, not only by self-interest.

Table 8.1 Blocks of Tickets Allocated to Self, to the Group as a Whole, and to Jennifer
(Mike) in Each Experimental Condition (Batson, Batson et al., 1995, Experiment 1)
Experimental condition
Communication
Blocks allocated No- communication Low-empathy High-empathy
To self 32 36 36
To the group 46 42 29
To Jennifer (Mike) 0 2 15
Total 78 80 80
Adapted from Batson, Batson et al. (1995).

201
Table 8.2 Blocks of Tickets Allocated to Self, to the Group as a Whole, and to Jennifer
(Mike) by Low- and High-Empathy Participants (Batson, Batson et al., 1995,
Experiment 2)
Self-reported empathic concern
Blocks allocated Low High
To self 20 21
To the group 25 15
To Jennifer (Mike) 1 8
Total 46 44

Adapted from Batson, Batson et al. (1995).

They take us beyond conventional thinking about threats to the collective good in social
dilemmas, which has focused exclusively on egoistic motives. Altruistic motivation can pose
a threat as well. This conclusion begs the question: How much of a threat is empathy-induced
altruism? After all, you feel your own needs directly; you feel for another in need only
vicariously. Egoistic motives are pervasive and powerful; empathy-induced altruism arises
only under specific circumstances. Do we really need to worry about the threat posed by
altruism?

Comparing Egoism and Altruism as Threats to the Common Good in Social

Dilemmas: Two More Experiments
Batson, Ahmad, Yin, Bedell, Johnson, Templin, and Whiteside (1999) reported two
experiments designed to assess the strength of egoism and altruism as threats to the common
good. Egoistic and altruistic motives were introduced in two separate experimental
conditions, independently pitting each motive against motivation to benefit the group as a
whole. Responses in these two conditions were then compared to responses in a baseline
condition in which neither egoism nor empathy-induced altruism was relevant, only
motivation to uphold the collective good. These comparisons made it possible to assess the
level of threat posed by egoism and empathy-induced altruism, respectively.

Experiment 3: Power of Egoism and Altruism as Threats to the Common

Good
The first experiment by Batson, Ahmad et al. (1999) involved a 3-cell design. Participants in
the Baseline condition were not group members, which meant that they could not themselves
receive resources (once again, raffle tickets for chances at a $30 gift certificate). Instead,
participants in this condition served as a proxy, choosing between allocating tickets to a four-
person group as a whole or to a specific group member as an individual. (Each of the other
group members might or might not have a proxy as well.)

202
To simplify the allocation decision, participants had only eight tickets to allocate as a single
block. Participants who allocated their block to the group would have the eight tickets
increased to twelve and divided equally among the four group members, three each,
providing the greatest good for the group as a whole. Allocating the block to the individual
group member benefited that member most, providing him or her with eight tickets.
Participants in the Baseline condition read the dumped note, ostensibly written by the
specific group member to whom they could allocate, from an objective perspective so as not
to arouse empathic concern.
Given these features, participants in the Baseline condition were unable to benefit regardless
whether they allocated to the individual or the group. Nor had they been induced to feel
empathy for the individual to whom they could allocate. As a result, neither egoistic nor
altruistic motivation should be aroused, leaving motivation to serve the common good as the
only one of the three motives present in the Baseline condition.
In the Egoism condition, self-interest was introduced by making participants a member of the
group and making them the individual to whom they could allocate (with no receipt of a note
from another group member). These changes created a classic one-trial social dilemma:
Allocation to the group provided greater collective good than allocation to self; allocation to
self provided greater self-benefit than allocation to the group. In this condition, egoism was
pitted against the collective good.
In the Altruism condition, empathy-induced altruism was pitted against the collective good.
As in the Baseline condition, participants in this condition were proxies and not group
members; they were unable to receive tickets, eliminating egoism as a motive. Also as in the
Baseline condition, they were given the choice of allocating to either the group as a whole or
the specific group member whose dumped note they read. The procedure in the Altruism
condition differed from that in the Baseline only in the perspective participants were
instructed to adopt. Those assigned to the Altruism condition were instructed to imagine the
thoughts and feelings of the note-writer as they read. These perspective instructions should
arouse empathic concern and, thereby, altruistic motivation.
This experimental design ensured that any reduced allocation to the group in the Altruism
condition was a function of empathy-induced altruism and not simply of (a) receipt of
communication from the group member to whom they could allocate or (b) awareness that he
or she was in need. Participants in the Baseline condition also read the note and were aware
of the persons need.
As expected, most participants in the Baseline condition allocated their block of tickets to the
group as a whole (80 percent). Introducing either egoistic or altruistic motivation led to a
significant decrease in allocation to the group. In the Egoism condition, only 43 percent of
participants gave to the group instead of to themselves. In the Altruism condition, only 40
percent gave to the group instead of to the specific member for whom they had been led to
feel empathic concern.
The conclusion to be drawn from this experiment is not that egoistic and altruistic motives
are always equally potent. As discussed earlier, empathy-induced altruism can at times be
overridden by self-concern, and at times empathy-induced altruism can override self-concern.
The appropriate conclusion, I believe, is that both egoism and altruism are

203
potent threats to the common good, and that empathy-induced altruism is more potent than
has been recognized.

Experiment 4: Going Public

In their second experiment, Batson, Ahmad et al. (1999) focused on one particularly
important situation in which altruism might pose a greater threat to the common good than
does egoism: when ones allocation decision is public. There are clear social sanctions
against benefiting oneself in violation of social and moral norms to consider the common
good (Kerr, 1995). These sanctions are likely to evoke egoistic motivation to avoid social
censure. Given this, it seems likely that people will be more reluctant to allocate tickets to
themselves when the allocation is publicand so competing egoistic motivation to avoid
censure is arousedthan when the allocation is private. Indicating the strength of such
censure, Dawes, McTavish, and Shaklee (1977) reported that they pre-tested just one group in
a standard one-trial social dilemma (pitting self-interest against the collective good) in which
choices were made public. Participants who allocated to themselves were subjected to such
harsh remarks by other group members that Dawes et al. were unwilling to run any more
public-choice groups. Selfish and greedy are stinging epithets.
Norms and sanctions against showing altruistic concern for anothers interests, even if doing
so diminishes the common good, are far less clear. One may be accused of being naive, a
pushover, soft, or a bleeding heart, but these terms carry an implicit charge of weakness,
not greed. So, allocation to a person for whom one feels empathy may not be inhibited by
being public to the same degree as is allocation to oneself.
Batson, Ahmad et al. (1999) used a 2 x 3 design to explore this possibility. The design
included the same Baseline, Egoism, and Altruism conditions as their first experiment,
factorially crossed with a second independent variablewhether ones allocation decision
was to be private or public. As in the previous three experiments described in this section,
participants in the Private conditions were told that all allocation decisions would remain
confidential and that participants would never meet. Participants in the Public conditions
were told that once they made their allocation decision (in private), they would meet with all
other participants in the session to record the allocations to each individual and to the group,
allowing each participant to know every allocators decision. Thus, participants in the Public
conditions could anticipate the possibility of social censure from other group members for
failure to contribute to the collective goodhard looks and exasperated sighs, if not more.
Results in the Private condition of this experiment replicated results of the previous
experiment. Most participants in the Private/Baseline condition allocated their tickets to the
group as a whole (70 percent), whereas allocations to the group were substantially and
significantly reduced in both the Private/Egoism condition (30 percent) and the
Private/Altruism condition (35 percent).
Results in the Egoism condition were quite different when participants believed that they
would have to meet the other participants after making their allocation. The percentage

204
allocating to the group as a whole was much higher in the Public/Egoism condition (75
percent) than in the Private/Egoism condition, and did not differ reliably from the percentage
in the Public/Baseline condition (85 percent). However, allocations in the Altruism condition
were little affected by having to meet the other participants. The percentage of participants
allocating to the group in the Public/Altruism condition remained low (40 percent). These
results are quite consistent with the idea that there are no social sanctions to protect the
common good from empathy-induced altruism.

Why No Sanctions Against Altruism?

Why not? Let me suggest two possibilities. First is the widespread belief, noted earlier, that
altruistic motivation is necessarily good and inevitably produces a moral outcome. If this
belief is correct, altruism poses no threat to the common good, and no sanctions are needed.
But research reviewed in this and the previous section indicates that this belief is wrong. In
each of the four experiments just summarized, empathy-induced altruism reduced the
collective good. And in the previous section, it produced partiality that led to violation of
standards of fairness and justice.
A second possible reason for the lack of sanctions against altruism is even more basic. This is
the assumption in Western society that altruistic motivation either does not exist or, if it
exists, is too weak to pose a threat to any other motive (Miller & Ratner, 1998; Wallach &
Wallach, 1983). If altruism is non-existent or weak, there is no need for society to develop
sanctions to limit its power. So there are none. True, there are sanctions against rampant or
compulsive altruism. One might get labeled foolish or do-gooder. But these sanctions seem
designed to protect self-interest more than societys interests. Research reviewed in Chapters
5 and 6 indicates that this assumption is also wrong.
To summarize, in this world of growing numbers and shrinking resources, self-interest is a
powerful and dangerous threat to the common good. It can lead us to grab for ourselves even
when giving rather than grabbingif others give as wellwould bring more benefit to all,
including ourselves. But social dilemmas are often more complex than a conflict between
what is best for me and what is best for all. I may also be pulled by what is best for one or
more specific individuals for whom I care. Empathy-induced altruism may seem a socially
benigneven benevolentmotive, but it too can pose a powerful threat to the common
good. Indeed, under certain non-trivial circumstances, such as when my behavior is public, it
can pose a more powerful threat than material self-interest. Focused on one for whom I
especially carethe needing friendI may turn my back on the bleeding crowd.
Empathy-Induced Altruism Can Be Harmful to Your Health
Viewed from the perspective of personal survival and narrow self-interest, altruistic
motivation is potentially dangerous. It can lead us to incur costs in time and money that can
be

205
seriously damaging, even life threatening. When 28-year old Lenny Skutnik was asked why
he dove into the ice-strewn Potomac River to rescue a drowning plane-crash victim, he said,
I just did what I had to do. I do not know the extent to which the motivation that impelled
Skutniks action was altruistic, but whatever motivated him to leave the safety of his car very
nearly cost him his life. Nor do I know with certainty the motivation that impelled the
grandfather to dash in front of a car to save his granddaughter, killing him. However, I am
willing to bet that his motivation was in large part altruisticdirected toward her welfare. I
am also willing to bet that empathy-induced altruism plays an important role in the deaths of
soldiers who save comrades by diving on live hand grenades or other explosive devices
(Blake, 1978). It may even play a role in patients willingness to take part in painful and risky
medical research (Jansen, 2009). In such situations, empathy-induced altruism is life
threatening.
Altruism can be harmful to ones health in less extreme situations as well. Compassion
fatigue and caregiver burnout, in addition to imposing limits on the sorts of needs that
empathy-induced altruism can effectively address, also impose limits on its health benefits, as
was noted in Chapter 7. But compassion fatigue and burnout may go beyond limiting health
benefits; they may actually cause harm. Caring for a loved one who is permanently physical
disabled, who requires extensive medical care, or who is terminally ill can take a serious toll
on the physical and mental health of the caregiver (Figley, 2002; Rainer, 2000; Schultz &
Beach, 1999; Schultz et al., 1991).
Finally, although not a direct health risk, the compassion abuse we all encounter may clamp a
tourniquet on the free flow of empathic concern. From the professional panhandler to the
physically disabled telemarketers who sell us light-bulbs, there are those who seek to take
advantage of the empathic concern we feel. When we realizeeven suspectthat our
compassion chain has been pulled, we are likely to vow: Never again. As described by Dan
Gilbert (2007), a wedge of cynicism is driven between us and those in need. That wedge hurts
us as well as them.

Conclusion
Clearly, empathy-induced altruism is not all good. Chapter 7 presented evidence that it offers
important benefits. This chapter reveals that there are important liabilities as well. Empathy-
induced altruism can be harmful to those in need when acted on unwisely or when a cool
head is required. It can be overridden by self-concern. It can be limited by empathy
avoidance. It is less likely to be evoked by non-personal, abstract, and long-term needs. It can
be a source of immoral action and a threat to the common good. Finally, it can lead you to
jeopardize your mental and physical health, even your life. Identifying the different
conditions under which it is likely to be a benefit and a liability has, I hope, provided the
framework for a manual on ways we might realistically tap the potential of empathy-induced
altruism in order to enhance and enrich our lives.

206
9 Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Motivesand a More
Humane Society

Bitzer: I am sure you know that the whole social system is a question of self-interest. What
you must always appeal to is a persons self-interest. Its your only hold. We are so
constituted.
Mr. Sleary: There is a love in the world, not all self-interest after all, but something very
different.... It has a way of its own of calculating.
Both from Hard Times by Charles Dickens (1854/1969, pp. 303, 308). (Mr. Slearys words
appear in standard English rather than the altered form Dickens used to reflect a severe lisp.)
Like bright young Bitzer, who speaks with the voice of Economic Man, behavioral and social
scientists have long assumed that the motivation for all human action is egoistic, including all
action intended to benefit others or society at large (see Bowles, 2008; Campbell, 1975;
Hoffman, 1981a; Mansbridge, 1990; Margolis, 1982; Wallach & Wallach, 1983). People
benefit others or society only because to do so benefits themselves. The empathy-altruism
hypothesis challenges this assumption. It sides with seemingly muddleheaded old Mr.
Slearyand with Dickensin proposing something very different. It suggests that empathic
concern produces a form of motivation with the ultimate goal of benefiting those for whom
empathy is felt.
Results of empirical tests of the empathy-altruism hypothesis reviewed in Part II support this
suggestion. Apparently, other people are more to us than sources of information, stimulation,
punishment, and reward as we each seek our own welfare. We have the potential to care
about their welfare as well. Adam Smith (1759/1853) seems to have been right when, almost
twenty years before The Wealth of Nations (1776/1976), he wrote:
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently principles in his nature, which
interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he
derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the
emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a
very lively manner. (I.i.1.1)
The popular and parsimonious account of human motivation in terms of universal egoism
must give way to a pluralistic account that also includes altruism. As Mr. Sleary said,

207
it is not all self-interest after all. Empathy-induced altruism has a way of its own of
calculating. And if we wish to understand the human condition, we need to include its
calculations in ours.

Challenging the Value Assumption of the Theory of Rational Choice

The most influential contemporary expression of Bitzers view is the theory of rational choice
(Downs, 1957; Sen, 1977; Taylor, 1976; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944). As originally
formulated, this theory rests on two assumptions, a rationality assumption and a value
assumption (Batson & Ahmad, 2009a). The rationality assumption is that humans will choose
the action that is most likely to get them what they want. The value assumption is that what
they want is to maximize self-interest. In the words of economist Mancur Olson (1971),
rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interest
(p. 2). Nor will they act to achieve the interest of another individual.
A long line of research by Kahneman, Tversky, and others has challenged the rationality
assumption of the theory, showing that peoples decisions are often illogical and suboptimal
for getting them what they want (e.g., Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982). But this line of
research has not challenged the value assumptionthat people want to maximize self-
interest. The research testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis has.
Why is this second challenge important? If we are to explain and predict the behavior of
actual humans, we need a theory that provides an accurate depiction of the range and
character of human motivation. Without that, we are left with a caricature of why humans do
what they do. As noted in Chapter 4, a carefully crafted caricature can provide considerable
insight. But a caricature can also oversimplify, distort, and mislead.
Economic models rely heavily on the theory of rational choice, which has proved powerful
and productive. But if the empathy-altruism hypothesis is correct, the human motivational
repertoire is broader than material gain. It is broader than self-interest in all its forms. The
theory of rational choice is a seriously deficient caricature and can mislead.
After all, those who enter the marketplace to bargain and negotiate are still human. We need
to consider the possibility that some executives cut corners and stretch the limits of the law
not simply to line their own pockets but at least in part out of concern for othersfamily,
employees, stockholders. We need to consider the possibility that more than personal greed
drives loggers to clear cut. They too have families for whom they care. If such motives affect
economic behavior, as they almost certainly do, then economic models that ignore them are
deficient. As economist Samuel Bowles (2008) put it when considering the possibility of
including motives other than self-interest in economic models: Is there a message for policy
makers? There is nothing about mechanism design (or economics as a whole) that would
preclude more realistic psychological assumptions (p. 1609). Actually, I believe there is
something. More realistic assumptions carry a cost.

208
Parsimony Lost
The empirical evidence from tests of the empathy-altruism hypothesis impels us with some
wistfulness to turn our back on the Eden of simplicity provided by the myth of universal self-
interest. We find ourselves cast out into a more complicated and challenging world of
multiple prosocial motives.
When we act to benefit others or society, it is rarely clear what our motives are. There are
some cases in which the motivation is most likely exclusively egoistic, but there are a large
number of cases in which the motivation might be at least in part altruistic. A mother rushes
across the playground to comfort her child, who has fallen and skinned a knee. A middle-
aged man tearfully decides to acquiesce to the quiet pleas of his cancer-riddled mother and
have her life-support removed. You sit up all night comforting a friend who has suffered a
broken relationship. We contribute money to charities, to civic causes, to help famine victims
in Africa, or to save whales. In each of these cases, the motivation might be partially
altruistic. But for each, and for any other case in which we help, one can also give an
exclusively egoistic account.
Prior to the evidence for the empathy-altruism hypothesis, parsimony adjudicated these cases
in favor of universal egoism because all could be explained in terms of egoistic motivation,
and only some could be explainedeven partiallyin terms of altruistic motivation. Under
these circumstances, it seemed reasonable to favor an exclusively egoistic account.
The situation is different now. If there are some cases in which a persons motivation is even
in part altruistic, parsimony no longer favors egoism. We must accept that both motives are
within the human repertoire. And once we do, there is no logical reason to favor an
exclusively egoistic account of the large number of cases in which the motivation might be
partially altruistic. These cases are open to dispute, with egoism and altruism each having
legitimate claims. Parsimony lost.
How large is the world of prosocial motives outside the Eden of egoism? Standing just
outside the gates, who can say? Once parsimony ceases to rule, the possibility arises that
much territory previously assumed to lie within the Garden may not. Clearly, we need a lot of
rethinkingand researchingabout the scope of egoistic and altruistic motives. As was true
for Miltons (1667/2005) couple in the last lines of Paradise Lost, we find ourselves in a less
secure, more complex world. Like them, we need to reassess what it means to be human.
Beyond Egoism and Altruism
The world outside Eden may be even more complicated and challenging than suggested so
far. Up to this point, I have considered two possible forms of prosocial motivation, egoism
and altruism. But I think there are at least four possible forms that deserve attention (see
Batson, 1994; Jenks, 1990):
1. Egoism. Motivation with the ultimate goal of increasing ones own welfare.

209
2. Altruism. Motivation with the ultimate goal of increasing anothers welfare.
3. Collectivism. Motivation with the ultimate goal of increasing a groups welfare.
4. Principlism. Motivation with the ultimate goal of upholding a moral principle (i.e.,
motivation to be moral).
These are four different motives because each has a unique ultimate goal. Rather than
lumping all four into a single category of motivation that benefits others, it is important to
recognize the unique features of each. Each has distinct strengths; each also has weaknesses.
The most effective strategy for creating a more caring, humane society may be to orchestrate
these motives so that the strengths of one motive can overcome the weaknesses of another.
But, before considering that possibility, let me back up and try to sketch the relations among
values, emotions, goals, motives, and behaviors. In these relations lie the strengths and
weakness of the different forms of prosocial motivation.

Motives as Goal-Directed Forces to Obtain or Maintain Valued States

In providing this sketch, it may help to recall and systematize the perspective on motivation
introduced in Chapter 1. There, following Lewin (1951), I related motives to values and
goals. I suggested we think of motives as goal-directed forces induced by threats or
opportunities related to ones values. I suggested we think of values as relative preferences;
Mary values State A over State B if she would consistently choose State A over State B, other
things being equal. If a negative discrepancy is perceived between a current or anticipated
state and a valued state, then obtaining or maintaining the valued state is likely to become a
goal. The goal-directed forcethe motivedraws one toward this end. If, for example, you
value time at the beach, vacationing there is likely to be a goal, something you desire. This
desire (goal-directed motive) is, in turn, likely to lead you to choose the beach for your
holiday. If you value having bicycle paths on which to ride, then approval of a proposed plan
to create them in your community is likely to be a goal, which will in turn induce goal-
directed motivation. This motivation may lead you to collect signatures in support of the plan.
Distinguishing Ultimate Goals from Instrumental Goals and Unintended Consequences
As noted in Chapters 1 and 3, it is important to distinguish ultimate goals from instrumental
goals and unintended consequences. Ultimate goals are the valued states one seeks to obtain
or maintain. In this context, ultimate does not mean cosmic or most important; it
simply refers to the state or states a person is seeking at a given time, whether consciously or
unconsciously (e.g., time at the beach; bike paths on which to ride). Each ultimate goal
defines a different goal-directed motive; each different motive has a unique ultimate goal.

210
Instrumental goals are sought because they are stepping-stones to ultimate goals. If an
ultimate goal can be reached more efficiently by other means, an instrumental goal is likely to
be bypassed. Your local mayor may be motivated to support bike paths as an instrumental
means to a more positive public image. If so, he or she is likely to lose interest should a more
attractive image-enhancing opportunity appear. (The distinction between instrumental and
ultimate goals should not be confused with Milton Rokeachs, 1973, distinction between
instrumental and terminal values that was mentioned in Chapter 2. All of the values named by
Rokeach could induce either instrumental or ultimate goals, depending on whether the
valuee.g., a world at peaceis sought as an end in itself or as a means to some other end
e.g., personal safety.)
Pursuit of either an instrumental or ultimate goal may produce effects, sometimes dramatic,
that are not themselves goals. These are unintended consequences. It is possible to benefit
others or society at large as an unintended consequence of pursuing some other goal. A desire
to have a safe, cheap, and pleasant route to work may lead me and others like me to volunteer
to help build a bike path, resulting in reduced gasoline consumption and pollution and in
preservation of green space, all of which benefit the community. A business executive,
motivated to maximize profit, may move a factory into a depressed area to take advantage of
cheap labor. Quite unintentionally, this profit-driven action may benefit those living there by
providing jobseven if poorly paid. (For further discussion of the relations among values,
goals, and motives, see Batson, 1994; Batson et al., 1992; and Lewin, 1951.)

Focus on Motives, Not Behavior

A major implication that Lewin (1951) wished to draw from distinguishing ultimate goals,
instrumental goals, and unintended consequences is the importance of focusing on goal-
directed motives rather than on behavior or consequences, even if one wishes to increase a
type of behavior, such as people helping those in need. Behavior is highly variable.
Occurrence of a particular behavior depends on the strength of the motive or motives that
might evoke that behavior as well as on (a) the strength of competing motives, (b) how the
behavior relates to each of these motives, and (c) other behavioral options available at the
time. The more directly a given behavior promotes an ultimate goal, and the more uniquely it
does so among the behavioral options available, the more likely the behavior is to occur.
Behavior that promotes an instrumental goal can easily change if either the causal association
between the instrumental and ultimate goal changes or a less costly behavioral route to the
ultimate goal arises that bypasses the instrumental goal. Unintended consequences can also
easily change as the behavioral options changeunless these consequences are a product of
some behavior that directly and uniquely promotes the ultimate goal. Lewin (1951) argued
that the power to explain and understand human behavior is found not in the behavior itself or
in its consequences but in the underlying values and goal-directed motives (recall his
Aristotelian-Galilean distinction discussed in Chapter 4).

211
Motives Can Cooperate or Conflictand Can Change
Often, individuals have more than one ultimate goal at a time, and so more than one motive.
When this occurs, the different motives can either cooperate or conflict. Moreover, a persons
goal-directed motives can change, sometimes quickly. The motives experienced in a given
situation are a function of the values of the individual and the nature of the situation. The
value of some states is relatively stable, producing an enduring motive across situations (e.g.,
the value of air to breathe). The value of other states is more changeable; an opportunity to
obtain or maintain the state elicits a motive only under certain circumstances (the value of a
warm coat).

Motives as Current Goal-Directed Forces, Not as Dispositions or Needs

Goal-directed motives refer to current psychological states, not to enduring personality types
or dispositions. In this regard, Lewins (1951) perspective on motivation differs from the
perspective of another pioneer in research on motivation, Henry Murray. Lewin conceived of
goals as force fields within the current life space of the individual; he conceived of motives as
goal-directed forces in these fields; and he conceived of values as power fields that could,
under appropriate circumstances, activate goals and motivational forces. Motivational forces,
in turn, produce behavior, or movement within the life space. In contrast, Murray (1938) and
his followers treated motives as relatively stable dispositions or needs (e.g., need for
achievement; need for affiliation), similar to values rather than to motives in Lewins
framework. Lewin made much of distinguishing instrumental goals, ultimate goals, and
unintended consequences; Murray gave little attention to these distinctions. For Lewin, the
list of our potential motives is endlessas rich and varied as the states we value. Murray and
his followers attempted to identify a relatively small number of primary motives.

Inserting Emotions
Lewin (1951) did not include emotions in his analysis of the relations among values, goals,
motives, and behavior. I believe they can and should be included. As suggested at the end of
Chapter 1, emotions are typically felt when a person experiences some change in his or her
relation to a valued state. Obtaining or losing a valued state produces end-state emotions such
as happiness or sadness, respectively. Awareness of a discrepancy between ones current or
future state and a valued state produces need-state emotions such as yearning, apprehension,
andif the valued state is the welfare of anotherempathic concern. Both end-state and
need-state emotions provide information about what we value and where we are in relation to
what we value. In addition, the physiological arousal component of need-state emotions
amplifies the motivational force to obtain or maintain the valued state. These emotions turn
potential energy into kinetic energy. Thus, need-state emotions can be inserted into Lewins
sequence after values (power

212
fields) and before the goals (force fields) that produce motives (forces within these fields).
Need-state emotions heat up the process, taking us beyond awareness of a value
discrepancya needto a felt desire to address it. More colloquially, they cause us to care
(Batson, 1990).

Why Benefit Others? Four Answers

With this sequence of values, emotions, goals, motives, and behaviors in mind, let us
consider the range of motives that might lead someone to benefit another individual or
society at large. In order to identify what goal-directed motives might produce these benefits,
we need to consider (a) what values might be associated with such behavior and (b) what
need-state emotions might be aroused by threats to these values. It is also important to
consider the strengths and weaknesses of each motive as a source of the behavior. Earlier, I
suggested that four forms of prosocial motivation deserve consideration: egoism, altruism,
collectivism, and principlism. The first two have been discussed at length and can be dealt
with relatively briefly; the last two require more attention. Table 9.1 provides an overview of
the values, need-state emotions, strengths, and weaknesses related to each of the four.

Egoism: Concern for Ones Own Welfare

When our ultimate goal is self-benefit, our motivation is egoistic (see Chapter 1). This is true
no matter how beneficial to others or how noble the resulting behavior may be. A
philanthropist may endow a hospital or university to gain recognition and a form of
immortality; a capitalist, nudged by Adam Smiths (1776/1976) Invisible Hand, may create
jobs and enhance the standard of living of the community while motivated by relentless
pursuit of personal fortune; a student may volunteer at a local nursing home to add
community service to her resume. Each benefits others and the community at large, and for
each, the motive is egoism.
There is little doubt that we value our own welfare. We feel upset and distressed when it is
threatened, and we are motivated to increase it when opportunities to do so arise. Jeremy
Benthams (1789/1876) classic opening sentence says it well: Nature has placed mankind
under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure (Chapter 1, paragraph 1).
Egoism, motivation with the ultimate goal of increasing our own welfare, clearly exists. It
can be a powerful motive for benefiting others.

Varieties of Egoistic Motivation

In Chapter 3, I considered several broad classes of self-benefits that can be the ultimate goal
of acting to benefit others. We can act to (a) gain material, social, and self-rewards (e.g., pay
or prizes, recognition, esteem-enhancement), (b) avoid material, social, and self-punishments
(e.g., fines, censure, guilt), or (c) reduce aversive arousal caused by others distress. When we
look beyond immediate material gain to consider long-term

213
Table 9.1 Four Motives for Benefiting Other Individuals and Society at Large
Ultimate Goal/
Motive Need-State Emotions Strengths Weaknesses
Valued State
Many, including pain, Benefiting others, whether
Many forms; powerful;
distress, discomfort, individuals or society at large, relates
Increase ones easily aroused; strong
Egoism fear, anxiety, shame, to egoistic motivation only as an
own welfare. emotional base in
guilt, pleasure, praise, instrumental means or an unintended
pleasure-pain.
pride, etc. consequence.
Powerful; focused on
Empathic concern, Empathy-induced altruism is limited
others welfare as
Increase the including sympathy, to individuals for whom empathy is
ultimate goal; may
welfare of one or compassion, felt; welfare of society at large relates
Altruism generalize to group of
more other tenderness, empathic to altruistic motivation only as an
which other is a member;
individuals. distress, empathic instrumental means or an unintended
strong emotional base in
anger, etc. consequence.
empathic concern.
Powerful; focused on
Limited to group; welfare of
Group pride, esprit, welfare of the group as
Increase the individuals in need relates to
loyalty, patriotism, ultimate goal; strong
Collectivismwelfare of a group collectivist motivation only as an
collective shame, emotional base in group
or collective. instrumental means or an unintended
collective guilt, etc. pride, loyalty, patriotism,
consequence.
etc.
Moral principles are abstract and
Uphold some Disgust, anger at
varied; conflict moral motivation is
moral principle violation of propriety
Directed toward easily corrupted; it is vulnerable to
(e.g., fairness, principles; possibly
Principlism universal and impartial oversight, rationalization, and self-
justice, greatest moral outrage at
good. deception; lacks a strong emotional
good, do no violation of conflict
base; is experienced as a motivational
harm). principles.
ought not want.

214
consequences and intangible benefits, self-interest becomes enlightened (Dawes, van de
Kragt, & Orbell, 1990). From an enlightened perspective, we may see that relentless pursuit
of self-interest will lead to less long-term personal gain than will being nice and
accommodating, and we may benefit others or society at large as an instrumental means to
maximize future self-benefit.
Appeals to enlightened self-interest are often used by politicians and social activists trying to
encourage action that benefits others or society at large. They warn us of the consequences
for ourselves and our children of pollution or of under-funded schools. They remind us that
an unchecked epidemic may, in time, reach our door, or that if the plight of the poor becomes
too severe, we may face revolution. Enlightened self-interest may also underlie strategies for
collective action based on (a) reciprocity (e.g., Tit-for-Tatsee Axelrod, 1984; Komorita &
Parks, 1995) or (b) sanctions that punish those who seek to free ride on the contributions of
others (Fehr & Gchter, 2002; Hardin, 1977; Yamagishi, 1986).
Non-tangible self-benefits of acting to benefit others have sometimes been called side
payments (Dawes et al., 1990). One may, for example, benefit others or serve the common
good as a means to avoid social censure or guilt. As John Stuart Mill (1861/1987) put it in his
defense of utilitarianism: Why am I bound to promote the general happiness? If my own
happiness lies in something else, why may I not give that the preference? (p. 299). Mills
answer was that we not only may but will give our own happiness preference until we learn
the sanctions for doing so. We learn to fear social censure, divine censure, and the pangs of
conscience. Freud (1930) presented a similar view; so have most social-learning and norm
theorists.
Side payments can be positive as well as negative. There are important non-tangible rewards
of helping others or society. People may help in order to get a warm glow (Harbaugh et al.,
2007). They may help to see themselvesor be seen by othersas caring, concerned,
responsible people (i.e., to build reputation). Pursuit of such side payments may greatly
benefit others, but the underlying motivation is still egoistic.

Promise and Problems of Egoism as a Motive for Benefiting Others

Egoistic prosocial motivation offers promise because it is potent, is easily aroused, and has a
strong emotional base in feelings of pleasure and pain. But there is a major problem. It is
fickle. If an egoistically motivated individual finds that self-interest can be served as well or
better without caring for others, then others be damned. The student whose ultimate goal in
volunteering at a local nursing home is to add community service to her resume is not likely
to last. Her goal has been reached the first time she enters the building.

Altruism: Concern for the Welfare of One or More Other Individuals

Altruism is motivation with the ultimate goal of increasing the welfare of one or more
individuals other than oneself. As noted in Chapter 1, altruism should not be confused

215
with helping behavior, which may or may not be altruistically motivated. Nor should it be
confused with self-sacrifice, which concerns cost to self rather than benefit to the other.

Promise
Research reviewed in previous chapters reveals that empathy-induced altruism can be a
surprisingly powerful motive for benefiting an individual in need. Empathic concern provides
a strong emotional base. Empathy-induced altruism can also benefit society at large. Recall
the research in Chapter 7 showing that inducing empathy can increase cooperation and care in
conflict situations and can lead to more positive attitudes toward and action to benefit various
outgroups. Empathy induction is used in many fund-raising ads, whether for children with
disabilities, those needing a Big Brother or Sister, the homeless, or starving refugees. It has
also been used to protect endangered species such as harp seals and gorillaseven to
improve attitudes toward pit bulls (Landon Pollack, personal communication, July 14, 2009).

Problems
But altruism also has its problems. In many circumstances, empathy-induced altruism is not
easily aroused. As noted in Chapter 8, altruism, especially empathy-induced altruism, is
directed toward the interest of specific other individuals. It may not be possible to feel
empathy for an abstract social category like ones community, people with AIDS, the elderly,
the homeless, or all humanity. The most we can hope for may be generalization of positive
feelings based on empathic concern felt for individual exemplars of these categories (Chapter
7). Further, the likelihood that needs of different individuals will evoke empathic feelings is
not equal. We are more likely to feel empathic concern for those for whom we especially care
(i.e., whose welfare we value highly) and whose needs are salient (Chapter 2). Finally,
empathic concern diminishes over time. Without special efforts of the sort described in
Chapter 7, many of our enduring social problemspoverty, genocide, homelessness,
population controlmay evoke little empathic concern.
Even when aroused, empathy-induced altruism is limited in much the same way as egoism. If
benefiting the person or persons for whom empathy is felt also benefits society, fine. But if it
does not, society is likely to lose. A father may volunteer to organize a youth soccer league
because he cares about his son Johnny, who wants to play. What will happen when Johnnys
interest shifts to tennis? Research reviewed in Chapter 8 suggests that the fathers interest
will shift as well.

Collectivism: Concern for the Welfare of a Group

Collectivism is motivation with the ultimate goal of increasing the welfare of a group or
collective. Robyn Dawes and his colleagues put it succinctly: Not me or thee but we
(Dawes, van de Kragt, & Orbell, 1988). The collective may be small or large, from two to
over two billion. It may be a marriage or a family; it may be a sports team, a university,

216
a neighborhood, a city, or a nation; it may be all humanity. The collective may be ones race,
religion, sex, political party, or social class. Although collectives we care about are typically
those to which we belong, membership is not required. We may, for example, care about the
welfare of a disadvantaged or persecuted groupthe homeless, gays and lesbians, victims of
genocidewithout being members of the group. If one places intrinsic value on a groups
welfare and this welfare is threatened or can be enhanced in some way, collectivist
motivation should be aroused, promoting action to benefit the group.
The person who supports and comforts a spouse, not out of concern for him or her, or for the
self-benefits imagined, but for the sake of the marriage, is displaying collectivist
motivation. So is the person who contributes to the local United Way in order to enrich his or
her community. So is the college student who becomes a Habitat for Humanity volunteer as a
means to ease the plight of the poor. So is the rescuer of a Jewish family in Nazi Europe who
acts out of love for all humanity. If the ultimate goal is to benefit some group, whether large
or small, inclusive or exclusive, the motive is collectivism.
In recent years, action to benefit others based on group membership has been explained using
social-identity theory, which emphasizes the self-esteem derived from promoting a group of
which one is a member (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Self-categorization theory
(Turner, 1987), discussed in Chapter 6, goes a step further; it explains such behavior in terms
of a group-level conception of the self. The self is depersonalized. One sees oneself as
partner, team-member, woman, European, New Yorker, etc., and sees all members of the
collective as interchangeable exemplars. If this kind of group-level self-categorization occurs,
then acting to benefit the group or another group member is an expression of self-interest.
The motivation is not collectivism; it is a special case of egoism.
Rather than depersonalization of the self, collectivism assumes that the self and the group
remain conceptually distinct, and a value beyond self-interest is introduced: the groups
welfare. With this value in place, when the groups welfare is threatened or can be enhanced
in some way, collectivist motivation is aroused, promoting action to benefit the group. At
times, we have an opportunity to benefit the group as a whole; more often, we can benefit
only some members, perhaps only one. Still, if we see self and group as distinct, and if
enhancing the groups welfare is an ultimate goal, then the motive is collectivism. The
ultimate goal, not the number of people benefited, determines the nature of the motive.

Promise
Collectivism has some virtues that egoism and altruism do not. As noted, egoism and altruism
are both directed toward the welfare of individuals. Yet many societal needs are far removed
from our self-interest, even our enlightened self-interest, and from the interest of those
individuals for whom we especially care. Further, as discussed in Chapter 8, many societal
needs come in the form of social dilemmas (recycling, energy and water conservation,
support for public TV, contribution to charities, etc.). Research reviewed in that chapter
reveals that when what is best for oneself or for a cared-for other conflicts with what is best
for the group at large, egoism and altruism pose threats to the collective

217
good. If we rely on egoistic or altruistic motivation to address these pressing societal needs,
the prognosis looks bleak. Like lemmings heading for the sea, we may find ourselves racing
pell-mell toward destruction.
In fact, the situation is not this grim. There is considerable evidence that when faced with a
social dilemma, whether in a research laboratory or in real life, many people are attentive to
the welfare of the group (Alfano & Marwell, 1980; Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Dawes et al.,
1977; Kramer & Brewer, 1984; Orbell, van de Kragt, & Dawes, 1988; Yamagishi & Sato,
1986). The most common explanation for this attention to group welfare is collectivist
motivation. It is assumed that individuals can and do act with an ultimate goal of increasing
the welfare of their group (e.g., Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Dawes et al., 1990). And it is
assumed that this motive has a strong emotional base in feelings of loyalty, esprit, patriotism,
national pride, and team spirit (Petrocell & Smith, 2005; Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007).

Problems
Collectivist motivation is less effective in addressing the needs of other individuals as
individuals, especially those who are not members of the cared-for group. This problem is the
reverse of the problems encountered with egoism and altruism. If benefiting some individual
promotes the group welfare, fine. If not, forget it.
Nor are collectivist motives problem free as a source of action to benefit society at large. We
are most likely to care about collectives of which we are members, an us. Identifying with a
group or collective usually involves recognition of an outgroup, a them who is not us. (Some
have even suggested that a them-us contrast is necessary to define a collectiveTajfel &
Turner, 1986; however, Gaertner, Iuzzini, Guerrero Witt, & Oria, 2006, present data that
suggest otherwise.) Within a them-us framework, concern to meet our needs may lead to
callous indifference to theirs. When AIDS was initially labeled as a gay disease, many
outside the gay community felt little inclination to help. It was their problem. In such
situations, to arouse concern may prove difficult. One fruitful strategy has been to lead people
to redefine group boundaries at a more inclusive level, a level at which they become part of
us, bringing them within the scope of collectivism (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). However,
this strategy may introduce problems of loss of identity and diversity (Dovidio et al., 2009).
Alternatively, as discussed in Chapter 7, one may induce empathic concern for one outgroup
member to produce valuing of the welfare of this individual that may, in turn, generalize to
the group as a whole, bringing it within the scope of collectivism.

Does Collectivism Really Exist?

It is important to consider the possibility that what looks like collectivism is actually
individual egoism, not even the depersonalized form of egoism proposed by Turner (1987).
Perhaps attention to group welfare is simply a result of enlightened self-interest and side
payments.

218
The most direct evidence that collectivism is a form of prosocial motivation independent of
egoism comes from research by Dawes et al. (1990). They examined the responses of
individuals given a choice in a social dilemma between allocating money to themselves or to
a group. Allocation to self maximized individual but not collective profit; allocation to the
group maximized collective but not individual profit. Dawes et al. found that individuals who
made their allocation after discussing it with other members of the group gave more to the
group than did individuals who had no prior discussion. Moreover, this effect was specific to
the ingroup with whom the discussion occurred; allocation to an outgroup did not increase.
Based on this research, Dawes et al. (1990) claimed evidence for collectivist motivation
independent of egoism. They claimed that their participants acted to enhance the welfare of
the group in the absence of any expectation of future reciprocity, current reward or
punishment, or even reputational consequences among other group members (p. 99). They
also claimed that this action was independent of the dictates of conscience.
Dawes et al. (1990) may have claimed too much. They claimed to eliminate all forms of
enlightened self-interest and side payments from their experiments by having participants
make a single, anonymous allocation decision. They claimed to test for the effects of
conscience by providing some participants with a choice between allocating to themselves or
to the outgroup (with whom they had not discussed), whereas others chose between
themselves and the ingroup (with whom they had discussed). Dawes et al. reasoned that a
socially instilled norm to share would dictate allocation to the outgroup just as much as to the
ingroup. But what if the operative norm was share with your buddies rather than simply
share? A localized norm of this kind certainly seems possible, and it would produce
precisely the pattern of results Dawes et al. reported.
Consistent with the possibility of a localized norm, Dawes et al. found that during the
discussion period in their experiments participants often promised to share. Promises were of
course made only to members of the ingroup with whom participants discussedones
buddiesnot to members of the outgroup. Failure to act on such a promise in order to gain a
few dollars may be no small side cost for most people. Even if others will not know about the
broken promise, you will. Also consistent, in an earlier experiment Dawes et al. (1977) found
that prior discussion did not increase cooperative responses when participants were not
allowed to discuss the dilemma or possible strategiesi.e., to establish a localized norm.
This lack of increase is hard to explain if discussion evokes concern for the group and
collectivist motivation.
In an attempt to address these interpretative problems, Dawes et al. (1990) turned to what
research participants who shared said afterward about why they shared. When there was no
prior discussion, most cooperators cited doing the right thing as their major motive. When
there was discussion, most cited group welfare. These self-reports are suggestive, but I do
not believe they are enough to justify the conclusion that collectivist motivation is not
reducible to egoism. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 4, research participants may not know
or, if they know, may not accurately report their true reasons for acting. This seems especially
likely in the Dawes et al. (1990) experiments, given the multiplicity of potential motives for
sharing and the value-laden decision.
219
The possibility that collectivism exists as a prosocial motive independent of egoism is
certainly intriguing and worthy of pursuit. Before conclusions are drawn, however, more and
better evidence is needed. The experiments testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis against
egoistic alternatives reviewed in Chapters 5 and 6 could, I think, provide useful models for
research designs that would provide clearer evidence for or against the existence of
collectivism.

Principlism: Concern to Uphold Some Moral Principle

Principlism is motivation with the ultimate goal of upholding some moral principlefor
example, a principle of fairness or justice, or the utilitarian principle of greatest good for the
greatest number. It is perhaps not surprising that most moral philosophers have argued for the
importance of a prosocial motive other than egoism. But most since Kant (1785/1898) have
shunned altruism and collectivism as well. They reject appeals to altruism, especially
empathy-induced altruism, because feelings of empathy, sympathy, and compassion are too
fickle and circumscribed. Empathic concern is not felt for everyone in need, certainly not to
the same degree. They reject appeals to collectivism because group interest is bounded by the
limits of the group. Collectivism not only permits but may even encourage harming those
outside the group. Given these problems with altruism and collectivism, moral philosophers
typically call for motivation with a goal of upholding some universal and impartial moral
principle. To have another ism, I have called this moral motivation principlism.
Kant argued that the Judeo-Christian commandment to love your neighbor as yourself should
be understood as a moral principle to be upheld rather than as an expression of personal
compassion (1785/1898, Section 1, paragraph 13). Tolstoy (1908/1987) echoed Kants view,
calling the law of love the highest principle of life and asserting that love should be free
from anything personal, from the smallest drop of personal bias towards its object. And such
love can only be felt for ones enemy, for those who hate and offend (p. 230). Principled
love of this kind may be a lofty ideal, but it is far removed from altruism as I have defined it.
Similarly, the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number is universal
and impartial; it affirms that one should give no more weight to what is good for oneself or
those for whom one especially cares than to what is good for anyone else (Mill, 1861/1987).
More recently, John Rawls (1971) argued for a principle of justice based on the allocation of
goods to the members of society from an initial position behind the Veil of Ignorance, where
no one knows his or her place in societyprince or pauper, laborer or lawyer, male or
female, Black or White. Allocating from this position eliminates partiality and seduction by
special interest. A universal, impartial principle of justice much like Rawlss was the basis for
Lawrence Kohlbergs (1976) Post-Conventional or Principled moral reasoning, the highest
level in his stage model of moral development.
Universalist views of morality have not gone unchallenged. Writers like Lawrence Blum
(1980), Carol Gilligan (1982), Thomas Nagel (1991), Nel Noddings (1984), Joan Tronto

220
(1987), and Bernard Williams (1981) have called for recognition of forms of morality that
allow for special interest in the welfare of certain others and certain relationships. In
opposition to an ethic based on fairness and justice; these writers propose an ethic of care.
Sometimes, care is proposed as an alternative principle to justice, either as a substitute or in
dynamic tension with it. At other times, care seems to be an alternative to principled morality
altogether. If care is an alternative principle, then it too may evoke a form of principlism,
motivation to uphold a principle of care (e.g., the principled love of Kant and Tolstoy) or a
principle of doing no harm (Baron, 1996). If, however, care is (a) a special feeling for another
individual, (b) for oneself, or (c) for a relationship, then it would seem to be a form of
altruism, egoism, or collectivism, respectively.
One way to distinguish care for anothers welfare based on altruism from care based on
principlism is to consider Kants (1785/1898) second formulation of the categorical
imperative. This formulation states that we should never treat any person as a means but
always as an end. To act on altruistic motivation, i.e., with the others welfare as an ultimate
rather than an instrumental goal, is to treat the other as an end. If successful, such action
produces a result in accord with the persons-as-ends imperative. But such action is not
morally motivated according to Kant because the altruistic goal is to increase the others
welfare, not to serve principle. It is not enough that ones action be consistent with the
principle; the action must be carried out to uphold the principle.
Parallel distinctions can be made between principlism and both egoism and collectivism.
Consider collectivism. Calls to act for the general welfare often appeal not to the good of
society (collectivism) but to principle. We are told that it is our duty to vote, that it is not
right to leave litter for someone else to clean up, that we should give our fair share to the
United Way, and that we ought to care for the community in which we live. Although
adherence may in each case enhance the common good, these appeals are to principlism.

Promise
Unlike egoism, altruism, and collectivism, principlism provides a motive for responding to
the needs of others that transcends reliance on self-interest and on vested interest in and
feeling for the welfare of certain other individuals or groups. Moral principles that are
universal and impartial are relevant to the welfare of all. This is true, as already noted, of the
utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 1861/1987); it is true
of any principle that satisfies the first formulation of Kants (1785/1898) categorical
imperative (the principle can be willed to be a universal law) and Rawlss (1971) criterion for
justice (allocation of goods and opportunities behind the Veil of Ignorance); it is true of a
principle to do no harm, as well as the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them
do unto you).

Problems
Appeal to principle is not, however, problem free. The major problem with principlism as a
source of motivation to benefit others or society at large is its corruptibility. Moral motivation

221
seems quite vulnerable to rationalization. Most of us are adept at justifying to ourselvesif
not to otherswhy a situation that benefits us or those we care about does not violate our
moral principles. Why, for example, the inequalities in the public school systems of rich and
poor districts in the U.S. are not really unjust (Kozol, 1991). Why we have the right to a
disproportionate share of the worlds natural resources. Why storing our nuclear waste in
someone elses backyard is fair. Why watching public TV without contributing, or why
foregoing the extra effort to recycle, is not wrong. Why attacks by our enemies are atrocities,
but attacks by our side are necessities. Why we must obey orders, even if it means harming
innocents. The abstractness and multiplicity of moral principles make it easy to convince
ourselves that the relevant principles are those that just happen to serve our interests.
Most of us think of ourselves as highly moral (Sedikides & Strube, 1997; Van Lange, 1991).
Yet when our own interest is best served by violating avowed moral principles, we often find
ways to do just this. We manage to see ourselves as fairor at least not unfairwhile
avoiding the cost to self of actually being fair. Moral principles are affirmed, but the
motivation to uphold these principles seems weak.
A number of psychological processes may contribute to this weakness of moral motivation.
First, people may conveniently forget to think about their moral principles if such an
omission serves their interests (Bersoff, 1999). Second, people may actively rationalize
(Tsang, 2002), convincing themselves that a given principle does not apply either to the
specific others whose interests conflict with their own (moral exclusionStaub, 1990) or to
the specific situation (moral disengagementBandura, 1991, 1999). Third, people may
deceive themselves into believing that they acted morally even when they did not (moral
hypocrisyBatson, Kobrynowicz, Dinnerstein, Kampf, & Wilson, 1997). Fourth, moral
principles may be internalized only to the degree that they are experienced as oughts but not
wants (Batson, 2002; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994).
Fifth, in spite of much recent discussion of moral emotions (e.g., Haidt, 2003; Prinz, 2006),
violation of even firmly held moral principles often seems to evoke remarkably little emotion.
The one clear exception is the disgust and anger evoked by violations of propriety principles
such as those prohibiting the sale of body organs, eating a family pet, or incest (Haidt, 2003;
Rozin, Markwith, & Stoess, 1997; Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000). Propriety
morality addresses the natural and social order. Cultural mores prescribing this order are
likely to be valued intrinsically, and their violation seems capable of producing both strong
emotion and strong motivation. Propriety principles may be contrasted with conflict
principles in this regard. Conflict principles address the consideration a person should give to
the interests of others in situations in which their interests conflict with the persons own. In
Western society, fairness and justice principles, as well as principles proscribing harm, form
the core of conflict morality. My suspicion about the scarcity of moral emotion is directed at
conflict morality not propriety morality.
Take the principle of fairness or justice, which is perhaps the most widely endorsed conflict-
morality principle in Western society. Violation of this principle is said to evoke

222
moral outrage. But is outrage or anger at unfairness really a response to the violation of
standards of fairness, or is it a response to the harm done to myself (personal anger), to a
member of a group with which I identify (identity-based anger), or to someone for whom I
care (empathic anger)? Research to date indicates that unfairness can produce each of the
latter three forms of anger, but when the harm is done to someone other than self, a group
member, or a cared-for other, unfairness evokes very little anger. This finding suggests that
the anger experienced is not really a response to violation of the principle but to harm done to
someone for whom one cares (Batson, Kennedy, Nord, Stocks, Fleming, Marzette, Lishner,
Hayes, Kolchinsky, & Zerger, 2007; OMara, Jackson, Batson, & Gaertner, in press). The
same is true for outrage or anger over torture (Batson, Chao, & Givens, 2009). Egoism,
empathy-induced altruism, and collectivism each have a strong emotional base; motivation to
uphold conflict-morality principles, it seems, does not.
Lack of a strong emotional base, coupled with our skill in dodging the thrust of the principles
we espouse, may explain the weak empirical relation between principled morality and
prosocial action (Blasi, 1980). We may use our moral principlesat least our conflict
principlesmore to censure or extol others actions than to motivate our own.

Does Principlism Really Exist?

Indeed, is acting with an ultimate goal of upholding some moral principle really possible?
When Kant (1785/1898) briefly shifted focus from what ought to be to what is, he admitted
that even when our concern for others appears to be prompted by duty to principle, it may
actually be prompted by self-love:
Sometimes it happens that with the sharpest self-examination we can find nothing beside the
moral principle of duty which could have been powerful enough to move us to this or that
action and to so great a sacrifice; yet we cannot from this infer with certainty that it was not
really some secret impulse of self-love, under the false appearance of duty, that was the actual
determining cause of the will. We like to flatter ourselves by falsely taking credit for a more
noble motive; whereas in fact we can never, even by the strictest examination, get completely
behind the secret springs of action.... A cool observer, one that does not mistake the wish for
good, however lively, for its reality, may sometimes doubt whether true virtue is actually
found anywhere in the world, and this especially as years increase and the judgment is partly
made wiser by experience and partly, also, more acute in observation. (Section 2, paragraphs
23)
There are conspicuous self-benefits that arise from acting morally. One can gain the social
and self-rewards of being seen and seeing oneself as a good person. One can avoid the social
and self-punishments of shame and guilt for failing to do the right thing. Perhaps, as Freud
(1930) suggested, society inculcates such principles in the young in order to bridle their
antisocial impulses by making it in their interest to act morally (also see Bandura, 1991;
Campbell, 1975). But even if moral principles are learned in this way, they may come to
function autonomously (Allport, 1961). Through internalization (Staub, 1989) or through
more developed moral reasoning (Gilligan, 1982; Kohlberg, 1976),

223
principles may come to be valued in their own right and not simply as instrumental means to
self-serving endsat least by some people (see Colby & Damon, 1992, for some possible
examples). If so, principlism really exists.
The issue here is the same faced with altruism and collectivism. Once more, we need to know
the nature of the goal. Is upholding a principle of fairness or justice (or some other moral
principle) an instrumental goal on the way to the ultimate goal of self-benefit? If so, the
motive is a subtle and sophisticated form of egoism. Is upholding the principle an ultimate
goal, with the ensuing self-benefits unintended consequences? If so, principlism is a fourth
type of prosocial motivation, independent of egoism, altruism, and collectivism.
Today, Kants candid assessment still stands. I do not think we know whether principlism is a
distinct form of motivation or only a form of egoism. We have empirical evidencelimited
and often weakthat espousal of at least some moral principles, such as Kohlbergs (1976)
principle of universal justice, is associated with increased prosocial behavior (Eisenberg,
1991; Emler, Renwick, & Malone, 1983; Erkut, Jaquette, & Staub, 1981; Sparks & Durkin,
1987). But this evidence does not identify the ultimate goal. Other research reveals that
people are often motivated to appear moral while, if possible, avoid the cost of actually being
moral (Batson, Kobrynowicz et al., 1997; Batson, Thompson, & Chen, 2002; Batson,
Thompson, Seuferling, Whitney, & Strongman, 1999). Motivation to appear moral is a subtle
form of egoism that can easily be mistaken for principlism. To the best of my knowledge,
there is no clear empirical evidence that upholding justice (or any other moral principle)
functions as an ultimate goal. Nor is there clear empirical evidence that rules this possibility
out. As was true for collectivism, the experiments testing the existence of altruism reported in
Part II could provide a useful model for designing the research needed to determine whether
principlism exists.

Conflict and Cooperation of Prosocial Motives

To recognize four possible forms of prosocial motivation makes available more resources to
those seeking to create a more humane society. Said crassly, there are more motivational
buttons to push. At the same time, this availability complicates matters. Different motives,
including prosocial motives, do not always work in harmony. They can undercut and compete
with one another.

Conflict
Well-intentioned attempts to encourage socially beneficial behavior by appeals to self-
interest, even enlightened self-interest, can backfire by undermining other prosocial motives.
Use of monetary incentives (e.g., tax breaks), laws, normative pressure, or other inducements
to stimulate concern for others and for society at large can lead people to believe that the
reason they show concern is to get the inducement. They interpret their motivation as egoistic
even if it originally was not (Batson, Coke, Jasnoski, & Hanson, 1978; Bowles, 2008;
Thomas & Batson, 1981). As a result, the behavior becomes dependent

224
on the inducement. When the inducement is no longer present or in force, the behavior
vanishes (Stukas, Snyder, & Clary, 1999). The assumption that there is only one answer to
the question of why we act for the common goodegoismbecomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy (Batson, Fultz, Schoenrade, & Paduano, 1987) that creates a self-perpetuating norm
of self-interest (Miller, 1999). Think, for example, of the erosion of concern for the poor
among those who feel their support for poverty programs has been coerced through laws and
taxes.
Nor do altruism, collectivism, and principlism always work in harmony. They too can
conflict. For example, altruism canand often doesconflict with both collectivism and
principlism. In Chapter 8, I reviewed results of four experiments indicating that empathy-
induced altruism can lead us to benefit a person for whom we feel empathy at the expense of
what is best for the group. What I did not mention there is that the first two of these
experiments included a questionnaire to assess motivational conflict. Participants were asked
about their desire to maximize the number of raffle tickets received by (a) themselves, (b) the
group as a whole, and (c) each of the other group members. Compared to both no-
communication and low-empathy participants, high-empathy participants reported higher
levels of desire to maximize the tickets received by the group member from whom they got
the empathy-inducing note. Desire to receive tickets oneself was uniformly high across
conditions and experiments, and was not diminished by feelings of empathic concern. Desire
to maximize the tickets received by the group was diminished in the high-empathy condition
of each experiment. To the extent that desire to benefit the group as a whole was an ultimate
goal, and to the extent that these self-reports are valid, they point to a conflict between
empathy-induced altruism and collectivism.
Perhaps, however, benefiting the group reflected a desire to uphold a moral principle of
fairness (equality) or the greatest good for the greatest number. If so, the conflict was
between altruism and principlism. Consistent with this latter possibility, participants in the
last two of the four experiments described in Chapter 8 were asked, Do you think the way
you allocated the tickets was morally right? (1 = not at all; 9 = yes, totally). In both
experiments, there was a powerful effect of the allocation decision on responses to this
question, but no effect of condition and no interaction. Those who allocated to themselves or
to an individual for whom they felt empathic concern considered their action to be less moral
than those who allocated to the group as a whole. These results suggest a conflict of
principlism with both egoism and empathy-induced altruism. Also suggesting a conflict of
principlism with empathy-induced altruism, recall the finding of Batson, Klein et al. (1995,
Experiment 1) that many participants induced to feel empathy for one of two Workers were
willing to show partiality to her even though they thought this unfair.

Cooperation
Different forms of prosocial motivation can also cooperate. Egoism, altruism, collectivism,
and principlism each has strengths, and each has weaknesses. As suggested earlier, the
greatest good may come from strategies that orchestrate these motives so that the strengths of
one can overcome the weaknesses of another.

225
Strategies that combine appeals to either altruism or collectivism with appeals to principle
seem especially promising. For example, think once again about the principle of fairness or
justice. It is universal and impartial, but motivation to uphold justice seems corruptible
vulnerable to oversight, rationalization, and self-deception. This motivation lacks a strong
emotional base. Empathy-induced altruism and collectivism are potentially powerful
prosocial motives, each with a strong emotional base. But they are limited in scope. They
produce special concern for a particular person or persons or for a particular group. Perhaps if
we can lead people to feel empathy for the victims of injustice, or to perceive themselves in a
common group with them, we can combine the unique strengths of two motives. Desire for
justice may provide perspective and reason; empathy-induced altruism or collectivism may
provide emotional fire and a force directed specifically toward seeing the victims suffering
enda want to accompany the moral ought. The combination may discourage oversight
and rationalization (see Solomon, 1990).
To provide a few concrete examples, let me focus on orchestration of empathy-induced
altruism and motivation to uphold justice. Such orchestration occurred, it seems, in the lives
of a number of rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. A careful look at data collected by Samuel
and Pearl Oliner and their colleagues (Oliner & Oliner, 1988) suggests that involvement in
rescue activity frequently began with concern for a specific individual or individuals for
whom compassion was feltoften individuals known previously. This initial involvement
subsequently led to further contacts and rescue activity and to a concern for justice that
extended well beyond the bounds of the initial empathic concern. In several cases, most
notably in the French village of Le Chambon, the result was dramatic indeed.
Such orchestration also seems to have occurred at the time of the bus boycott in Birmingham,
Alabama, in the 1950s. The horrific sight on TV news of a small Black child being rolled
down the street by water from a fire hose under the direction of local policeand the
emotions this sight evokedseemed to do more to arouse a concern for racial equality and
justice than hours of reasoned argument about civil rights.
In these two examples, orchestration was not planned; it occurred as a result of unfolding
events. At times, the orchestra has a human conductor. Intentionally creating confrontations
designed to induce empathic concern for the victims of oppression seems to lie at the heart of
the nonviolent protest in the face of entrenched injustice practiced by Mahatma Gandhi and
by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Such orchestration can also be found in the writing of Jonathan Kozol. Deeply troubled by
the savage inequalities in public education between rich and poor communities in the U.S.,
Kozol (1991) clearly documents disparities, pointing out the injustice. But he does more. He
takes us into the lives of individual children. We come to value their welfare and, as a result,
to care deeply about the injustice. Kozols goal is not simply to get us to feel; he wants to get
us involved in action to improve funding for schools in poor communities. He pursues this
goal by orchestrating the motives of empathy-induced altruism and principlism.

226
However difficult it may be in practice, coordinating altruism and justice by inducing
empathy for victims of unfair treatment is theoretically straightforward. Yet this is not the
only possible way to combine these two motives. The story of wise King Solomon presents a
far more subtle example of the use of empathy-induced altruismand the partiality it
inducesin the service of justice. Recall that two women came before Solomon. One
claimed that when the others infant son died, the bereft mother switched her dead son for the
first womans live one. The other woman claimed that the dead son was the first womans
and the live son hers.
So the king [Solomon] said, Bring me a sword, and they brought a sword before the king.
The king said, Divide the living boy in two; then give half to the one, and half to the other.
But the woman whose son was alive said to the kingbecause compassion for her son
burned within herPlease, my lord, give her the living boy; certainly do not kill him! The
other said, It shall be neither mine nor yours; divide it. Then the king responded: Give the
first woman the living boy; do not kill him. She is his mother. (1 Kings 3:24-27 NRSV)
Thus did Solomon execute justice (1 Kings 3:28). It is hard to imagine a more successful
orchestration of prosocial motives.
Turning to another justice dilemma, one certainly in need of Solomonic wisdom, consider
public welfare and poverty. Is it possible to legislate taxes to underwrite welfare and poverty
programs, yet avoid the egoistic undermining noted earlier, by appeals to empathy-induced
altruism to gain support for initial legislation and appeals to justice to ensure fair
administration? Clearly, there is much to learn about the way egoism, altruism, collectivism,
and principlism can compete and cooperate.
Orchestrating motives is a promising strategy for promoting action on behalf of both those in
need and society at large. It appears capable of producing dramatic results. Yet it is rarely
even considered. The assumption that all human motivation is self-interested has prevented
us from conceiving the possibility of such a strategy. With this assumption no longer tenable,
new possibilities arise.

Conclusion
I encourage anyone interested in stimulating action to benefit others, whether other
individuals, groups, or society at large, to shift attention from the behavior sought and instead
attend to the different motives that might encourage or discourage this behavior. I also
encourage attention to the strengths and weaknesses associated with each relevant motive.
And, rather than an indiscriminate appeal to any and all possible motives, I encourage careful
orchestration so that instead of motives undercutting one another, the strengths of one can be
used to overcome the weaknesses of another. Strategies that combine appeals to either
altruism or collectivism with appeals to principle are clearly promising. You may think of
other promising combinations. If the conceptual analysis offered in this chapter provides food
for such thought, it will have done its job.

227
Summary and Conclusion

To most of us, it is apparent that the dear love of our own selves plays a prominent role in our
lives. Less apparent but no less true, altruism is also prominent. Love of self does not exhaust
our capacity to love; we can care deeply about the welfare of at least some others.
Of course, the significance of these assertions depends on what one means by altruism. If one
means helping behavior, even personally costly helping, or helping in order to gain subtle
self-benefits such as a warm glow or guilt avoidancewhat is meant by altruism by most
behavioral and social scientiststhe existence of altruism cannot be doubted. But to proclaim
the existence of such altruism tells us nothing we did not already know. These definitions
trivialize the centuries old egoism-altruism debate. In that debate, altruism refers to a
motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing anothers welfare; egoism refers to a
motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing ones own welfare. Only by adhering
to these motivational definitions do we face head-on the fundamental issues about human
potential and human nature that lie at the heart of the debate. No light is shed on these issues
if we solve the question of the existence of altruism by redefining the term.
Adhering to these motivational definitions, I have tried to address the question of the
existence of altruism not with reason, rhetoric, or example, but with science. To this end, I
offered an explicit theory of when, why, how, and with what consequences altruistic
motivation occurs. I also reported an extensive series of experiments designed to test key
empirical predictions derived from the central tenet of the theory, and I explored
implications.

The Theory
The central tenet, explicated in Chapter 1, is the empathy-altruism hypothesis: Empathic
concernother-oriented emotion elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of
someone in needproduces altruistic motivation. The question of the existence of altruism
is, at heart, a question about valuing, about the human capacity to care. Are we humans ever,
in any degree capable of valuing anothers welfare as an end in itself,

228
or only our own? The proposed theory is a value-extension theory; it claims that humans are,
indeed, capable of valuing more than their own welfare. The theory fits into the general class
of psychological theories that assume threat to a valued state evokes emotion that, in turn,
produces goal-directed motivation to obtain or maintain the valued state. However, it differs
from most theories in this class because it claims that our valuing is not limited to our own
dear selves.
Consistent with the value-extension character of the theory, the two key antecedents of
empathic concern proposed in Chapter 2 were (a) perception of another as in need and (b)
intrinsic valuing of the others welfare. In previous formulations, I had proposed perception
of need and adoption of the others perspective as the antecedents of empathic concern, and
there is much research consistent with such a proposal. But recent evidence suggests that in
the flow of everyday life, perspective taking is a natural product of valuing the others
welfare, and that the latter is the more fundamental source of empathic concern. Therefore,
the present formulation focuses on perception of need and intrinsic valuing, while at the same
time recognizing that, especially in the laboratory, perspective taking often serves as a proxy
for valuing. Several individual differences, including general emotionality, emotion
regulation, attachment style, and gender, may also affect the level of empathic concern.
However, they seem to function as moderators of the effect of the two key antecedentsneed
and valuingnot as additional antecedents.
Also in Chapter 2, I speculated about cognitive generalization of our emotion-based and goal-
directed human parental instinct as a possible, even plausible, genetic substrate for intrinsic
valuing of anothers welfare, and for empathy-induced altruism. Following McDougall
(1908), I suggested that this generalization may extend to strangerseven to members of
other species. To propose parental nurturance as the genetic basis for altruism in humans is
quite different from currently popular accounts that appeal to inclusive fitness, reciprocal
altruism, sociality, or group selection.
The validity of the parental-nurturance proposal is far from clear. There is a range of
evidence consistent with the idea, considerably more than for currently popular alternatives,
but the evidence is not conclusive. It does, however, suggest that the proposal merits serious
attention.
If the roots of human altruism lie in generalized parental nurturance, then, as noted in the
Introduction, altruism is woven tightly into the fabric of everyday life and not simply
decorative fringe. It is neither exceptional nor unnatural but a central feature of the human
condition. Rather than looking for altruism only in acts of extreme self-sacrifice, it should be
manifest in the everyday experience of people like you and me.
In Chapter 3, I considered behavioral consequences. The altruistic motivation proposed by
the empathy-altruism hypothesis is a goal-directed force to have the empathy-inducing need
removed. It may lead one to help in order to remove the need, but helping is not the only
possible consequence. As does any goal-directed motive, empathy-induced altruism prompts
a cost-benefit analysis. Depending on the specific circumstances and the strength of other
motives present at the time, altruistic motivation may lead one to help, defer to another
possible helper, or do nothing. Egoistic motives may also prompt each of these behaviors,
raising the possibility that the motivation produced by empathic concern

229
is egoistic, not altruistic. Indeed, six different forms of egoistic motivation have been
proposed to account for the motivation produced by empathic concern: aversive-arousal
reduction, two forms of empathy-specific punishment (social and self), and three forms of
empathy-specific reward (rewards for helping, empathic joy, and negative-state relief).
Associated with each form is its own set of possible behaviors.
The range of egoistic motives that might be produced by empathic concern, the possible
behaviors associated with each, and the overlap of these behaviors with those associated with
altruistic motivation complicates the task of determining whether the motivation produced by
empathic concern is altruistic or egoistic. However, careful conceptual analysis reveals that
within this complexity lies the key to testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis against its
egoistic alternatives. As detailed in Chapter 3, each of the proposed egoistic motives differs
from empathy-induced altruistic motivation on the relevance of at least one behavior or
situational condition. These differences provide the opportunity to test the empathy-altruism
hypothesis against each alternative, as well as against various combinations.

The Evidence
In Chapter 4, I explained why I think laboratory experiments are the most appropriate
research method to employ when testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Insofar as I know,
no other method is as suitable. One can easily cite dramatic and touching examples of
personally costly helping performed by humansand by members of other species.
Unfortunately, these examples do not reveal the underlying motivation. In some cases,
perhaps many, the motivation may be in part altruistic, but we cannot know. In every case,
the motivation may instead be exclusively egoistic. Only by systematically varying the
circumstances under which the behavior occurs, as is possible in experiments, can we begin
to draw clear inferences about the nature of the underlying motivation. Experiments are not
the method of choice to address every research question, but they seem uniquely well
equipped to address the question of the existence of altruism.
Chapter 5 summarized results of over thirty experiments conducted to test the empathy-
altruism hypothesis against one or more of the six egoistic alternatives. These experiments
used a variety of different, often complex, procedures. Yet the results are remarkably
consistent and clear in their support of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. A few experiments
were initially interpreted as providing support for one of the egoistic alternatives, but in each
case, subsequent experiments designed to eliminate ambiguities or potential confounds
provided clear support for the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Not only do the existing data
seem to rule out all six of the proposed egoistic alternatives, the data also seem to rule out
any combination of the six. The data even rule out an all-at-once combination, which claims
that empathic concern simultaneously evokes all six egoistic motives.
In recent years, there have been two further challenges to the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
One is that existing data do not adequately test the aversive-arousal-reduction egoistic
alternative because virtually all of the relevant experiments manipulated ease of physical
escape from the empathy-inducing need, whereas the form of escape necessary

230
to test the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis is psychological escape. If people cannot
anticipate that by getting the empathy-inducing need out of sight they can also get it out of
mind, then to manipulate ease of physical escape does not provide a good test of aversive-
arousal reduction.
Contrary to this first challenge, research reviewed in Chapter 6 suggests that in the contexts
in which ease of physical escape has been manipulated, physical escape does seem to provide
an effective manipulation of psychological escape. Moreover, although not designed for this
purpose, two experiments reported in 1991 shed light on the effects of easy versus difficult
psychological escape. Each produced data contrary to predictions of the aversive-arousal-
reduction hypothesis and supportive of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Finally, two recent
experiments expressly designed to manipulate psychological escape provide data that clearly
support the empathy-altruism hypothesis, not aversive-arousal reduction. In light of this
research, the first challenge can be laid to rest. The conclusion that aversive-arousal reduction
cannot explain the motivation produced by empathic concern is now even more justified.
The second challenge is that people feeling empathic concern experience a merging of the
concepts of self and other into a psychological one. Self-interest then leads the
empathically aroused individual to care about the welfare of this self-other unit. If this occurs,
the motivation to help evoked by empathy cannot be called either altruistic or egoistic as I
have defined these terms. Each term assumes that the person whose welfare one is motivated
to increase is a distinct individualother or self.
A number of researchers have claimed that some version of self-other merging can account
for the effects of empathic concern. However, a careful look at the available empirical
evidence (in the second half of Chapter 6) revealed no clear support for any of these claims
and much contrary evidence. Based on this evidence, it seems clear that self-other merging
cannot account for the motivation produced by empathic concern.
In 1990, after reviewing the empathy-altruism research available at the time, as well as
related research in sociology, economics, political science, and biology, Piliavin and Charng
(1990) concluded:
There appears to be a paradigm shift away from the earlier position that behavior that
appears to be altruistic must, under closer scrutiny, be revealed as reflecting egoistic motives.
Rather, theory and data now being advanced are more compatible with the view that true
altruismacting with the goal of benefiting anotherdoes exist and is a part of human
nature. (p. 27)
Twenty years later, the Piliavin and Charng (1990) conclusion still seems correct. Pending
new evidence or a plausible new egoistic explanation of the existing evidence, the empathy-
altruism hypothesis appears true. And, given the diversity of the existing evidence, the
likelihood of finding a plausible new egoistic explanation seems quite low. It is time to
acceptat least as a working hypothesisthe proposition that empathic concern produces
altruistic motivation. It is also time to consider implications of this proposition.
Before turning to implications, two final theoretical points: First, as noted when introducing
Part I, the present theory is not the only theory of how altruism might arise and function in
humans. To find support for the empathy-altruism hypothesis by no means
231
rules out the possibility that there may be sources of altruistic motivation other than empathic
concern. Several have been proposed, including an altruistic personality (Oliner & Oliner,
1988), principled moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1976), and internalized prosocial values (Staub,
1974). There is some evidence that each of these potential sources is associated with
increased motivation to help, but as yet, it is not clear that the motivation is altruistic. For
each, the motivation may instead be an instrumental means to the egoistic ultimate goals of
(a) maintaining a positive self-concept or (b) avoiding guilt. More research is needed to
explore these possibilities. I hope that the research testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis
will both set a standard and serve as model for how one might go about testing other theories
of altruism in humans.
Second, a point about the empirical status of the value antecedent part of the present theory.
The extensive experimental evidence reported in Chapters 5 and 6 addresses the validity of
the core tenet of the theory, the empathy-altruism hypothesis. As emphasized in Chapter 2,
evidence for the value antecedent of empathic concern, and especially for parental nurturance
as the genetic substrate for empathy-induced altruism, is more limited and less conclusive.
Future research could reveal the need for revision of that part of the theory. Claimed
antecedents of empathic concern have changed before and may change again. Such change
would lead to a different theory from the one proposed, but as long as the core proposition
the empathy-altruism hypothesisremains intact, it would still be a theory of empathy-
induced altruistic motivation. A change regarding antecedents would point to different
circumstances and strategies for inducing empathic concern. It would not change most of the
implications of empathy-induced altruistic motivation, once aroused, presented in Part III.

Implications
Overall, the evidence reviewed in Part III suggests that empathy-induced altruism is a more
pervasive and powerful force in our lives than has been recognized. The ideas and evidence
presented in Chapter 7 reveal that altruism can be an important positive force in human
affairs. Empathy-induced altruism offers benefits in the form of more and more sensitive help
for those in need, less aggression, increased cooperation in competitive situations, improved
attitudes toward and more action on behalf of stigmatized groups, and more positive close
relationships. It may also provide health benefits to the altruistic helper.
However, empathy-induced altruism is not always a force for good. To use its power wisely,
we need to be aware of not only of the potential benefits considered in Chapter 7 but also
potential liabilities considered in Chapter 8. Empathy-induced altruism can, at times, harm
those in need, and it can be overridden by self-concern. Under certain conditions, people are
motivated to avoid feeling empathic concern in order to avoid the altruistic motivation it
produces. Many important societal needs do not evoke empathic concern, at least not easily
or directly. Empathy-induced altruistic motivation can lead one to act in ways that violate
ones own moral principles and undermine the collective

232
good. It can also be harmful to ones healthsometimes even fatal. These benefits and
liabilities need to be taken into account in any attempt to make use of empathy-induced
altruism to promote human welfare.
In Chapter 9, I suggested that if humans are capable of extending intrinsic value beyond
themselves to care about the welfare of others, the dogma of universal egoism that has
dominated thinking in the behavioral and social sciences, especially in psychology and
economics, must give way to a pluralism of prosocial motives that includes altruism. The
self-interest-only value assumption that lay at the core of the theory of rational choice must
be rejected. And once we make room for altruism, we face the possibility that intrinsic value
can be extended to states other than ones own and anothers welfare. There may be prosocial
motives other than egoism and altruism.
Two additional prosocial motives deserve consideration: collectivism and principlism.
Collectivismmotivation with the ultimate goal of benefiting some group or collective as a
wholemay be a powerful resource when facing the social dilemmas that plague us in
modern life. Principlismmotivation with the ultimate goal of upholding some moral
principlehas long been extolled by religious teachers and moral philosophers. Whether
collectivism and principlism are independent of and irreducible to egoism is not yet clear.
Research done to test the independent status of empathy-induced altruism should serve as a
useful model for research assessing the independence from egoism of each.
As is true for egoism and altruism, both collectivism and principlismif they existhave
strengths and weaknesses. The best hope for creating a more humane society may lie in
orchestrating prosocial motives so that the strengths of one can serve to overcome the
weaknesses of another.

Looking Forward
In Chapter 4, I mentioned Kurt Lewins frequently quoted dictum: There is nothing so
practical as a good theory (Lewin, 1951, p. 169). This statement is often taken to be an
admonition to theoreticians to make their efforts practical. In fact, if one reads Lewins full
sentence, it is clear that the statement was directed at practitioners, advising them that if they
want to move beyond trial and error in dealing with real-world problems, they need to base
their efforts on a good theoretical understanding of the relevant underlying processes. It is not
even enough to base ones efforts on empirical research; theory is what counts. (Earlier in the
same sentence, Lewin delivered his admonition to theorists, encouraging them to not look
toward applied problems with highbrow aversion or... fear.)
Lewins point was that just as engineers need to base their work on good theories from
physics, and physicians need to base their work on good theories from chemistry and biology,
even so educators, counselors, therapists, social workers, ministers, businesspeople, lawyers,
judges, and social-policy makers need to base their work on good theories from the
behavioral and social sciences. What makes a theory good? Its ability to provide an accurate
and illuminating understanding of the processes underlying the

233
surface phenomena in question. Such understanding takes us beyond the specifics of
particular empirical findings to general and broadly applicable principles. I thinkhopethe
proposed theory of empathy-induced altruism qualifies as good in this sense.
Of course, a good theory is, in itself, not enough. Theory may be a crucial guide but does not
dictate practice. Any application must be adapted to the particulars of the situation and the
problem addressed. In Part III, I attempted to suggest some of the practical potential of the
proposed theory, as well as to highlight limitations. However, my suggestions there provide
only a first step toward development of viable programs and institutions that take advantage
of what we now know about empathy-induced altruism. The next step is up to practitioners.
Viable programs and institutions cannot be created and implemented in the abstracteven as
you cannot build a bridge or cure a patient in the abstract.
To say that the next step is up to practitioners is not to say that the research job is done. Any
procedure, program, or institution, even one based on good theory, needs to be carefully and
continually evaluated. This evaluation can not only reveal implementation flaws but also
expose theoretical shortcomings and suggest new insights, which then need to be tested in
further basic research. Additional research is also needed on the benefits and liabilities of
empathy-induced altruism described in Chapters 7 and 8, as well as on the idea of
orchestrating prosocial motives (Chapter 9).
As a result of the empathy-altruism research over the past four decades, we know more than
we did about human motivation, and even about human nature. We know that we almost
certainly need to move beyond the simplicity of universal egoism to a pluralism of prosocial
motives that also includes altruismand possibly collectivism and principlism. We also
know more than we did about the antecedents and consequences of empathy-induced
altruism, as well as about its practical implications and limitations. We do not know all we
want or need to know, but these are substantial gains.
Failure to capitalize on what we now know could cost us dearly. I have emphasized that the
most that can be said for the empathy-altruism hypothesis is that it is tentatively true. As with
any empirical hypothesis, the existing evidence cannot be claimed to support it with dead
certainty. But to wait for dead certainty is to wait too long. We shall all be dead first.
Many problems confront us todayrage and hate crimes, child and spouse abuse, neglect of
the homeless, the plight of people with AIDS, exploding population and diminishing
resources, the growing disparity between rich and poor (and smug callousness toward the
latter), ostracism, isolation, loneliness, taunting, bullying, prejudice, oppression, racial,
ethnic, and religious conflict in our schools, our society, our world. These crying needs will
not wait. Empathy-induced altruism does not offer a magic solution to any of these problems,
but it has the potential to contribute to solutions for each. We need to make use of what we
have learned, and do so now. Doubtless, we shall learn more in the process.

234
References

Adams, F. (2001). Empathy, neural imaging, and the theory versus simulation debate. Mind and
Language, 16, 368392.
Aderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. (1970). Observational set, empathy, and helping. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 14, 141148.
Aderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. (1983). Self-concern and the unwillingness to be helpful. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 46, 293301.
Aderman, D., Brehm, S. S., & Katz, L. B. (1974). Empathic observation of an innocent victim: The just
world revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 342347.
Adolphs, R. (1999). Social cognition and the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 469479.
Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Alfano, G., & Marwell, G. (1980). Experiments on the provision of public goods by groups III: Non-
divisibility and free riding in real groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 300309.
Allen, K. (2003). Are pets a healthy pleasure? The influence of pets on blood pressure. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 12, 236239.
Allman, J. M., Watson, K. K., Tetreault, N. A., & Hakeem, A. Y. (2005). Intuition and autism: A possible
role for Von Economo neurons. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 367373.
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ames, D. L., Jenkins, A. C., Banaji, M. R., & Mitchell, J. P. (2008). Taking another persons perspective
increases self-referential neural processing. Psychological Science, 19, 642644.
Anderson, S. W., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1999). Impairment of social
and moral behavior related to early damage in human prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1032
1037.
Aquinas, T. (1917). The summa theologica, Vol. 2, Part II. (Fathers of the English Dominican Province,
Trans.). New York: Benziger Bros. (Original work produced 1270)

235
Archer, R. L. (1984). The farmer and the cowman should be friends: An attempt at reconciliation with
Batson, Coke, and Pych. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 709711.
Archer, R. L., Diaz-Loving, R., Gollwitzer, P. M., Davis, M. H., & Foushee, H. C. (1981). The role of
dispositional empathy and social evaluation in the empathic mediation of helping. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 40, 786796.
Aristotle. (1932). The Rhetoric of Aristotle (Lane Cooper, Trans.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self. New York: Hemisphere.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241253.
Aronfreed, J. (1968). Conduct and conscience: The socialization of internalized control over behavior.
New York: Academic Press.
Aronson, E. (2004). Reducing hostility and building compassion: Lessons from the Jigsaw Classroom. In
A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 469488). New York: Guilford Press.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit of
common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 438446.
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effects of the severity of threat on the devaluation of forbidden
behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 584588.
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 179). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social
psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 13901396.
Bain, A. (1899). Emotions and the will. London: Longmans, Green.
Balzac, H. de (1962). Pere Goriot (H. Reed, Trans.). New York: New American Library. (Original work
published 1834)
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L.
Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1: Theory, pp. 45103). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 3, 193209.
Bandura, A., & Rosenthal, L. (1966). Vicarious classical conditioning as a function of arousal level.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 5462.
Bargal, D., & Bar, H. (1992). A Lewinian approach to intergroup workshops for Arab-Palestinian and
Jewish youth. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 139154.
Barnett, M. A. (1987). Empathy and related responses in children. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.),
Empathy and its development (pp. 146162). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bar-On, D., & Kassem, F. (2004). Storytelling as a way to work through intractable conflicts: The
German-Jewish experience and its relevance to the Palestinian-Israeli context. Journal of Social Issues,
60, 289306.
236
Baron, J. (1996). Do no harm. In D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral
research into business ethics (pp. 197213). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Barraza, J. A., & Zak, P. J. (2009). Empathy toward strangers triggers oxytocin release and subsequent
generosity. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1167, 182189.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 28, 91100.
Bar-Tal, D. (1976). Prosocial behavior: Theory and research. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing
Co.
Bar-Tal, D., Sharabany, R., & Raviv, A. (1982). Cognitive basis for the development of altruistic
behavior. In V. J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research
(pp. 377396). New York: Academic Press.
Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. NeuroReport, 11, 38293834.
Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21,
11551166.
Bates, L. A., Lee, P. C., Njiraini, N., Poole, J. H., Sayialel, K., Sayialel, S., Moss, C. J., & Byren, R. W.
(2008). Do elephants show empathy? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15, 204225.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65122). New York: Academic Press.
Batson, C. D. (1990). How social an animal? The human capacity for caring. American Psychologist, 45,
336346.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates.
Batson, C. D. (1994). Why act for the public good? Four answers. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20, 603610.
Batson, C. D. (1997). Self-other merging and the empathy-altruism hypothesis: Reply to Neuberg et al.
(1997). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 517522.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and helping behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.), (Vol. 2, pp. 282316). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Batson, C. D. (2002). Justice motivation and moral motivation. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The
justice motive in everyday life (pp. 91106). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Batson, C. D. (2010). The Naked Emperor: Seeking a more plausible genetic basis for psychological
altruism. Economics and Philosophy, 26, 149164.
Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2001). Empathy-induced altruism in a Prisoners Dilemma II: What if the
target of empathy has defected? European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 2536.
Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2009a). Empathy-induced altruism: A threat to the collective good. In S. R.
Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds), Altruism and prosocial behavior in groups: Advances in group processes (Vol.
26, pp. 123). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2009b). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations. Social
Issues and Policy Review, 3, 141177.
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Yin, J., Bedell, S. J., Johnson, J. W., Templin, C. M., & Whiteside, A. (1999).
Two threats to the common good: Self-interested egoism and empathy-induced altruism. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 316.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Griffitt, C. A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J. R., Sprengelmeyer, P., & Bayly, M.
J. (1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 922933.
237
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991).
Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
413426.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Todd, R. M., Brummett, B. H., Shaw, L. L., & Aldeguer, C. M. R. (1995).
Empathy and the collective good: Caring for one of the others in a social dilemma. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 619631.
Batson, C. D., Bolen, M. H., Cross, J. A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, H. (1986). Where is the altruism in the
altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 212220.
Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a
member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 16561666.
Batson, C. D., Chao, M. C., & Givens, J. M. (2009). Pursuing moral outrage: Anger at torture. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 155160.
Batson, C. D., Coke, J. S., Jasnoski, M. L., & Hanson, M. (1978). Buying kindness: Effect of an extrinsic
incentive for helping on perceived altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 8691.
Batson, C. D., Coke, J. S., & Pych, V. (1983). Limits on the two-stage model of empathic mediation of
helping: A reply to Archer, Diaz-Loving, Gollwitzer, Davis, and Foushee. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45, 895898.
Batson, C. D., Duncan, B., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source
of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 290302.
Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C.
(1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 5277.
Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus
imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751758.
Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent
of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 6574.
Batson, C. D., Engel, C. L., & Fridell, S. R. (1999). Value judgments: Testing the somatic-marker
hypothesis using false physiological feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1021
1032.
Batson, C. D., Floyd, R. B., Meyer, J. M., & Winner, A. L. (1999). And who is my neighbor? Intrinsic
religion as a source of universal compassion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 445457.
Batson, C. D., Fultz, J. N., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct
vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 1940.
Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., Schoenrade, P. A., & Paduano, A. (1987). Critical self-reflection and self-
perceived altruism: When self-reward fails. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 594602.
Batson, C. D., Kennedy, C. L., Nord, L.-A., Stocks, E. L., Fleming, D. A., Marzette, C. M., Lishner, D.
A., Hayes, R. E., Kolchinsky, L. M., & Zerger, T. (2007). Anger at unfairness: Is it moral outrage?
European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 12721285.
Batson, C. D., Klein, T. R., Highberger, L., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Immorality from empathy-induced
altruism: When compassion and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1042
1054.

238
Batson, C. D., Kobrynowicz, D., Dinnerstein, J. L., Kampf, H. C., & Wilson, A. D. (1997). In a very
different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1335
1348.
Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., Carpenter, A., Dulin, L., Harjusola-Webb, S., Stocks, E. R., Gale, S.,
Hassan, O., & Sampat, B. (2003). ... As you would have them do unto you: Does imagining yourself in
the others place stimulate moral action? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 11901201.
Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., Cook, J., & Sawyer, S. (2005). Similarity and nurturance: Two possible
sources of empathy for strangers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1525.
Batson, C. D., & Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced altruism in a Prisoners Dilemma. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 909924.
Batson, C. D., OQuin, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, M., & Isen, A. (1983). Self-reported distress and
empathy and egoistic versus altruistic motivation for helping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 706718.
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein,
T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group
improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105118.
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced
helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495509.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991a). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives.
Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107122.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991b). Encouraging words concerning the evidence for altruism.
Psychological Inquiry, 2, 159168.
Batson, C. D., Shaw, L. L., & Oleson, K. C. (1992). Differentiating affect, mood, and emotion: Toward
functionally based conceptual distinctions. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social
psychology: Vol. 13, Emotion (pp. 294326). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Batson, C. D., Sympson, S. C., Hindman, J. L., Decruz, P., Todd, R. M., Weeks, J. L., Jennings, G., &
Burris, C. T. (1996). Ive been there, too: Effect on empathy of prior experience with a need.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 474482.
Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., & Chen, H. (2002). Moral hypocrisy: Addressing some alternatives.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 330339.
Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. (1999). Moral hypocrisy:
Appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 525537.
Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995). Information function of empathic emotion:
Learning that we value the others welfare. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 300313.
Batson, C. D., & Weeks, J. L. (1996). Mood effects of unsuccessful helping: Another test of the empathy-
altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 148157.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (4th ed.), (Vol. 1, pp. 680740). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1986). I show you how you feel: Motor mimicry
as a communicative act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 322329.

239
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1987). Motor mimicry as primitive empathy. In N.
Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 317338). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Becker, H. (1931). Some forms of sympathy: A phenomenological analysis. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 26, 5868.
Bell, D. C. (2001). Evolution of parental caregiving. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 216
229.
Belman, J., & Flanagan, M. (2010). Designing games to foster empathy. Cognitive Technology, 14, 515.
Bentham, J. (1876). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: The Clarendon
Press. (Original work published 1789)
Berenguer, J. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment
and Behavior, 39, 269283.
Berger, S. (1962). Conditioning through vicarious instigation. Psychological Review, 69, 450466.
Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E., Berscheid, A. Christiansen, J. H. Harvey, T. L.
Houston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. L. Peterson, Close relationships (pp. 110168).
New York: W. H. Freeman.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.), (Vol. 2, pp. 193281). Boston: McGraw-
Hill.
Bersoff, D. M. (1999). Why good people sometimes do bad things: Motivated reasoning and unethical
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 2839.
Bierhoff, H.-W., & Rohmann, E. (2004). Altruistic personality in the context of the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. European Journal of Personality, 18, 351365.
Blair, R. J. R. (2004). The roles of orbital frontal cortex in the modulation of antisocial behavior. Brain
and Cognition, 55, 198208.
Blair, R. J. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 387392.
Blake, J. A. (1978). Death by hand grenade: Altruistic suicide in combat. Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behavior, 8, 4659.
Blakemore, S. J., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Self-awareness and action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13,
219224.
Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 145.
Blum, L. A. (1980). Friendship, altruism, and morality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Boehm, C. (1999). The natural selection of altruistic traits. Human nature, 10, 205252.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowles, S. (2008). Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine the moral sentiments:
Evidence from economic experiments. Science, 320, 16051609.
Brehm, J. W., & Cole, A. H. (1966). Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 3, 420426.
Breskin, D. (1985). We are the world. New York: Putnam.
Bretherton, I., McNew, S., & Beeghly-Smith, M. (1981). Early person knowledge as expressed in gestural
and verbal communication: When do infants acquire a theory of mind? In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod
(Eds.), Infant social cognition (pp. 333373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer, Jr.
(Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
240
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity,
group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543549.
Bridgeman, D. L. (1981). Enhanced role-taking through cooperative interdependence: A field study. Child
Development, 52, 12311238.
Brosnan, S. F., Silk, J. B., Henrich, J., Mareno, M. C., Lambeth, S. P., & Schapiro, S. J. (2009).
Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) do not develop contingent reciprocity in an experimental task. Animal
Cognition, 12, 587597.
Brothers, L. (1989). A biological perspective on empathy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1019.
Brown, C. (1965). Manchild in the promised land. New York: Macmillan.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brown, S. L., & Brown, R. M. (2006). Selective investment theory: Recasting the functional significance
of close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 129.
Brown, S. L., Nesse, R., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003). Providing support may be more
beneficial than receiving it: Results from a prospective study of mortality. Psychological Science, 14,
320327.
Brown, S. L., Smith, D. M., Schultz, R. Kabeto. M. U., Ubel, P. A., Poulin, M, Yi, J., Kim, C., & Langa,
K. M. (2009). Caregiving behavior is associated with decreased mortality risk. Psychological Science, 20,
488494.
Buck, R. (1984). The communication of emotion. New York: Guilford Press.
Buck, R. (1985). Prime theory: An integrated view of motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92,
389413.
Buck, R., & Ginsburg, B. (1991). Spontaneous communication and altruism: The communicative gene
hypothesis. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 12. Prosocial
behavior (pp. 149175). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bunzl, M. (2007). The next best thing. In K. A. Appiah & M. Bunzl (Eds.), Buying freedom: The ethics
and economy of slave redemption (pp. 235248). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism:
Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 773789.
Burton, J. W. (1986). The procedures of conflict resolution. In E. E. Azar & J. W. Burton (Eds.),
International conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 92116). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner.
Burton, J. W. (1987). Resolving deep-rooted conflict. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.) (Vol. 2, pp. 9821026). Boston: McGraw
Hill.
Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1990). The effect of a prejudice-reduction simulation on attitude change.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 341356.
Caldwell, M. C., & Caldwell, D. K. (1966). Epimeletic (care-giving) behavior in Cetacea. In K. S. Norris
(Ed.), Whales, dolphins, and porpoises (pp. 755789). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 12, 187192.

241
Campbell, D. T. (1975). On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology
and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 30, 11031126.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Caporeal, L. R., Dawes, R., Orbell, J. M., & van de Kragt, A. J. C. (1989). Selfishness examined:
Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 683739.
Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., Troyer, D., Switzer, G., & Speer, A. L. (1991). The altruistic personality: In what
contexts is it apparent? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 450458.
Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779818.
Carter, C. S. (2007). Monogamy, motherhood, and health. In S. G. Post (Ed.), Altruism and health:
Perspectives from empirical research (pp. 371388). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cassirer, E. (1921). Substance and function (W. C. Swabey, Trans.). Chicago: Open Court. (Original work
published 1910)
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The Chameleon Effect: The perception-behavior link and social
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893910.
Church, R. M. (1959). Emotional reaction of rats to the pain of others. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 52, 132134.
Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 124
126.
Cialdini, R. B., Baumann, D. J., & Kenrick, D. T. (1981). Insights from sadness: A three-step model of the
development of altruism as hedonism. Developmental Review, 1, 207223.
Cialdini, R. B, Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-
altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 481494.
Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: A case for hedonism.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502516.
Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (1976). Altruism as hedonism: A social development perspective on the
relationship of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 907
914.
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L. (1987). Empathy-based
helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 749
758.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1224.
Clark, R. D., & Word, L. E. (1972). Why dont bystanders help? Because of ambiguity? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 392401.
Clark, R. D., & Word, L. E. (1974). Where is the apathetic bystander? Situational characteristics of the
emergency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 279288.
Clore, G. L., & Jeffrey, K. M. (1972). Emotional role playing, attitude change, and attraction toward a
disabled person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 105111.
Cohen, D., & Taylor, L. (1989). Dogs and their women. Boston: Little, Brown.
Cohen, T. R., & Insko, C. A. (2008). War and peace: Possible approaches to reducing intergroup conflict.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 8793.
Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 752766.
242
Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. New York:
Free Press.
Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., Kane, H. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2008). Responding to need in
intimate relationships: Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to partner distress. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California Santa Barbara.
Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., Kane, H. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2010). Responding to need in
intimate relationships: Social support and care-giving processes in couples. In M. Mikulincer & P. R.
Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 367389).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Connor, R. C., & Norris, K. S. (1982). Are dolphins reciprocal altruists? American Naturalist, 119, 358
374.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribners Sons.
Craig, A. D. (2005). Forebrain emotional asymmetry: A neuroanatomical basis? Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 9, 566571.
Craig, K. D., & Lowery, J. H. (1969). Heart-rate components of conditioned vicarious autonomic
responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 381387.
Craig, K. D., & Wood, K. (1969). Psychophysiological differentiation of direct and vicarious affective
arousal. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1, 98105.
Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships:
The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 555
575.
Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Process affecting scores on understanding of others and assumed similarity.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177193.
Curtis, J. T., & Wang, Z. (2003). The neurochemistry of pair bonding. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12, 4953.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Avon
Books.
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness.
New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Damasio, A. R. (2002). A note on the neurobiology of emotions. In S. G. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P.
Schloss, & W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in
dialogue (pp. 264271). New York: Oxford University Press.
Damasio, A. R. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Damasio, H. (2002). Impairment of interpersonal social behavior caused by acquired brain damage. In S.
G. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, & W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love: Science,
philosophy, and religion in dialogue (pp. 272283). New York: Oxford University Press.
Danziger, N., Faillenot, I., & Peyron, R. (2009). Can we share a pain we never felt? Neural correlates of
empathy in patients with congenital insensitivity to pain. Neuron, 61, 203212.
Darwall, S. (1998). Empathy, sympathy, care. Philosophical Studies, 89, 261282.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. New York: Appleton.
Davidson, R. J. (2000). The functional neuroanatomy of affective style. In R. D. Lane & L. Nadel (Eds.),
Cognitive neuroscience of emotion. Series in affective science (pp. 371388). London: Oxford University
Press.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113126.
243
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). The effect of perspective taking on the cognitive
representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
713726.
Davis, M. H., Luce, C., & Kraus, S. J. (1994). The heritability of characteristics associated with
dispositional empathy. Journal of Personality, 62, 369391.
Davis, M. H., Soderlund, T., Cole, J., Gadol, E., Kute, M., Myers, M., & Weihing, J. (2004). Cognitions
associated with attempts to empathize: How do we imagine the perspective of another? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 16251635.
Davis, M. R. (1985). Perceptual and affective reverberation components. In A. P. Goldstein & G. Y.
Michaels (Eds.), Empathy: Development, training, and consequences (pp. 62108). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dawes, R. M. (1991). Social dilemmas, economic self-interest, and evolutionary theory. In D. R. Brown &
J. E. K. Smith (Eds.), Frontiers of mathematical psychology: Essays in honor of Clyde Coombs (pp. 53
79). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dawes, R. M., McTavish, J., & Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about
other peoples behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
35, 111.
Dawes, R. M., van de Kragt, A. J. C., & Orbell, J. M. (1988). Not me or thee but we: The importance of
group identity in eliciting cooperation in dilemma situations: Experimental manipulations. Acta
Psychologica, 68, 8397.
Dawes, R., van de Kragt, A. J. C., & Orbell, J. M. (1990). Cooperation for the benefit of usnot me, or
my conscience. In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 97110). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1979, February). Ten misconceptions about kin selection. Lecture presented at Oxford
University, Oxford, England.
Decety, J. (2010a). To what extent is the experience of empathy mediated by shared neural circuits?
Emotion Review, 2, 204207.
Decety, J. (2010b). Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy. Emotion Review, 2.
Decety, J., & Chaminade, T. (2003). Neural correlates of feeling sympathy. Neuropsychologia, 41, 127
138.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2007). The role of the right temporoparietal junction in social interaction: How
low-level computational processes contribute to meta-cognition. The neuroscientist, 13, 580593.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-
determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119142.
Deigh, J. (2004). Nussbaums account of compassion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 68,
465472.
de Pal, J., & Guibert, M. (2008). Empathy and child neglect: A theoretical model. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 32, 10631071.
de Pal, J., Prez-Albniz, A., Guibert, M., Asla, N., & Ormaechea, A. (2008). Dispositional empathy in
neglectful mothers and mothers at high risk for child physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
23, 670684.
Des Pres, T. (1976). The survivor: An anatomy of life in the death camps. New York: Oxford University
Press.
244
de Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2005). The empathic brain: How, when, and why? Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 10, 435441.
de Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
de Waal, F. B. M. (2006). Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual
Review of Psychology, 59, 279300.
de Waal, F. B. M. (2009). The age of empathy: Natures lessons for a kinder society. New York: Harmony
Books.
de Waal, F. B. M. (2010). The evolution of empathy. In D. Keltner, J. Marsh, & J. A. Smith (Eds.), The
compassionate instinct (pp. 1625). New York: W. W. Norton.
de Waal, F. B. M., Leimgruber, K., & Greenberg, A. R. (2008). Giving is self-rewarding for monkeys.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 1368513689.
Dickens, C. (1913). A Christmas carol in prose, being a ghost story of Christmas. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin. (Original work published 1843)
Dickens, C. (1969). Hard times. New York: Penguin. (Original work published 1854)
Dijker, A. J. (2001). The influence of perceived suffering and vulnerability on the experience of pity.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 659-676.
Dimberg, U., Thunberg, M., & Elmehed, K. (2000). Unconscious facial reactions to emotional facial
expressions. Psychological Science, 11, 8689.
Dixon, T. (2008). The invention of altruism: Making moral meanings in Victorian Britain. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Dizon, M., Butler, L. D., & Koopman, C. (2007). Befriending mans best friends: Does altruism toward
animals promote psychological and physical health? In S. G. Post (Ed.), Altruism and health: Perspectives
from empirical research (pp. 277291). New York: Oxford University Press.
Donaldson, Z. R., & Young, L. J. (2008). Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality.
Science, 322, 900-904.
Dondi, M., Simion, F., & Caltran, G. (1999). Can newborns discriminate between their own cry and the
cry of another newborn infant? Developmental Psychology, 35, 418426.
Dovidio, J. F. (1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 361427). New York:
Academic Press.
Dovidio, J. F., Allen, J. L., & Schroeder, D. A. (1990). The specificity of empathy-induced helping:
Evidence for altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 249260.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of we: Social
attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 320.
Dovidio, J. F., Johnson, J. D., Gaertner, S. L., Pearson, A. R., Saguy, T., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2010).
Empathy and intergroup relations. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions,
and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 393408). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A., & Clark, R. D., III (1991). The
arousal/cost-reward model and the process of intervention: A review of the evidence. In M. S. Clark (Ed.),
Prosocial behavior (pp. 86118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

245
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2006). The social psychology of
prosocial behavior. Mahawan, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dovidio, J. F., ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J. D., Esses, V. M., Rick, B. M.,
& Pearson, A. R. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 15371549.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Doyle, A. C. (1890). The sign of four. London: Spencer Blackett.
Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy, and understanding. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Dymond, R. F. (1950). Personality and empathy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 14, 343350.
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eisenberg, N. (1991). Meta-analytic contributions to the literature on prosocial behavior. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 273282.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual review of psychology, 51,
665697.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., Mathy, R. M., & Reno, R. R. (1989).
Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: A multimethod study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 5566.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Maszk, P, Smith, M., OBoyle, C., & Suh, K.
(1994). The relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and situational empathy-related
responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 776797.
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological
Bulletin, 94, 100131.
Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S., & Spinrad, T. (2003). Affect and prosocial responding. In R. J. Davidson, K. R.
Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 787803). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Eisenberg, N., McCreath, H., & Ahn, R. (1988). Vicarious emotional responsiveness and prosocial
behavior: Their interrelations in young children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 298
311.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). Empathy and prosocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91
119.
Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Schaller, M., Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., & Shea, C. L. (1989). The role
of sympathy and altruistic personality traits in helping: A reexamination. Journal of Personality, 57, 41
67.
Eisenberg, N., & Morris, A. S. (2001). The origins and social significance of empathy-related responding.
A review of Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice by M. L. Hoffman.
Social Justice Research, 14, 95120.
Eisenberg, N., Strayer, J. (Eds.) (1987). Empathy and its development. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Eliasz, H. (1980). The effect of empathy, reactivity, and anxiety on interpersonal aggression intensity.
Polish Psychological Bulletin, 11, 169178.
Emde, R. N., Plomin, R., Robinson, J., Corley, R., DeFries, J., Fulker, D. W., Reznick, J. S., Campos, J.,
Kagan, J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1992). Temperament, emotion, and cognition at fourteen months: The
MacArthur Longitudinal Twin Study. Child Development, 63, 14371455.
Emler, N., Renwick, S., & Malone, B. (1983). The relationship between moral reasoning and political
orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 10731080.
246
Englis, B. G., Vaughan, K. B., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1982). Conditioning of counter-empathetic emotional
responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 375391.
Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring
and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327339.
Epstein, K. (2006, Spring). Crisis mentality: Why sudden emergencies attract more funds than do chronic
conditions, and how nonprofits can change that. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4857.
Erkut, S., Jaquette, D. S., & Staub, E. (1981). Moral judgment-situation interaction as a basis for
predicting prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality, 49, 114.
Eslinger, P. J. (1998). Neurological and neuropsychological bases of empathy. European Neurology,
1998, 193199.
Esses, V. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in
intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 12021214.
Essock-Vitale, S. M., & McGuire, M. T. (1980). Predictions derived from the theories of kin selection and
reciprocation assessed by anthropological data. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 233243.
Evans, V. E., & Braud, W. G. (1969). Avoidance of a distressed conspecific. Psychonomic Science, 15,
166.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of care-giving in adult intimate relationships: An
attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 972994.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2003). Motivations for care-giving in adult intimate relationships:
Influences on care-giving behavior and relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 950968.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 25, 6387.
Fehr, E., & Gchter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137140.
Fehr, E., & Zehnder, C. (2009). Altruism (economic perspective). In D. Sander & K. Scherer (Eds.), The
Oxford companion to Emotion and Affective Sciences (pp. 2426). New York: Oxford University Press.
Feldman, R., Weller, A., Zagoory-Sharon, O., & Levine, A. (2007). Evidence for a neuroendocrinological
foundation of human affiliation: Plasma oxytocin levels across pregnancy and the postpartum period
predict mother-infant bonding. Psychological Science, 18, 965970.
Feshbach, N. D., & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in six- and seven-year-olds. Child Development, 39, 133
145.
Figley, C. R. (2002). Compassion fatigue: Psychotherapists chronic lack of self-care. Journal of Clinical
Psychology (Special Issue: Chronic illness), 58, 14331441.
Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., & Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship
quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 2737.
Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Reducing prejudice: The effects of empathy on intergroup
attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 17201737.
Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., & DePaulo, B. M. (Eds.) (1983). New directions in helping: Vol. 1. Recipient
reactions to aid. New York: Academic Press.
Fisher, R. (1994). General principles for resolving intergroup conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 47
66.
Frank, R. H. (2003). Adaptive rationality and the moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H.
H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 891896). New York: Oxford University Press.

247
Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 7, 159171.
Freud, S. (1922). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. London: International Psycho-Analytic
Press.
Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents (J. Riviere, Trans.). London: Hogarth.
Frodi, A. M., & Lamb, M. E. (1980). Child abusers responses to infant smiles and cries. Child
Development, 51, 238241.
Fultz, J., Batson, C. D., Fortenbach, V. A., McCarthy, P. M., & Varney, L. L. (1986). Social evaluation
and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 761769.
Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., Guerrero Witt, M., & Oria, M. M. (2006). Us without them: Evidence for an
intragroup origin of positive ingroup regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 426439.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Gaines, T., Kirwin, P. M., & Gentry, W. D. (1977). The effect of descriptive anger expression, insult, and
no feedback on interpersonal aggression, hostility, and empathy motivation. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 95, 349367.
Galileo. (1952). Dialogues concerning the two new sciences (H. Crew & A. de Salvio, Trans.). Chicago:
Encyclopedia Britannica. (Original work published 1638)
Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30, 594604.
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of
your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological
Science, 19, 378384.
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression,
stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708
724.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving: The caregiving behavioral system. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver, Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 649
670). New York: Guilford.
Gibbons, F. X., & Wicklund, R. A. (1982). Self-focused attention and helping behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 462474.
Gies, M. (1987). Anne Frank remembered: The story of the woman who helped to hide the Frank family.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gilbert, D. (2007, March 25). Compassionate commercialism. New York Times, Op-Ed Contribution.
Gillberg, C. L. (1992). Autism and autistic-like conditions: Subclasses among disorders of empathy.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 33, 813842.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and
empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 351-374.
Goldman, A. I. (1992). Empathy, mind, and morals. Proceedings from the American Philosophical
Association, 66, 1741.
Goldman, A. I. (1993). Ethics and cognitive science. Ethics, 103, 337360.
Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
248
Goodall, J. (1990). Through a window: My thirty years with the chimpanzees of Gombe. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Gordon, M. (2005). Roots of empathy: Changing the world child by child. Markham, ON: Thomas Allen
& Son.
Gordon, R. M. (1995). Sympathy, simulation, and the impartial spectator. Ethics, 105, 727742.
Gottfried, J. A., ODoherty, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Encoding predictive reward value in human
amygdale and orbitofrontal cortex. Science, 301, 11041107.
Graves, S. B. (1999). Television and prejudice reduction: When does television as a vicarious experience
make a difference? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 707725.
Greene, J. T. (1969). Altruistic behavior in the albino rat. Psychonomic Science, 14, 4748.
Grewen, K. M., Girdler, S. S., Amico, J., & Light, K. C. (2005). Effects of partner support on resting
oxytocin, cortisol, norepinephrine, and blood pressure before and after warm partner contact.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 531538.
Gruen, R. J., & Mendelsohn, G. (1986). Emotional responses to affective displays in others: The
distinction between empathy and sympathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 609614.
Grusec, J. E. (1981). Socialization processes in the development of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M.
Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 6590). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Grusec, J. E. (1991). The socialization of altruism. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social
psychology: Vol. 12. Prosocial behavior (pp. 933). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.),
Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852870). New York: Oxford University Press.
Halpern, J. (2001). From detached concern to empathy: Humanizing medical practice. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior (I, II). Journal of Theoretical Biology,
7, 152.
Hancock, G. (1989). Lords of poverty: The power, prestige, and corruption of the international aid
business. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving
reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316, 16221625.
Hardin, G. (1977). The limits of altruism: An ecologists view of survival. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Harlow, H. K., Harlow, M. K., Dodsworth, R. O., & Arling, G. L. (1966). Maternal behavior of rhesus
monkeys deprived of mothering and peer association in infancy. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 110, 5866.
Harmon-Jones, E., Vaughn-Scott, K., Mohr, S., Sigelman, J., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2004). The effect of
manipulated sympathy and anger on left and right frontal cortical activity. Emotion, 4, 95101.
Harris, M. B., & Huang, L. C. (1973). Helping and the attribution process. Journal of Social Psychology,
90, 291297.
Harrison, M.-C. (2008). The paradox of fiction and the ethics of empathy: Reconceiving Dickenss
realism. Narrative, 16, 256278.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hayes, M. L., & Conklin, M. E. (1953). Intergroup attitudes and experimental change. Journal of
Experimental Education, 22, 1936.
249
Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Macrae, C. N., Demos, K. E., Denny, B. T., & Kelley, W. M. (2006)
Medial prefrontal activity differentiates self from close others. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 1, 1825.
Hebb, D. O., & Thompson, W. R. (1968). The social significance of animal studies. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.). Vol. 2: Research methods (pp. 729774).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hickok, G. (2008). Eight problems for the mirror neuron theory of action understanding in monkeys and
humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 12291243.
Hindley, M. P. (1985). Human/animal communication: Cetacean roles in human therapeutic situations. In
M. W. Fox & L. D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984 (pp. 7585). Boston:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan; or the matter, form, and power of a commonwealth, ecclesiastical and civil.
London: A. Crooke.
Hodges, S. D. (2005). Is how much you understand me in your head or mine? In B. F. Malle & S. D.
Hodges (Eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp. 298309). New
York: Guilford Press.
Hodges, S. D., Kiel, K. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Veach, D., & Villanueva, B. R. (2010). Giving birth to
empathy: The effects of similar experience on empathic accuracy, empathic concern, and perceived
empathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 398409.
Hodges, S. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1997). Automatic and controlled empathy. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic
accuracy (pp. 311339). New York: Guilford.
Hoess, R. (1959). Commandant at Auschwitz: Autobiography. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its implications for altruistic
motivation. Developmental Psychology, 11, 607622.
Hoffman, M. L. (1976). Empathy, role-taking, guilt, and development of altruistic motives. In T. Lickona
(Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory research, and social issues (pp. 124143). New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 84,
712722.
Hoffman, M. L. (1981a). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
40, 121137.
Hoffman, M. L. (1981b). The development of empathy. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),
Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 4163).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hoffman, M. L. (1987). The contribution of empathy to justice and moral judgment. In N. Eisenberg & J.
Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 4780). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, M. L. (1989). Empathic emotions and justice in society. Social Justice Research, 3, 283311.
Hoffman, M. L. (1991). Is empathy altruistic? Psychological Inquiry, 2, 131133.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Hornstein, H. A. (1976). Cruelty and kindness: A new look at aggression and altruism. Engelwood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

250
Hornstein, H. A. (1978). Promotive tension and prosocial behavior: A Lewinian analysis. In L. Wisp
(Ed.), Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and sociological principles (pp. 177207). New
York: Academic Press.
Hornstein, H. A. (1982). Promotive tension: Theory and research. In V. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.),
Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 229248). New York: Academic Press.
Hornstein, H. A. (1991). Empathic distress and altruism: Still inseparable. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 133
135.
Houston, D. A. (1990). Empathy and the self: Cognitive and emotional influences on evaluations of
negative affect in others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 859868.
Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New York:
Pantheon.
Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Hume, D. (1896). A treatise of human nature. (L. A. Selby-Bigge, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(Original work published 1740)
Hygge, S. (1976). Information about the models unconditioned stimulus and response in vicarious
classical conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 764771.
Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587610.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., McColl, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. (2009). Neural correlates of
admiration and compassion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 80218026.
Insel, T. R. (1997). A neurobiological basis of social attachment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154,
726735.
Insel, T. R. (2000). Toward a neurobiology of attachment. Review of General Psychology, 4, 176185.
Insel, T. R. (2002). Implications for the neurobiology of love. In S. G. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P.
Schloss, & W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in
dialogue (pp. 254263). New York: Oxford University Press.
Isaacson, W. (1992, December 21). Sometimes, right makes might. Time (p. 82).
Jackson, P. L., Brunet, E., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2006). Empathy examined through the neural
mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain. Neuropsychologia, 44, 752761.
Jackson, P. L., & Decety, J. (2004). Motor cognition: A new paradigm to study self-other interactions.
Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 15.
Jacob, P. (2008). What do mirror neurons contribute to human social cognition? Mind and Language, 23,
190223.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Henry Holt.
Jansen, L. A. (2009). The ethics of altruism in clinical research. Hastings Center Report, 39, no. 4, 2636.
Jarymowicz, M. (1992). Self, we, and other(s): Schemata, distinctiveness, and altruism. In P. M. Oliner, S.
P. Oliner, L. Baron, L. A. Blum, D. L. Krebs, & M. Z. Smolenska (Eds.), Embracing the other:
Philosophical, psychological, and historical perspectives on altruism (pp. 194212). New York: New
York University Press.
Jenks, C. (1990). Varieties of altruism. In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 5367).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

251
Jensen, K., Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Whats in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism
and spite in chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, 10131021.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, M. K., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J. T., & Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism in adolescence: A process
perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 309332.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person
perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219266).
New York: Academic Press.
Kagan, J. (2000). Human morality is distinctive. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, 4648.
Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I. (1994). Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in
the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 538.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and
biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (1898). Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals. In Kants Critique of Practical
Reason and other works on the theory of ethics (5th ed.) (T. K. Abbott, Trans.). New York: Longmans,
Green & Co. (Original work published 1785)
Karylowski, J. (1982). Two types of altruistic behavior: Doing good to feel good or to make the other feel
good. In V. J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp.
397413). New York: Academic Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kelley, H. H. (1983). Love and commitment. In H. H. Kelley, E., Berscheid, A. Christiansen, J. H.
Harvey, T. L. Houston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. L. Peterson, Close relationships
(pp. 265314). New York: Freeman.
Kelly, R. L. (1995). The foraging spectrum: Diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kelman, H. C. (1990). Interactive problem-solving: A social psychological approach to conflict resolution.
In J. W. Burton & F. Dukes (Eds.), Conflict: Readings in management and resolution (pp. 199215). New
York: St. Martins Press.
Kelman, H. C. (1997). Group processes in the resolution of international conflicts: Experiences from the
Israeli-Palestinian case. American Psychologist, 52, 212220.
Kelman, H. C. (2005). Building trust among enemies: The central challenge for international conflict
resolution. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 639650.
Kelman, H. C., & Cohen, S. P. (1986). Resolution of international conflict: An interactional approach. In
S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 323432). Chicago: Nelson
Hall.
Kendrick, K. M. (2000). Oxytocin, motherhood, and bonding. Experimental Physiology, 85s, 111s124s.
Kerr, N. L. (1995). Norms in social dilemmas. In D. A. Schroeder (Ed.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on
individuals and groups (pp. 3147). Westport, CN: Praeger.
Kesey, K. (1962). One flew over the cuckoos nest. New York: Viking.
Kidder, T. (2003). Mountains beyond mountains. New York: Random House.
Kim, J-W., Kim, S-E., Kim, J-J., Jeong, B., Park, C-H., Son, A. R., Song, J. E., & Ki, S. W. (2009).
Compassionate attitude toward others suffering activates the mesolimbic neural system.
Neuropsychologia, 47, 20732081.
252
Kitcher, P. (1998). Psychological altruism, evolutionary origins, and moral rules. Philosophical Studies,
89, 283316.
Kitcher, P. (2010). Varieties of altruism. Economics and Philosophy, 26, 121148.
Klin, A. (2000). Attributing social meaning to ambiguous visual stimuli in higher-functioning autism and
Asperger syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 831846.
Knafo, A., Zahn-Waxler, C., Van Hulle, C., Robinson, J. L., & Rhee, S. H. (2008). The developmental
origins of a disposition toward empathy: Genetic and environmental contributions. Emotion, 8, 737752.
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The identified victim effect: An identified group, or just a single
individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 157167.
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005b). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint
evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 106116.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T.
Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 3153). New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Kohler, W. (1927). The mentality of apes. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, & Trubner.
Kohler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.
Kohut, H. (1959). Introspection, empathy, and psychoanalysis. An examination of the relationship
between mode of observation and theory. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 7, 459
483.
Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1995). Interpersonal relations: Mixedmotive interaction. Annual Review
of Psychology, 46, 183207.
Korchmaros, J. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2001). Emotional closeness as a mediator of the effect of genetic
relatedness on altruism. Psychological Science, 12, 262265.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in Americas schools. New York: Crown.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated
commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 10441057.
Krebs, D. L. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1134
1146.
Krebs, D. L., & Russell, C. (1981). Role-taking and altruism: When you put yourself in the shoes of
another, will they take you to their owners aid? In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and
helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 137165). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and
rapport. Psychological Science, 14, 334339.
Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: Effects of
perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 117.
Lamm, C., Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2010). How do we empathize with someone who is not like us?
A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 362376.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 137173). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Langford, D. J., Crager, S. E., Shehzad, Z., Smith, S. B., Sotocinal, S. G., Levenstadt, J. S., Chanda, M.
L., Levitin, D. J., & Mogil, J. S. (2006). Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice.
Science, 312, 19671970.
253
Lanzetta, J. T., & Englis, B. G. (1989). Expectations of cooperation and competition and their effects on
observers vicarious emotional responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 543554.
La Rochefoucauld, F., Duke de (1691). Moral maxims and reflections, in four parts. London: Gillyflower,
Sare, & Everingham.
Latan, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesnt he help? New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lavery, J. J., & Foley, P. J. (1963). Altruism or arousal in the rat? Science, 140, 172173.
Lepper, M. R. (1983). Social-control processes and the internalization of social values: An attributional
perspective. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social
development (pp. 294330). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, M. J. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.),
Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 205229). New York: Academic Press.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.
Lerner, M. J., & Meindl, J. R. (1981). Justice and altruism. In J. P Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),
Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 213232).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levenson, R. W., & Ruef, A. M. (1992). Empathy: A physiological substrate. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63, 234246.
Lewin, K. (1935). Dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces. Contributions
to psychological theory, 1(4), Whole Issue (pp. 1247).
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Lipps, T. (1903). Einfhlung, inner Nachahmung, und Organ-empfindungen. Archiv fr die gesamte
Psychologie, 2, 185204.
Lishner, D. A. (2003). The components of empathy: Distinguishing between sympathy and tenderness.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.
Lishner, D. A., Oceja, L. V., Stocks, E. L., & Zaspel, K. (2008). The effect of infant-like characteristics on
empathic concern for adults in need. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 270277.
Lucke, J. F., & Batson, C. D. (1980). Response suppression to a distressed conspecific: Are laboratory rats
altruistic? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 214227.
Luks, A. (1991). The healing power of doing good: The health and spiritual benefits of helping others.
New York: Fawcett Columbine.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L.
(1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 15861603.
McCullough, M. E., Worhington, E. L., Jr., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321336.
McDougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology. London: Methuen.
MacIntyre, A. (1967). Egoism and altruism. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 2,
pp. 462466). New York: Macmillan.
McIntyre, J. (1974). Mind in the waters. New York: Scribners.
MacLean, P. D. (1967). The brain in relation to empathy and medical education. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 144, 374382.
MacLean, P. D. (1990). The triune brain in evolution: Role in paleocerebral functions. New York:
Plenum Press.

254
Macpherson, K., & Roberts, W. A. (2006). Do dogs (Canis familiaris) seek help in an emergency?
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 113119.
Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social support: The importance of
responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20, 928932.
Malhotra, D., & Liyanage, S. (2005). Long-term effects of peace workshops in protracted conflicts.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49, 908924.
Mandeville, B. (1732). The fable of the bees: or, private vices, public benefits. London: J. Tonson.
(Original work published 1714)
Maner, J. K., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Altruism and egoism: Prosocial motivations for helping depend on
relationship context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 347358.
Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S., & Sagarin, B. J. (2002). The effects
of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16011610.
Mansbridge, J. J. (Ed.) (1990). Beyond self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Manucia, G. K., Baumann, D. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Mood influences on helping: Direct effects or
side effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 357364.
Margolis, H. (1982). Selfishness, altruism, and rationality: A theory of social choice. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Marques, A. H., & Sternberg, E. M. (2007). The biology of positive emotions and health. In S. G. Post
(Ed.), Altruism and health: Perspectives from empirical research (pp. 149188). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Martin, G. B., & Clark, R. D., III (1982). Distress crying in neonates: Species and peer specificity.
Developmental Psychology, 18, 39.
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Masserman, J., Wechkin, M. S., & Terris, W. (1964). Altruistic behavior in rhesus monkeys. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 121, 584585.
Mathews, K. E., & Canon, L. K. (1975). Environmental noise level as a determinant of helping behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 571577.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525
543.
Meindl, J. R., & Lerner, M. J. (1983). The heroic motive: Some experimental demonstrations. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 120.
Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-
month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 838850.
Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: A rapprochement
between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London: Biological Sciences, 358, 491500.
Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1997). Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early
Development and Parenting, 6, 179192.
Midlarsky, E. (1991). Helping as coping. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social
psychology: Vol. 12. Prosocial behavior (pp. 238264). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Midlarsky, E., & Kahana, E. (1994). Altruism in later life. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Midlarsky, E., & Kahana, E. (2007). Altruism, well-being, and mental health in late life. In S. G. Post
(Ed.), Altruism and health: Perspectives from empirical research (pp. 5669). New York: Oxford
University Press.
255
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Avidan, S., & Eshkoli, N. (2001). Attachment theory
and reactions to others needs: Evidence that activation of the sense of attachment security promotes
empathic responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 12051224.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation,
psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53152). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and
altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 89, 817839.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371
378.
Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167, 14611468.
Mill, J. S. (1987). Utilitarianism. In J. S. Mill & Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism and other essays (pp.
272338). London: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1861)
Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 10531060.
Miller, D. T., & Ratner, R. K. (1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power of self-
interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 5362.
Miller, N. (2002). Personalization and the promise of contact theory. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 387
410.
Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial
behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324344.
Miller, R. E. (1967). Experimental approaches to the physiological and behavioral concomitants of
affective communication in rhesus monkeys. In S. A. Altmann (Ed.), Social communication among
primates (pp. 125134). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, R. E., Banks, J. H., & Ogawa, N. (1963). Role of facial expression in cooperative-avoidance
conditioning in monkeys. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 2430.
Milner, J. S., Halsey, L. B., & Fultz, J. (1995). Empathic responsiveness and affective reactivity to infant
stimuli in high- and low-risk for physical child abuse mothers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 767780.
Milo, R. D. (Ed.). (1973). Egoism and altruism. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Milton, J. (2005). Paradise lost (Introduction by Philip Pullman). New York: Oxford University Press.
(Original work published 1667)
Mitchell, J. P. (2008). Activity in right temporo-parietal junction is not selective for theory-of-mind.
Cerebral Cortex, 18, 262271.
Momaday, N. S. (1968). House made of dawn. New York: Harper & Row.
Monette, P. (1988). Borrowed time: An AIDS memoir. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Monroe, K. R. (1996). The heart of altruism: Perceptions of a common humanity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379388.
Morrison, I., & Downing, P. E. (2007). Organization of felt and seen pain responses in the anterior
cingulated cortex. NeuroImage, 37, 642651.
Moss, C. (2000). Elephant memories: Thirteen years in the life of an elephant family (2nd ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Murphy, G. (1947). Personality: A biological approach to origins and structure. New York: Harper.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
256
Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., & DePaulo, B. M. (Eds.) (1983). New directions in helping: Vol. 3. Applied
perspectives on help-seeking and -receiving. New York: Academic Press.
Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability,
identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status groups help. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 91, 97110.
Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nagel. T. (1991). Equality and partiality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Naqvi, N., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2006). The role of emotion in decision making: A cognitive
neuroscience perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 260263.
Nelson, E. E., & Panksepp, J. (1998). Brain substrates of infant-mother attachment: Contributions of
opioids, oxytocin, and norepinephrine. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 22, 437452.
Netting, F. E., Wilson, C. C., & New, J. C. (1987). The human-animal bond: Implications for practice.
Social Work, 32, 6064.
Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Luce, C., Sagarin, B. J., & Lewis, B. P. (1997). Does
empathy lead to anything more than superficial helping? Comment on Batson et al. (1997). Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 510516.
Newman, S., Vasudev, J., & Onawola, R. (1985). Older volunteers perceptions of impacts of volunteering
on their psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 4, 123127.
Neyer, F. J., Banse, R., & Asendorpf, J. B. (1999). The role of projection and empathic accuracy in dyadic
perception between older twins. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 419442.
Nichols, S. (2001). Mindreading and the cognitive architecture underlying altruistic motivation. Mind &
Language, 16, 425455.
Nichols, S. (2004). Sentimental rules: On the natural foundations of moral judgment. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we knowand sometimes misjudgewhat others know: Imputing ones
own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737759.
Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316, 10021005.
Niedenthal, P. M., Winkielman, P., Mondillon, L., & Vermeulen, N. (2009). Embodiment of emotion
concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 11201136.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental
processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231259.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Nowak, M. A., May, R. M., & Sigmund, K. (1995). The arithmetics of mutual help. Scientific American,
272, 5055.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Responses. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 68, 473486.
Oakley, B., Knafo, A. Madhavan, G., & Wilson, D. S. (Eds.) (in press). Pathological altruism. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Oatley, K. (2002). Emotions and the story worlds of fiction. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock
(Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 3969). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
OConnell, S. M. (1995). Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind? Primates, 36, 397410.
257
Odendaal, J. S. J., & Meintjes, R. A. (2003). Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behavior between
humans and dogs. The Veterinary Journal, 165, 296301.
hman, A. (2002). Automaticity and the amygdala: Nonconscious responses to emotional faces. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 6266.
Olazbal, D. E., & Young, L. J. (2006). Species and individual differences in juvenile female alloparental
care are associated with oxytocin receptor density in the striatum and the lateral septum. Hormones and
Behavior, 49, 681687.
Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New
York: The Free Press.
Olson, M., Jr. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Oman, D. (2007). Does volunteering foster physical health and longevity? In S. G. Post (Ed.), Altruism
and health: Perspectives from empirical research (pp. 1532). New York: Oxford University Press.
OMara, E. M., Jackson, L. E., Batson, C. D., & Gaertner, L. (in press). Will moral outrage stand up?
Distinguishing among emotional reactions to a moral violation. European Journal of Social Psychology.
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of community: The context and process of
volunteerism. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 400404.
Orbell, J. M., van de Kragt, A. J., & Dawes, R. M. (1988). Explaining discussion-induced cooperation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 811819.
Orne, M. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to
demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776783.
Oswald, P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic concern and
altruistic helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 613623.
Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in
Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 574587.
Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of
research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339367.
Panksepp, J. (1986). The psychobiology of prosocial behaviors: Separation distress, play, and altruism. In
C. Zahn-Waxler, E. M. Cummings, & R. Iannotti (Eds.), Altruism and aggression: Biological and social
origins (pp. 1957). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008). Darwins mistake: Explaining the discontinuity
between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 109178.
Penner, L. A., Cline, R. J. W., Albrecht, T. L., Harper, F. W. K., Peterson, A. M., Taub, J. M., &
Ruckdeschel, J. C. (2008). Parents empathic responses and pain and distress in pediatric patients. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 102114.
Peters, W. (1987). A class divided: Then and now. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Petrocell, J. V., & Smith, E. R. (2005). Who am I, who are we, and why: Links between emotions and
causal attributions for self and group-discrepancies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,
16281642.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173185.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 6585.

258
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1932).
Piliavin, I. M., Piliavin, J. A., & Rodin, J. (1975). Costs, diffusion and the stigmatized victim. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 429438.
Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H.-W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. American
Sociological Review, 16, 2765.
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D., III (1981). Emergency intervention. New
York: Academic Press.
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D. III (1982). Responsive bystanders: The
process of intervention. In V. J. Derlega and J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior:
Theories and research (pp. 279304). New York: Academic Press.
Piliavin, J. A., & Piliavin, I. M. (1973). The Good Samaritan: Why does he help? Unpublished
manuscript, University of Wisconsin.
Poole J. (1997). Coming of age with elephants. New York: Hyperion.
Post, S. G. (Ed.). (2007). Altruism and health: Perspectives from empirical research. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Povinelli, D. J. (1993). Reconstructing the evolution of mind. American Psychologist, 48, 493509.
Povinelli, D. J., & Bering, J. M. (2002). The mentality of apes revisited. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 11, 115119.
Povinelli, D. J., Bering, J. M., & Giambrone, S. (2000). Toward a science of other minds: Escaping the
argument by analogy. Cognitive Science, 24, 509541.
Povinelli, D. J., & Vonk, J. (2003). Chimpanzee minds: Suspiciously human? Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 7, 157160.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 1, 515526.
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002a). The communication of emotions and the possibility of
empathy in animals. In S. G. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss, & W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruism and
altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion in dialogue (pp. 284308). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002b). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 25, 172.
Prinz, J. (2006). The emotional basis of moral judgments. Philosophical Explorations, 9, 2943.
Prinz, W. (1987). Ideo-motor action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and
action (pp. 4776). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129
154.
Rainer, J. P. (2000). Compassion fatigue: When caregiving begins to hurt. In L. Vandecreek & T. L.
Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 18, pp. 441453). Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Exchange.
Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness: A new concept of egoism. New York: New American Library.
Rapoport, A., & Chammah, A. M. (1965). Prisoners dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ravenscroft, I. (1998). What is it like to be someone else? Simulation and empathy. Ratio, XI, 170185.

259
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Regan, D., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into actors. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 850856.
Reykowski, J. (1982). Motivation of prosocial behavior. In V. J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation
and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 352375). New York: Academic Press.
Rheingold, H. (1982). Little childrens participation in the work of adults, a nascent prosocial behavior.
Child Development, 53, 114125.
Ribar, D. C. & Wilhelm, M. O. (2002). Altruistic and joy-of-giving motivations in charitable behavior.
Journal of Political Economy, 110, 425457.
Ribot, T. (1911). The psychology of the emotions (2nd ed.). New York: Scribners.
Ricard, M. (2006). Happiness: A guide to developing lifes most important skill (J. Browner, Trans.). New
York: Little, Brown & Co.
Rice, G. E., Jr. (1965, September). Aiding responses in rats: Not in guinea pigs. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
Rice, G. E., Jr., & Gainer, P. (1962). Altruism in the albino rat. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 55, 123125.
Richardson, D. R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., Gardner, W., & Signo, M. (1994). Empathy as a
cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 275289.
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ridley, M., & Dawkins, R. (1981). The natural selection of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino
(Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 1939).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist, 5, 210.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Romero, T., Castellanos, M. A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2010). Consolation as possible expression of
sympathetic concern among chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107.
Rouhana, N. N., & Kelman, H. C. (1994). Promoting joint thinking in international conflicts: An Israeli-
Palestinian continuing workshop. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 157178.
Roy, B., & Hartigan, J. (2008). Empowering the rural poor to develop themselves: The Barefoot approach.
Innovations: Technology, Governance, and Globalization, 3, 6793.
Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The
transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 2, 6773.
Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2004). How would you feel versus how do you think she would feel? A
neuroimaging study of perspective taking with social emotions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16,
988999.
Rumble, A. C., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Parks, C. D. (2010). The benefits of empathy: When empathy
may sustain cooperation in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 856866.
Rusbult, C. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172186.
Rushton, J. P. (1980). Altruism, socialization and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Random House.

260
Sagi, A., & Hoffman, M. L. (1976). Empathic distress in the newborn. Developmental Psychology, 12,
175176.
Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of
economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science, 300, 17551758.
Sapolsky, R. M. (2010). Peace among primates. In D. Keltner, J. Marsh, & J. A. Smith (Eds.), The
compassionate instinct (pp. 2635). New York: W. W. Norton.
Saxe, R., & Wexler, A. (2005). Making sense of another mind: The role of the right temporo-parietal
junction. Neuropsychologia, 43, 13911399.
Schachter, S. (1964). The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional state. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 4980). New York: Academic
Press.
Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B. (1988). The economics of empathic helping: Support for a mood
management motive. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 163181.
Scheler, M. (1970). The nature of sympathy (Trans. by P. Heath). Hamden, CT: Archon Books. (Original
work published 1913)
Schewe, P. A. (Ed.). (2002). Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schewe, P. A., & ODonohue, W. (1993). Sexual abuse prevention with high risk males: The roles of
victim empathy and rape myths. Violence and Victims, 8, 339351.
Schlenker, B. R., & Britt, T. W. (1997). Beneficial impression management: Strategically controlling
information to help friends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 559573.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2005). Effectiveness of the Roots of Empathy program in promoting childrens
emotional and social competence. In M. Gordon, Roots of empathy: Changing the world child by child
(Appendix B, pp. 239252). Toronto, ON: Thomas Allen Publishers.
Schroeder, D. A., Dovidio, J. F., Sibicky, M. E., Matthews, L. L., & Allen, J. L. (1988). Empathic concern
and helping behavior: Egoism or altruism? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 333353.
Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of helping and
altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for
environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391406.
Schultz, R., & Beach, S. (1999). Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: The Caregiver Health Effects
study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 22152219.
Schultz, R., Williamson, G. M., Morycz, R. K., & Biegel, D. E. (1991). Costs and benefits of providing
care to Alzheimers patients. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Helping and being helped: Naturalistic
Studies (pp. 153181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, C. (2007). Altruism and subjective well-being: Conceptual model and empirical support. In S.
G. Post (Ed.), Altruism and health: Perspectives from empirical research (pp. 3342). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221279). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. (1982). Helping and cooperation: A self-based motivational model. In V. J.
Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 327353).
New York: Academic Press.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be
sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 209269). New York: Academic Press.

261
Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6, 317344.
Shafir, E., & Tversky, A. (1992). Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice.
Cognitive Psychology, 24, 449474.
Shaw, L. L., Batson, C. D., & Todd, R. M. (1994). Empathy avoidance: Forestalling feeling for another in
order to escape the motivational consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 879
887.
Shelton, M. L., & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear-arousing and empathy-arousing appeals to help: The pathos
of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 366378.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. E., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and
cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
Sherman, P. W., Jarvis, J. U. M., & Alexander, R. D. (Eds.) (1991). The biology of the naked mole-rat.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sibicky, M. E., Schroeder, D. A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1995). Empathy and helping: Considering the
consequences of intervention. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 435453.
Sikes, S. K. (1971). The natural history of the African elephant. New York: American Elsevier.
Silk, J. B. (2009). Social preferences in primates. In P. W. Glimcher, C. F. Camerer, E. Fehr, & R. A.
Poldrack (Eds.), Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain (pp. 269284). Boston, MA:
Elsevier/Academic Press.
Silk, J. B., Brosnan, S. F., Vonk, J., Henrich, J., Povinelli, D. J., Richardson, A. S., Lambeth, S. P.,
Mascaro, J., & Schapiro, S. J. (2005). Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group
members. Nature, 437, 13571359.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within
couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 434446.
Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1156, 8196.
Singer, T., Seymour, B., ODoherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain
involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303, 11571162.
Singer, T., Seymour, B., ODoherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic
neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439, 466469.
Slater, M. D. (2002). Entertainment education and the persuasive impact of narratives. In M. C. Green, J.
J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 157181).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and
Decision Making, 2, 117.
Small, D. A., Lowenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative
thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 102, 143153.
Smith, A. (1853). The theory of moral sentiments. London: Alex Murray. (Original work published 1759)
Smith, A. (1976). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. (Original work published 1776)

262
Smith, E. R. (1998). Mental representation and memory. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.), (Vol. 1, pp. 391445). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence
regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431446.
Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P., & Stotland, E. (1989). Altruism reconsidered: The effect of denying feedback
on a victims status to empathic witnesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 641650.
Sober, E. (1991). The logic of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 144147.
Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Solomon, R. C. (1990). A passion for justice: Emotions and the origins of the social contract. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Soltis, J. (2004). The signal functions of early infant crying. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 443490.
Sorrentino, R. M. (1991). Evidence for altruism: The lady is still in waiting. Psychological Inquiry, 2,
147150.
Sparks, P., & Durkin, K. (1987). Moral reasoning and political orientation: The context sensitivity of
individual rights and democratic principles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 931936.
Spencer, H. (1870). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). London: Williams & Norgate.
Staub, E. (1974). Helping a distressed person: Social, personality, and stimulus determinants. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 293341). New York: Academic
Press.
Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences (Vol. 1). New
York: Academic Press.
Staub, E. (1979). Positive social behavior and morality: Socialization and development (Vol. 2). New
York: Academic Press.
Staub, E. (1989). Individual and societal (group) values in a motivational perspective and their role in
benevolence and harmdoing. In N. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski, & E. Staub (Eds.), Social and moral values:
Individual and societal perspectives (pp. 4561). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Staub, E. (1990). Moral exclusion, personal goal theory, and extreme destructiveness. Journal of Social
Issues, 46(1), 4764.
Steins, G., & Wicklund, R. A. (1996). Perspective-taking, conflict, and press: Drawing an E on your
forehead. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 319346.
Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of
Social Issues, 55, 729743.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stich, S., Doris, J. M., & Roedder, E. (2010). Altruism. In J. M. Doris and the Moral Psychology Research
Group (Eds.), The moral psychology handbook. (pp. 147205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stocks, E. L. (2001). Self-other merging and empathic concern: Has the egoism-altruism debate been
resolved? Unpublished masters thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Stocks, E. L. (2006). Empathy and the motivation to help: Is the ultimate goal to relieve the victims
suffering or to relieve ones own? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 2005). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 66, 6339.

263
Stocks, E. L., Lishner, D. A., & Decker, S. K. (2009). Altruism or psychological escape: Why does
empathy promote prosocial behavior? European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 649665.
Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271313). New York: Academic Press.
Stotland, E., Mathews, K. E., Sherman, S. E., Hansson, R. O., & Richardson, B. Z. (1978). Empathy,
fantasy, and helping. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Stowe, H. B. (2002). Uncle Toms cabin; or, life among the lowly (Intro. by C. Johnson). New York:
Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1852)
Strange, J. J. (2002). How fictional tales wag real-world beliefs: Models and mechanisms of narrative
influence. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive
foundations (pp. 263286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stroop, J. R. (1938). Factors affecting speed in serial verbal reactions. Psychological Monographs, 50, 38
48.
Stueber, K. R. (2006). Rediscovering empathy: Agency, folk psychology, and the human sciences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of mandatory volunteerism on intentions
to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10, 5964.
Strmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role
of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 943956.
Strmer, S., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2005). Prosocial emotions and helping: The moderating role of
group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 532546.
Styron, W. (1979). Sophies Choice. New York: Random House.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.
Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 724). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tamir, M., Robinson, M. D., Clore, G. L., Martin, L. L., & Whitaker, D. J. (2004). Are we puppets on a
string? The contextual meaning of unconscious expressive cues. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30, 237249.
Taylor, M. (1976). Anarchy and cooperation. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, S. E. (2002). The tending instinct: How nurturing is essential to who we are and how we live. New
York: Time Books.
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the
unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 853870.
Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 42, 115131.
Thomas, G., & Batson, C. D. (1981). Effect of helping under normative pressure on self-perceived
altruism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 127131.
Thomas, G., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (1997). Empathic accuracy in close relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.),
Empathic accuracy (pp. 194217). New York: Guilford.
Thompson, R. A. (1987). Empathy and emotional understanding: The early development of empathy. In
N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 119145). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1980). Focus of attention mediates the impact of
negative affect on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 291300.
264
Titchener, E. B. (1909). Lectures on the experimental psychology of the thought processes. New York:
Macmillan.
Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281292.
Tolstoy, L. (1987). The law of love and the law of violence. In A confession and other religious writings
(J. Kentish, Trans.). London: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1908)
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997). Primate cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M., Call, J., & Hare, B. (2003). Chimpanzees understand psychological statesthe question is
which ones and to what extent. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 153156.
Tomkins, S. S. (1982). Affect theory. In P. Ekman (Ed.), Emotion in the human face (2nd ed., pp. 353
395). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 3557.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and
the descent of man (pp. 136179). Chicago: Aldine.
Trivers, R. L. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
Tronto, J. (1987). Beyond gender differences to a theory of care. Signs, 12, 644663.
Truax, C. B., & Carkuff, R. R. (1967). Toward effective counseling and psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine.
Tsang, J. (2002). Moral rationalization and integration of situational factors and psychological processes
in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology, 6, 2550.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. London: Basil
Blackwell.
Turner, R. A., Altemus, M., Enos, T., Cooper, B., & McGuinness, T. (1999). Preliminary research on
plasma oxytocin in normal cycling women: Investigating emotion and interpersonal distress. Psychiatry,
62, 97113.
Uddin, L. Q., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Zaidel, E., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). rTMS to the right inferior parietal
lobule disrupts self-other discrimination. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 65
71.
Van Boven, L., & Lowenstein, G. (2003). Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 11591168.
Van Lange, P. A. M. (1991). Being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect at work
in interpersonal situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 689693.
Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative
model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337349.
Van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). Does empathy trigger only altruistic motivation? How about selflessness or
justice? Emotion, 8, 766774.
van Lawick, H., & van Lawick-Goodall, J. (1971). Innocent killers. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Vaughan, K. B., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1981). The effect of modification of expressive displays on vicarious
emotional arousal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 1630.
Vescio, T. K., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Empathy arousal as a means of improving intergroup attitudes: An
examination of the affective supercedent hypothesis. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State
University, State College.

265
Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The
mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology,
33, 455472.
Vitaglione, G. D., & Barnett, M. A. (2003). Assessing a new dimension of empathy: Empathic anger as a
predictor of helping and punishing desires. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 301325.
Vollmer, P. J. (1977). Do mischievous dogs reveal their guilt? Veterinary Medicine Small Animal
Clinician, 72, 10021005.
Vonk, J., Brosnan, S. F., Silk, J. B., Henrich, J., Richardson, A. S., Lambeth, S. P., Schapiro, S. J., &
Povinelli, D. (2008). Chimpanzees do not take advantage of very low cost opportunities to deliver food to
unrelated group members. Animal Behaviour, 75, 17571770.
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of
emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 274290.
Wade-Benzoni, K. A., & Tost, L. P. (2009). The egoism and altruism of intergenerational behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 165193.
Walker, A. (1982). The color purple. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Wallach, L., & Wallach, M. A. (1991). Why altruism, even though it exists, cannot be demonstrated by
social psychological experiments. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 153155.
Wallach, M. A., & Wallach, L. (1983). Psychologys sanction for selfishness: The error of egoism in
theory and therapy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees.
Science, 311, 13011303.
Warneken, F., Hare, B., Melis, A. P., Hanus, D., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Spontaneous altruism by
chimpanzees and young children. PLoS Biology, 5, e184.
Wechkin, M. S., Masserman, J. H., & Terris, W. (1964). Shock to a conspecific as an aversive stimulus.
Psychonomic Science, 1, 4748.
Wegner, D. M. (1980). The self in prosocial action. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self in
social psychology (pp. 131157). New York: Oxford University Press.
Weigel, R. H., Wiser, P. L., & Cook, S. W. (1975). The impact of cooperative learning experiences on
cross-ethnic relations and attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 219244.
Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of
judgments of help giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186200.
Weiner, F. H. (1976). Altruism, ambiance, and action: The effect of rural and urban rearing on helping
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 112124.
Weiner, M. J., & Wright, F. E. (1973). Effects of undergoing arbitrary discrimination upon subsequent
attitudes toward a minority group. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 94102.
Wicklund, R. A. (1975). Objective self awareness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 233275). New York: Academic Press.
Wiesenfeld, A. R., Whitman, P. B., & Malatesta, C. Z. (1984). Individual differences among adult women
in sensitivity to infants: Evidence in support of an empathy concept. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 118124.
Williams, B. (1981). Persons, character, and morality. In B. Williams, Moral luck: Philosophical papers
19731980 (pp. 119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

266
Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2007). Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. Quarterly
Review of Biology, 82, 327348.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (2005). Kin selection as the key to altruism: Its rise and fall. Social Research, 72, 159166.
Wisp, L. (1968). Sympathy and empathy. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social
sciences (Vol. 15, pp. 441447). New York: Free Press.
Wisp, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept a word is
needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 314321.
Wisp, L. (1991). The psychology of sympathy. New York: Plenum.
Witvliet, C. V. O., Ludwig, T. E., & Vander Laan, K. L. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring
grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12, 117123.
Worchel, S., & Andreoli, V. (1978). Facilitation of social interaction through deindividuation of the target.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 549556.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1998). An empathy-humility-commitment model of forgiveness applied within
family dyads. Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 5976.
Wright, R. A., Shaw, L. L., & Jones, C. R. (1990). Task demand and cardiovascular response magnitude:
Further evidence of the mediating role of success importance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 12501260.
Wundt, W. (1897). Ethics: An investigation of the laws of the moral life (Vol. 1). New York: Macmillan.
Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts of compassion: Caring for others and helping ourselves. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 110116.
Yamagishi, T., & Sato, K. (1986). Motivational bases of the public goods problem. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 6773.
Yogev, A., & Ronen, R. (1982). Cross-age tutoring: Effects on tutors attributes. Journal of Educational
Research, 75, 261268.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P. M., Welsh, J. D., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Psychophysiological correlates of
empathy and prosocial behaviors in preschool children with behavior problems. Development and
Psychopathology, 7, 2748.
Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1990). The origins of empathic concern. Motivation and
Emotion, 14, 107130.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. A. (1979). Child rearing and childrens prosocial
initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 50, 319330.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for
others. Developmental Psychology, 28, 126136.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Robinson, J. L., & Emde, R. N. (1992). The development of empathy in twins.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 10381047.
Zak, P. J., Stanton, A. A., & Ahmadi, S. (2007). Oxytocin increases generosity in humans. PLoS ONE,
November 7, 2007, Issue 11, e1128, 15.
Zaki, J., Ochsner, K. N., Hanelin, J., Wager, T. D., & Mackey, S. C. (2007). Different circuits for different
pain: Patterns of functional connectivity reveal distinct networks for processing pain in self and others.
Social Neuroscience, 2, 276291.
Zeifman, D. M. (2001). An ethological analysis of human infant crying: Answering Tinbergens four
questions. Developmental Psychobiology, 39, 265285.

267
Zentall, T. R. (2003). Imitation by animals: How do they do it? Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 12, 9195.
Zillmann, D. (1991). Empathy: Affect from bearing witness to the emotions of others. In J. Bryant & D.
Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 135167). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1977). Affective responses to the emotions of a protagonist. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 155165.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1970). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation,
impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1969 (Vol.
17, pp. 237307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Zimbardo, P. G., Banks, W. C., Haney, C., & Jaffe, D. (1973, April 8). The mind is a formidable jailer: A
Prandelian prison. New York Times Magazine (Section 6), 3860.

268
Appendix A

Cross-cutting Independent Variable(s), Dependent Variable(s), and Competing Predictions that Can Test
the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis Against Each Egoistic Alternative
1. Aversive-Arousal-Reduction Hypothesis
a. Cross-cutting independent variable. Ease of escape from exposure to person in need (easy vs.
difficult).
b. Dependent variable. Helping person in need for whom low or high level of empathic concern is felt.
c. Competing predictions. Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism
hypothesis and the aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis predict less helping when escape is easy
than when it is difficult. Among individuals experiencing high empathy, the empathy-altruism
hypothesis predicts as much helping when escape is easy as when it is difficult, whereas the
aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis predicts less helping when escape is easy than when it is
difficult.
d. Relevant experiments. Appendix B summarizes the procedure and results of ten experiments
providing data relevant to these competing predictions.
2. Empathy-Specific-Punishment Hypothesis, Version 1: Avoiding Negative Social Evaluation
a. Cross-cutting independent variable. Awareness by other people that one has an opportunity to help
(others aware vs. unaware).
b. Dependent variable. Helping person in need for whom low or high level of empathic concern is felt.
c. Competing predictions. Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism
hypothesis and the negative-social-evaluation version predict relatively low helping. Both also
allow that due to general concerns about social censure not related to empathic concern, there could
be less help offered when others are not aware of the opportunity to help than when they are.
Among individuals experiencing high empathy, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts as much
helping when others are not aware of the opportunity to help as when they are; the negative-social-
evaluation version predicts less helping when others are not aware of the opportunity to help than
when they are.

269
 d. Relevant experiments. Appendix C summarizes the procedure and results of two experiments and
one correlational study providing data relevant to these competing predictions.
3. Empathy-Specific-Punishment Hypothesis, Version 2: Avoiding Negative Self-Evaluation
a. Cross-cutting independent variable. There are three: (1) Justification for not helping (no
justification vs. justification). (2) Justification for ones unsuccessful helping effort (no justification
vs. justification). (3) Latency on a Stroop (1938) cognitive-interference task to words related to the
persons need vs. words related to negative self-evaluation (e.g., guilt, shame).
b. Dependent variable. For (1) above: Helping person in need for whom low or high level of empathic
concern is felt. For (2) above: Affective state after learning ones helping effort failed to remove the
need. For (3) above: Latency to name color of ink on Stroop task when words are related to persons
need vs. to negative self-evaluation.
c. Competing predictions. For (1) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the
empathy-altruism hypothesis and the negative-self-evaluation version predict less helping when
there is high justification for not helping than when there is low justification (due to general
concerns about self-censure not related to empathy). Among individuals experiencing high empathy,
the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts as much helping when there is high justification for not
helping as when there is low justification; the negative-self-evaluation version predicts less helping
when there is high justification than when there is low.
For (2) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism hypothesis
and the negative-self-evaluation version predict less negative mood change after learning that the
failure of ones attempt to help was justified than after learning that it was not justified (due to
general concerns about self-censure not related to empathic concern). Among individuals
experiencing high empathy, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts as much negative mood
change after learning that failure of ones attempt to help was justified as after learning that it was
not justified; the negative-self-evaluation version predicts less negative mood change after learning
that failure of ones attempt to help was justified than after learning that it was not.
For (3) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism hypothesis
and the negative-self-evaluation version predict that helping will not correlate with increased
latency to cognitive interference for need-related words but may correlate with increased latency for
punishment-related words (due to general concerns about self-censure not related to empathic
concern). Among individuals experiencing high empathy, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts
that helping will correlate with increased latency to cognitive interference for need-related words
not punishment-related words; the negative-self-evaluation version predicts that helping will
correlate with increased latency to cognitive interference for punishment-related words not need-
related words.
d. Relevant experiments. Appendix D summarizes the procedure and results of six experiments
providing data relevant to these competing predictions.
4. Empathy-Specific-Reward Hypothesis, Version 1: Seeking Rewards for Helping
a. Cross-cutting independent variable. There are three: (1) Source of removal of the persons need
(ones own helping vs. another source). (2) Justification for ones unsuccessful

270
 helping effort (no justification vs. justification). (3) Latency on a Stroop cognitive-interference task
to words related to the persons need vs. words related to positive self-evaluation (e.g., praise,
proud).
b. Dependent variable. For (1) above: Affective state after learning that a person one anticipates being
able to help has or has not had the need removed in some other way. For (2) above: Affective state
after learning that ones helping effort failed to remove the persons need. For (3) above: Latency to
name color of ink on Stroop task when words are related to persons need vs. to positive self-
evaluation.
c. Competing predictions. For (1) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the
empathy-altruism hypothesis and the positive-self-evaluation version predict no reduction in
positive affect after being deprived of an opportunity to help. Among individuals experiencing high
empathy, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts reduced positive affect after being deprived of
opportunity to help (low cost) only if the empathy-inducing need remains; the positive-self-
evaluation version predicts reduced positive affect after being deprived of the opportunity to help
(low cost) regardless of whether the need remains or not.
For (2) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism hypothesis
and the positive-self-evaluation version predict less negative mood change after learning that the
failure of ones attempt to help was justified than after learning that it was not justified (due to
general concerns about self-censure not related to empathic concern). Among individuals
experiencing high empathy, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts as much negative mood
change after learning that failure of ones attempt to help was justified as after learning that it was
not justified; the positive-self-evaluation version predicts less negative mood change after learning
that failure of ones attempt to help was justified than after learning that it was not.
For (3) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism hypothesis
and the positive-self-evaluation version predict that helping will not correlate with increased latency
to cognitive interference for need-related words but may correlate with increased latency for
reward-related words (due to general concerns about self-reward not related to empathy). Among
individuals experiencing high empathy, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts that helping will
correlate with increased color-naming latency to cognitive interference for need-related words not
reward-related words; the positive-self-evaluation version predicts that helping will correlate with
increased latency to cognitive interference for reward-related words not need-related words.
d. Relevant experiments. Appendix E summarizes the procedure and results of four experiments
providing data relevant to these competing predictions.
5. Empathy-Specific-Reward Hypothesis, Version 2: Seeking Empathic Joy
a. Cross-cutting independent variable. There are two: (1) Expectation regarding feedback about the
effectiveness of ones helping effort (no feedback vs. feedback). (2) In a situation in which one has
no opportunity to help, expectation that a follow-up report will say that the empathy-inducing need
has been removed (low, moderate, high).
b. Dependent variable. For (1) above: Helping person in need for whom low or high level of empathic
concern is felt. For (2) above: Choosing to receive a follow-up report on the needy persons
situation.
c. Competing predictions. For (1) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the
empathy-altruism hypothesis and the empathic-joy hypothesis predict relatively

271
 low helping regardless of whether feedback is expected. The empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts
more helping by individuals feeling high empathy than by individuals feeling low empathy even
when no feedback is expected; the empathic-joy hypothesis predicts more helping by individuals
feeling high empathy than by individuals feeling low empathy only when feedback is expected.
For (2) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism hypothesis
and the empathic-joy hypothesis predict relatively low likelihood of choosing to receive a follow-up
report regardless of what the report may say about the need being removed. The empathy-altruism
hypothesis predicts that individuals feeling high empathy will be more likely than individuals
feeling low empathy to choose to receive a follow-up report even when the likelihood is not high
that the report will say the need has been removed; the empathic-joy hypothesis predicts that
individuals feeling high empathy will be more likely than individuals feeling low empathy to choose
to receive a follow-up report only when the likelihood is high that the report will say the need has
been removed.
d. Relevant experiments. Appendix F summarizes the procedure and results of four experiments
providing data relevant to these competing predictions.
6. Empathy-Specific-Reward Hypothesis, Version 3: Seeking Negative-State Relief
a. Cross-cutting independent variable. There are five: (1) Receiving or expecting a mood-enhancing
experience other than helping (no vs. yes). (2) Expecting that ones mood can be improved by
helping (no vs. yes). (3) Need one can remove by helping (the empathy-inducing need vs. some
other need). (4) Justification for ones unsuccessful helping effort (no justification vs. justification).
(5) Latency on a Stroop cognitive-interference task to words related to the persons need vs. words
related to positive self-evaluation (e.g., praise, proud).
b. Dependent variable. For (1), (2), and (3) above: Helping person in need for whom low or high level
of empathic concern is felt. For (4) above: Affective state after learning that ones helping effort
failed to remove the persons need. For (5) above: Latency to name color of ink on Stroop task
when word is related to persons need vs. to positive self-evaluation.
c. Competing predictions. For (1) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the
empathy-altruism hypothesis and the negative-state-relief hypothesis predict relatively low helping
regardless of expectations about a mood-enhancing experience other than helping because no need
for mood enhancement has been aroused. The empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts more helping
by individuals feeling high empathy than by individuals feeling low empathy even among those
who have had or who expect a mood-enhancing experience other than helping. The negative-state-
relief hypothesis predicts more helping by individuals feeling high empathy than by individuals
feeling low empathy only among those who have not had and do not expect a mood-enhancing
experience other than helping.
For (2) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism hypothesis
and the negative-state-relief hypothesis predict relatively low helping regardless of expectations
about the mood-enhancing effects of helping because no need for mood enhancement has been
aroused. The empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts more helping by individuals feeling high
empathy than by individuals feeling low empathy even when these individuals do not expect their
mood to be improved by

272
 helping. The negative-state-relief hypothesis predicts more helping by individuals feeling high
empathy than by individuals feeling low empathy only among those who expect their mood to be
improved by helping.
For (3) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism hypothesis
and the negative-state-relief hypothesis predict relatively low helping whether the help will remove the
empathy-inducing need or some other need. The empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts more helping
by individuals feeling high empathy than by individuals feeling low empathy only when help will
remove the empathy-inducing need. Help that removes some other need does not reach the empathy-
specific altruistic goal. The negative-state-relief hypothesis predicts more helping by individuals
feeling high empathy than by individuals feeling low empathy whether the help will remove the
empathy-inducing need or some other need. In either case, helpers can anticipate mood-enhancing
self-rewards.
For (4) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism hypothesis
and the negative-state-relief hypothesis predict less negative affect after learning that failure of ones
attempt to help was justified than after learning that it was not justified (due to general concerns about
self-censure not related to empathy). Among individuals feeling high empathy, the empathy-altruism
hypothesis predicts no less negative affect after learning that failure of ones attempt to help was
justified than after learning that it was not justified; the negative-state-relief hypothesis predicts less
negative affect after learning that failure of ones attempt to help was justified than after learning that
it was not (which would prevent mood enhancement).
For (5) above: Among individuals experiencing low empathy, both the empathy-altruism hypothesis
and the negative-state-relief hypothesis predict that helping will not correlate with increased latency to
cognitive interference for need-related words but may correlate with increased latency for reward-
related words (due to general concerns about self-reward not related to empathy). Among individuals
experiencing high empathy, the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts that helping will correlate with
increased color-naming latency to cognitive interference for need-related words not reward-related
words; the negative-state-relief hypothesis predicts that helping will correlate with increased latency to
cognitive interference for reward-related words not need-related words.
d. Relevant experiments. Appendix G summarizes the procedure and results of ten experiments providing
data relevant to these competing predictions.

273
274
Appendix B
Tests of the Aversive-Arousal-Reduction Hypothesis

275
 Cross-cutting
Study Participants Need Situation Empathy Variable Competing Predictions Results (by cell) Conclusion
Variable

a. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Aversive-Arousal-Reduction Hypothesis (AAR)

None

b. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (EA)

Perspective-taking
manipulation (objective; EA predicts more helping of Mean amount of help volunteered:
imagine-how-she-feels) while Katie in the imagine than in the
University senior, EA prediction
All participants had objective condition only in the Relaxed/Objective 1.27
Coke et al. 44 under-graduates, 29 Katie, struggling to listening to interview with
Katie. Also misattribution easy escape from relaxed misattribution condition. supported, p
(1978, women, 15 men (11 support younger
manipulation (relaxed; being reminded of Because escape without helping Relaxed/Imagine 2.60 .002; AAR
Experiment per cell in 4-cell brother and sister
Katies need in future is easy, AAR predicts no more
1) design). after death of parents aroused) to ensure effects are prediction not
due to emotional arousal. if they did not help. help in the imagine than in the Aroused/Objective 0.68 supported.
in auto accident.
objective condition even in the
Manip-ulations checked, p relaxed misattribution condition. Aroused/Imagine 0.68
.001.

False physiological feedback EA predicts more helping of

Female masters All participants had EA prediction
33 female Kathy in the high-arousal than Mean amount of help volunteered:
Coke et al. student in Education, manipulation of empathic easy escape from
undergraduates (16 in arousal while listening to in the low-arousal condition. supported, p
(1978, Kathy, seeking being reminded of
low-arousal condition; Kathys appeal (low; high). Because escape without helping Low-arousal 0.81 .002; AAR
Experiment volunteers to Kathys need in
17 in high-arousal is easy, AAR predicts no prediction not
2) participate in her Manipulation checked, p future if they did not
condition). difference in helping across the High-arousal 1.94 supported.
thesis research. .01. help.
arousal conditions.

Proportion helping:

Easy/Dissimilar.18
Female Manipulation of similarity of Manipulation of ease EA predicts less help (by taking EA prediction
Batson et al. Elaine to participant shocks for Elaine) when escape Easy/Similar.91
44 female under- undergraduate, of escape from supported, p
(1981, (dissimilar; similar). easy only in the dissimilar
graduates (11 per cell Elaine, reacting witnessing Elaines .001; AAR
Experiment condition. AAR predicts less Difficult/Dissimilar.64
in 4-cell design). badly to electric Manipulation checked, p distress if do not help prediction not
1) help when escape easy in similar
shocks. .001. (easy; difficult). supported.
condition too. Difficult/Similar.82

(Number of shock trials taken

showed the same significant pattern.)

Batson et al. 48 female under- Female Emotion-specific Manipulation of ease EA predicts less help (by taking Proportion helping:
EA prediction
(1981, graduates (12 per cell undergraduate, misattribution manipulation of escape from shocks for Elaine) when escape
Experiment in 4-cell design). Elaine, reacting (distress; empathy). witnessing Elaines easy only in the distress Easy/Distress.33
2) badly to electric distress if do not help condition. AAR predicts less supported, p .02;
shocks. Manipulation checked, p (easy; difficult). help when escape easy in Easy/Empathy.83 AAR prediction
.02. empathy condition too. not supported.
Difficult/Distress.75

Difficult/Empathy.58

Proportion helping:
Perspective-taking EA predicts less help (by
Female Manipulation of ease EA prediction
manipulation (objective; volunteering to go over notes Easy/Objective.33
undergraduate, of escape from being
Toi & 84 female under- with Carol) when escape easy
Carol, needing help imagine-how-she-feels) while reminded of Carols supported, p
Batson graduates (21 per cell only in the objective condition. Easy/Imagine.71
with class notes after listening to interview with need in the future if .001; AAR
(1982) in 4-cell design). AAR predicts less help when
breaking legs in auto Carol. Manipulation checked, do not help (easy; prediction not
escape easy in imagine Difficult/Objective.76
accident. difficult). supported.
p .02. condition too.
Difficult/Imagine.81

Proportion helping:

Easy/Distress.40
EA predicts less help (by taking
Manipulation of ease EA prediction
Same-sex shocks) when escape easy only Easy/Empathy.70
40 under- graduates Naturally-occurring dominant of escape from marginally
Batson et al. undergraduate, if the dominant emotion is
(10 women, 10 men emotional response to witnessing Elaines/
(1983, Study Elaine/Charlie, distress. AAR predicts less help Difficult/Distress.89 supported, p .06;
per ease-of-escape watching Elaine/Charlie Charlies distress if
1) reacting badly to when escape easy if the AAR prediction
cell). suffer (distress; empathy). do not help (easy;
electric shocks. dominant emotion is empathy Difficult/Empathy.63 not supported.
difficult).
too.
(Number of shock trials taken

showed the same pattern, p .09.)

Proportion helping:

Easy/Distress.25
EA predicts less help (by taking
Manipulation of ease EA prediction
Same-sex shocks) when escape easy only
40 under- graduates Naturally-occurring dominant of escape from Easy/Empathy 86
Batson et al. undergraduate, if the dominant emotion is supported, p
(10 women, 10 men emotional response to witnessing Elaines/
(1983, Study Elaine/Charlie, distress. AAR predicts less help .005; AAR
per ease-of-escape watching Elaine/Charlie Charlies distress if Difficult/Distress.89
2) reacting badly to when escape easy if the prediction not
cell). suffer (distress; empathy). do not help (easy;
electric shocks. dominant emotion is empathy supported.
difficult). Difficult/Empathy.63
too.
(Number of shock trials taken
showed the same significant pattern.)
 EA prediction
Positive correlation (r =.25) found in supported, p .05,
Naturally-occurring dominant EA predicts positive correlation easy-escape condition, but significant for part of
Female Manipulation of ease
60 female emotional response to between situational empathy and only when effect of altruistic situational
undergraduate, of escape from
Batson et al. undergraduates (30 per watching Elaine suffer taking shocks for Elaine in easy- personality removed by partial empathy not
Elaine, reacting witnessing Elaines
(1986) ease-of-escape (distress; empathy). Measures escape condition. AAR predicts correlation (rpartial =.34). Altruistic associated with
badly to electric distress if do not help
condition). of altruistic personality also no correlation in easy-escape personality measures seemed to be altruistic
shocks. (easy; difficult).
taken. condition. associated with egoistic rather than personality; AAR
altruistic motivation. prediction not
supported.

Spontaneous sharing
EA predicts positive correlation
Facial/gestural expression of of toy (assumed to be
Another child between expression of EA prediction
sadness and concern when easy escape) and Positive correlation (r =.27) found
62 middle-class wanting to play with sadness/concern to videos and
Eisenberg et watching videos of hurt sharing in response with spontaneous sharing; correlation supported, p .05;
children aged 46 to 68 attractive toy in spontaneous sharing. AAR
al. (1988) children (i.e., non-verbal to a request from the with requested sharing not significant AAR prediction
months. participants predicts positive correlation
measure of disposition to feel other child (assumed (r =.12). not supported.
possession. between sadness/concern and
empathic). to be difficult
requested sharing only.
escape).

66 second-grade
children Facial expression of EA predicts positive correlation EA predictions
Single mother All participants had Heart-rate decrease associated with
(approximately 8-years concerned attention, heart- of facial expression of concern, supported,
struggling to care for easy escape from helping beyond minimal level
Eisenberg, old), 69 fifth-grade rate decrease, and self- heart-rate decrease, and self- although most
her two children who future exposure to (marginal); facial expression of
Fabes et al. children reported empathy reported empathy with helping. relations only
are recovering in need of mother and concern (marginal) and self-reported
(1989) (approximately 11- (undergraduates only) when Because escape without helping marginal; AAR
hospital after injury children if did not empathy associated with helping
years old), and 69 watching video interview is easy, AAR predicts no predictions not
in an auto accident. help. among undergraduates.
undergraduate males with mother in hospital. positive correlation. supported.
and females.

276
Appendix C
Tests of the Social-Evaluation Version of the Empathy-Specific-Punishment Hypothesis

281
Study Participants Need Situation Empathy Variable Cross-cutting Variable Competing Predictions Results (by cell) Conclusion

a. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Social-Evaluation Version (ESP-Soc)

EA predicts as much helping of

Physiological-arousal feedback
student in the unaware as in the
120 female manipulation of empathy felt High arousal led to more EA prediction not
aware condition among participants
undergraduates (30 per Female masters while listening to appeal (low; Manipulation of help than did low arousal supported; ESP-Soc
given high-arousal feedback. ESP-
Archer cell in 4-cell design); half student in Education high). The manipulation experimenters awareness only among high prediction supported,
Soc predicts less helping in the
et al. in each cell were above seeking volunteers appeared effective in inducing of participants level of dispositional-empathy p .02, but only
unaware than in the aware
(1981) and half below the to participate in her empathy only among high physiological arousal (not participants in the aware among high-
condition among participants given
median on a measure of thesis research. dispositional-empathy aware; aware). condition (exact means dispositional
high-arousal feedback, and
dispositional empathy. participants in the aware were not reported). empathy participants.
possibly only when dispositional
condition.
empathy is high.

b. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (EA)

EA predicts positive correlation of

Female Correlation of situational
Fultz et Need presented in way that situational empathy with helping
undergraduate, empathy with helping EA prediction
al. Naturally-occurring situational no one else would know if even though no chance for negative
22 female under- Janet, who admitted was.68 for dichotomous supported, p .001;
(1986, empathy reported after reading participant did not help, social evaluation. ESP-Soc predicts
graduates. in note to helping (no help vs. help) ESP-Soc prediction
Study note from Janet. not experimenter, not even no positive correlation with helping
experiencing and.70 for scaled helping not supported.
1) Janet. because no chance for negative
extreme loneliness. (number of hours).
social evaluation.

Mean amount of time

Need presented in way that EA predicts more helping in offered to spend with Janet:
Perspective-taking
Female both the experimenter and imagine cell than in objective cell Public/Objective 0.67
Fultz et manipulation (objective;
32 female under- undergraduate, Janet were aware if both when others aware (public) EA prediction
al. imagine-how-she-feels) while Public/Imagine 1.71
graduates (9 in 2 cells, 7 Janet, who admitted reading note from Janet. participant did not help and when others not aware
(1986, (public) or that neither (private). ESP-Soc predicts more Private/Objective 1.29 supported, p .01;
in 2 cells in 4-cell in note to ESP-Soc prediction
Study Manipulation checked, p .01. were aware (private).
design). experiencing help in imagine cell than in Private/Imagine 2.44 not supported.
2)
extreme loneliness. Measure of dispositional
Manipulation checked, p objective cell only when others (Pattern of results same
empathy also taken. aware (public). when controlled for scores
.01.
on dispositional empathy.)

282
Appendix D
Tests of the Self-Evaluation Version of the Empathy-Specific-Punishment Hypothesis

285
Study Participants Need Situation Empathy Variable Cross-cutting Variable Competing Predictions Results (by cell) Conclusion

a. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Self-Evaluation Version (ESP-Self)

None

b. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (EA)

Proportion helping:
Low
justification/Objective.55
Justification for not helping Low
Perspective-taking provided by proportion of justification/Imagine.60
University senior, manipulation (objective; prior participants asked who EA predicts less helping of Katie High EA prediction
Katie, struggling to imagine-how-she-feels) actually volunteered to help when justification high only in the justification/Objective.15
Batson et al. 120 undergraduates (10 supported, p
support younger while listening to Katie (high; low). objective condition. ESP-Self
(1988, Study women, 10 men per
brother and sister after interview with Katie. predicts less helping when High .001; ESP-Self
2) cell in 6-cell design).
death of parents in Manipulation checked, p Manipulation checked, p justification high in the imagine justification/Imagine.60 prediction not
auto accident. .04. Replication cells with no condition too. No supported.
.001. justification information also information/Objective.35
included. No information/Imagine.70
(Number of hours
volunteered showed the
same significant pattern.)

Mean helping:
Same-sex EA predicts less helping of Low justification/Low
88 under-graduates (20 Naturally-occurring Justification for not helping EA prediction
undergraduate, Janet/Brian when justification high empathy.65
women, 25 men in situational empathy provided by attributional
Batson et al. Janet/Brian, who only among participants feeling low Low justification/High supported, p
high-justification reported after listening ambiguity for choosing task to
(1988, Study expressed desire to empathy. ESP-Self predicts less empathy.61 .001; ESP-Self
condition; 20 women, over audio intercom to benefit self instead of
3) avoid negative task helping when justification high High justification/Low prediction not
23 men in low- Janet/Brian express Janet/Brian (high justification;
consequences (electric among participants feeling high empathy.28 supported.
justification condition). concern about the shocks. low).
shocks). empathy too.
High justification/High
empathy.50

Mean performance on
qualifying task:
Among participants who offer to
Justification for not helping help by taking shocks for Elaine, Low justification/Distress
EA prediction
60 female Naturally-occurring provided by difficulty of EA predicts worse performance on 11.30
Batson et al. undergraduates (35 in Female undergraduate, dominant emotional standard to qualify to help the qualifying task when Low justification/Empathy supported, p
(1988, Study high-justification Elaine, reacting badly response to watching (high-justification; low). justification high only among those 9.90 .01; AAR
4) condition; 25 in low- to electric shocks. Elaine suffer (distress; feeling predominant distress. ESP- High-justification/Distress prediction not
justification condition). empathy). Manipulation checked, p Self predicts worse performance 8,25 supported.
.03. when justification high among those
feeling predominant empathy too. High-justification/Empathy
13.00
(higher numbers indicate
 better performance)

Betas from regressing

amount of help offered on
EA predicts a positive correlation latency (adjusted):
Perspective-taking Type of word (participants between the latency to name the
University senior, manipulation (objective; EA prediction
were asked to name color of color of need-relevant words and Punishment-relevant
48 female Katie, struggling to imagine-how-she-feels)
Batson et al. ink in which each word helping Katie in the imagine words/ supported, p
undergraduates (24 in support younger while listening to appeared). Some words were condition. ESP-Self predicts a
(1988, Study Objective -.29 .01; ESP-Self
each perspective-taking brother and sister after interview with Katie.
5) punishment relevant (e.g., positive correlation between latency prediction not
condition). death of parents in Manipulation checked, p Imagine -.30
guilt); some were need to name the color of punishment- supported.
auto accident.
.03. relevant (e.g., adopt). relevant words and helping Katie in Need-relevant words/
the imagine condition. Objective -.06
Imagine +.62

Participants Need Situation Empathy Variable Cross-cutting Variable Competing Predictions Results (by cell) Conclusion

Mean mood change:

EA predicts more negative mood
Perspective-taking change in the imagine than in the Failure not
Female undergraduate, manipulation (objective; Justification for lack of justified/Objective -2.23 EA prediction
objective condition even if
Batson & Julie, who expressed imagine-how-she-feels) success of attempt to help
60 female Julie avoid the shocks (low unsuccessful attempt to help is Failure not justified/Imagine supported, p
Weeks (1996, desire to avoid while listening to audio
undergraduates (15 per justification; high). justified. ESP-Self predicts more -3.17 .01; ESP-Self
Experiment negative task communication from
cell in 4-cell design). negative mood change in the Failure justified/Objective - prediction not
1) consequences (electric Julie. Manipulation Manipulation checked, p imagine condition only if 1.25 supported.
shocks). .001.
checked, p .001. unsuccessful attempt to help is not
justified. Failure justified/Imagine -
2.83

All participants given high

Female undergraduate, Perspective-taking justification for lack of EA predicts more negative mood Mean mood change: EA prediction
Batson & 30 female Julie, who expressed manipulation (objective; success of attempt to help change in the imagine than in the
Failure justified/Objective - supported, p
Weeks (1996, undergraduates (15 in desire to avoid imagine-how-she-feels) Julie avoid the shocks (their objective condition. ESP-Self
0.68
Experiment each perspective-taking negative task while reading note from attempt succeeded, but Julie predicts no more negative mood .001; ESP-Self
2) condition). consequences (electric Julie. Manipulation was ostensibly randomly change in the imagine than in the Failure justified/Imagine - prediction not
shocks). assigned an impossible task on objective condition. 2.70 supported.
checked, p .05.
which she failed).

286
Appendix E
Tests of the General Empathy-Specific-Reward Hypothesis

289
Study Participants Need Situation Empathy Variable Cross-cutting Variable Competing Predictions Results (by cell) Conclusion

a. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Empathy-Specific-Reward Hypothesis (ESR)

None

b. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (EA)

Mean mood change

among those feeling
high empathy:
Same-sex undergraduate, Naturally-occurring Before chance to help, prior EA prediction
Among those feeling high empathy, EA No
Batson et 80 under-graduates Janet/Brian, who situational empathy participants learn whether need
predicts negative mood change only in the relief/Perform +.50 supported, p
al. (10 women, 10 men expressed desire to avoid reported after listening over still exists (no prior relief; prior
no-prior-relief/not-perform cell. ESR No prior relief/Not .02; ESR
(1988, per cell in 4-cell negative task audio intercom to relief) and whether they will
predicts negative mood change in all cells perform -.30 prediction not
Study 1) design). consequences (electric Janet/Brian express concern perform helping task (perform;
except the no-prior-relief/perform cell. Prior relief/Perform supported.
shocks). about the shocks. not perform).
+.31
Prior relief/Not
perform +1.36

Betas from
regressing amount
of help offered on
latency (adjusted):
Perspective-taking Type of word (participants EA predicts a positive correlation between
Reward-relevant EA prediction
University senior, Katie, manipulation (objective; were asked to name color of the latency to name the color of need-
Batson et 48 female
struggling to support imagine-how-she-feels) ink in which each word relevant words and helping Katie in the words/ supported, p
al. undergraduates (24
younger brother and sister while listening to interview appeared). Some words were imagine condition. ESR predicts a positive Objective -.15 .01; ESR
(1988, in each perspective-
after death of parents in with Katie. Manipulation reward relevant (e.g., praise); correlation between latency to name the prediction not
Study 5) taking condition). Imagine -.30
auto accident. some were need relevant (e.g., color of reward-relevant words and helping supported.
checked, p .03. adopt). Katie in the imagine condition. Need-relevant
words/
Objective -0.6
Imagine +.62

Predictions same for ESR as for ESP-Self. Participants, Procedure,

Batson & Weeks (1996, Experiment 1)
Predictions, Results, and Conclusion reported in Appendix D.

Predictions same for ESR as for ESP-Self. Participants, Procedure,

Batson & Weeks (1996, Experiment 2)
Predictions, Results, and Conclusion reported in Appendix D.

290
Appendix F
Tests of the Empathic-Joy Version of the Empathy-Specific-Reward Hypothesis

293
Study Participants Need Situation Empathy Variable Cross-cutting Variable Competing Predictions Results (by cell) Conclusion

a. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Empathic-Joy Hypothesis (EJ)

Proportion helping:
No feedback/Objective.38
No feedback/Imagine.69
Feedback/Objective.62
Perspective-taking Feedback/Imagine.93
In the experimental
manipulation (objective; Anticipated feedback on EA predicts more helping of Due to doubts about the success design, EA prediction
imagine-how-she-feels) effects of ones advice freshman (by offering advice) in
of the empathy manipulation,
Female university
64 undergraduates (33 while watching video of should one choose to the imagine than in the objective Smith et al. turned to an internal supported, p .01; EJ
freshman offer freshman advice
Smith et al. women, 28 men, 3 interview with struggling condition regardless of whether analysis based on reported prediction not supported.
struggling with
(1989) unspecified) in 4-cell freshman. Manipulation on how to cope (no feedback is expected. EJ empathy minus reported distress In the internal analysis,
adjustment to
design (16 per cell). failed to check; there were feedback; feedback). predicts more helping in the
(E-D) and found: EA prediction not
college.
no reliable difference across Manipulation checked, imagine condition only when supported; EJ prediction
conditions in reported p .001. feedback is expected. No feedback/E D.53
empathy. supported, p .01.
No feedback/E D.53

Feedback/E D.62

Feedback/E D.93

b. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (EA)

Proportion helping:
EA predicts more helping of
University senior, Perspective-taking Anticipated feedback on No feedback/Objective.33
72 female Katie in the imagine than in the
Katie, struggling manipulation (objective; effects of ones effort objective condition regardless of No feedback/Imagine.83
Batson et al. undergraduates (12 EA prediction
to support imagine-how-she-feels) should one choose to whether feedback is expected.
(1991, per cellincluding 2 Feedback/Objective.67
younger brother while listening to interview help Katie (no feedback; supported, p .005; EJ
Experiment no-information-about- EJ predicts more helping in the
and sister after with Katie. Manipulation feedback). Manipulation Feedback/Imagine.58 prediction not supported.
1) feedback cells not imagine than in the objective
death of parents
summarized here). condition only when feedback is (Number of hours volunteered
in auto accident. checked, p .001. checked, p .001. showed the same significant
expected.
pattern.)

Proportion choosing to watch

EA predicts relatively high
second interview with Susan:
Perspective-taking Likelihood that Susan proportion choosing to watch
Batson et al. 72 female
University manipulation (objective; will be feeling better at second interview with Susan in 20%/Objective.17
freshman, Susan, imagine-how-she-feels) EA prediction
(1991, undergraduates (12 time of second the imagine condition regardless 20%/Imagine.33
struggling with while watching interview interview (20%; 50%; of the likelihood that she will be supported, p .05; EJ
Experiment per cell in 6-cell 50%/Objective.17
adjustment to with Susan. Manipulation 80%). Manipulation feeling better. EJ predicts linear prediction not supported.
2) design).
college. increase in proportion in the 50%/Imagine.58
checked, p .001. checked, p .001. imagine condition as likelihood 80%/Objective.33
she will feel better increases.
80%/Imagine.42

Batson et al. 108 undergraduates (9 University senior, Perspective-taking Likelihood that Katies EA predicts relatively high
Proportion choosing to hear EA prediction
(1991, women, 9 men per Katie, struggling manipulation (objective; situation will have proportion choosing to hear
Experiment cell in 6-cell design). to support imagine-how-she-feels) improved by time of second interview with Katie in second interview with Katie:
3) younger brother while listening to interview second interview (20%; the imagine condition regardless 20%/Objective.22 supported, p .04; EJ
and sister after with Katie. Manipulation 50%; 80%). of the likelihood that her prediction not supported.
death of parents Manipulation checked, situation will have improved. EJ 20%/Imagine.50
in auto accident. checked, p .001. predicts linear increase in 50%/Objective.33
p .001. proportion in the imagine 50%/Imagine.67
condition as likelihood that
Katies situation will have 80%/Objective.44
improved increases. 80%/Imagine.44

294
Appendix G
Tests of the Negative-State-Relief Version of the Empathy-Specific-Reward Hypothesis

296
Study Participants Need Situation Empathy Variable Cross-cutting Variable Competing Predictions Results (by cell) Conclusion

a. Studies Interpreted as Supporting the Negative-State-Relief Hypothesis (NSR)

Mean number of shock trials

taken:
Easy/Objective/No reward 1.75 EA prediction not
Perspective-taking EA predicts less help (taking Easy/Imagine/No reward 3.60 supported; NSR
manipulation shocks for Elaine) when escape prediction supported, p
Manipulation of ease of Praise 2.27
(objective; imagine- easy only in the objective .05, but only on
escape from witnessing
Female how-she-feels) while condition and no reduction in Money 1.71 scaled measure.
Cialdini et 80 female Elaines distress if do not
undergraduate, watching Elaine take help in the easy/imagine Difficult/Objective/No reward Interpretation clouded
al. (1987, undergraduates (7-12 help (easy; difficult). Also, in
Elaine, reacting shocks. Manipulation condition due to mood 2.60 by ineffective empathy
Experiment per cell in 8-cell the imagine perspective
badly to electric appeared to be enhancement. NSR predicts
1) design). condition, mood enhancement Difficult/Imagine/No reward manipulation in easy-
shocks. successful in difficult- less help in the easy/imagine escape condition and by
was manipulated via reward 5.63
escape condition but condition when mood is failure to replicate 1-
(no reward; praise; money). Praise 4.00
not in easy-escape enhanced than when mood is vs.-3 pattern of helping
condition. not enhanced. Money 1.82 in absence of mood
(Proportion helping patterned enhancement.
similarly but differences were
not statistically significant.)

Manipulation of lability of Mean number of hours EA prediction not

Perspective-taking EA predicts more help volunteered: supported; NSR
mood (fixed; labile). After
manipulation (volunteering to go over notes prediction supported, p
Female hearing of Carols need, Fixed/Objective 0.56
Cialdini et 35 female undergraduate, (objective; imagine- participants in fixed-mood with Carol) in the imagine than
in the objective condition Fixed/Imagine 0.63 .02, but only on
al. (1987, undergraduates (810 Carol, needing help how-she-feels) while condition were told that as a scaled measure of
listening to interview regardless of lability of mood. Labile/Objective 0.75
Experiment per cell in 4-cell with class notes after side-effect of drug taken helping (number of
with Carol. NSR predicts more help in
2) design). breaking legs in auto earlier, their mood would not Labile/Imagine 1.30 hours volunteered), not
Manipulation imagine than in the objective
accident. change for 30 minutes; those
condition only when mood is (Proportion helping patterned on dichotomous
checked, p .01. in labile-mood condition were similarly but differences were measure (not help vs.
labile.
told nothing. not statistically significant.) help).

Mean on scaled measure of help:

Manipulation of anticipated EA predicts more help No anticipated
EA prediction not
90 female Perspective-taking
mood effects of listening to (volunteering to go over notes enhancement/Objective 0.40 supported; NSR
undergraduates (15 per Female manipulation with Carol) in the imagine than
second audiotape after No anticipated prediction supported,
cell in 6-cell design undergraduate, (objective; imagine-
Schaller & listening to interview with in the objective condition even enhancement/Imagine 1.13 but only on scaled
two cells not relevant Carol, needing help how-she-feels) while
Cialdini Carol (no anticipated mood- when mood enhancement is
to testing the NSR with class notes after listening to interview enhancement; anticipated anticipated. NSR predicts more Anticipated enhancement/ measure of helping and
(1988) with Carol. Objective 0.80 only after unadjusted
version of the ESR breaking legs in auto mood-enhancement). help in imagine than in the
Manipulation post-hoc analysis
hypothesis are accident. objective condition only when Anticipated enhancement/
Manipulation checked, p including time of
omitted). checked, p .01. mood enhancement is not Imagine 0.73
.05. semester as a factor.
anticipated. (Proportion helping by cell
was:.27,.73,.53, and.60.)

Schroeder et 120 undergraduates Female Perspective-taking Manipulation of lability of EA predicts less help Proportion helping: EA prediction
al. (1988) 63 women, 57 men (15 undergraduate, Ann, manipulation mood (fixed; labile). Before (volunteering to make calls for
Easy/Objective/Labile.53
per cell in 8-cell recently diagnosed (objective; imagine- hearing of Anns need, Ann) in the objective/easy- supported, p .05; NSR
 design). with leukemia and how-she-feels) while participants in fixed-mood escape cell than in the other Fixed.60 prediction not
needing help making listening to interview condition were told that as a three cells of the Perspective x Easy/Imagine/Labile.73 supported, but results
calls to potential with Ann. side-effect of drug to be Escape design regardless of for dichotomous
blood donors for her Manipulation taken, their mood would not lability of mood. NSR predicts Fixed.60 measure actually do not
weekly transfusions. change for 20 minutes; those less help in the objective/easy- Difficult/Objective/Labile.60 clearly favor one
checked, p .001. in labile-mood condition were escape cell than in the other Fixed.73 hypothesis over the
told drug had no major side three cells only when mood is other, and differences
effects. Ease of escape also labile; NSR predicts less help Difficult/Imagine/Labile.87 on the scaled measure
manipulatedvia presence or in both easy-escape conditions Fixed.87 were not statistically
absence of social evaluation compared to the difficult (Number of calls volunteered significant.
(easy; difficult). escape conditions when mood patterned even more clearly as
is fixed. predicted by EA, but differences
were not statistically significant.)

Proportion helping:
No anticipated
Anticipated mood effect of EA predicts more help (by enhancement/Distress.33
40 undergraduates (8 video to be watched in media taking shocks) when the No anticipated
women, 11 men in no dominant emotion is empathy enhancement/Empathy.70
Same-sex Naturally-occurring study following observation EA prediction
anticipated mood- (no rather than distress even when
Batson et al. undergraduate, dominant emotional of Elaine/Charlie
enhancement condition, anticipated mood- mood-enhancement is Anticipated supported, p .05; NSR
(1989, Elaine/Charlie, response to watching
Study 2)
11 women, 10 men in
reacting badly to Elaine/Charlie suffer enhancement; anticipated anticipated. NSR predicts more enhancement/Distress.45 prediction not
anticipated mood- help when the dominant Anticipated
electric shocks. (distress; empathy). mood-enhancement). supported.
enhancement emotion is empathy rather than enhancement/Empathy.70
condition). Manipulation checked, p distress only when mood- (Number of shock trials taken
.001. enhancement is not anticipated.
showed the same pattern, p
.11.)

Proportion helping:
No anticipated
Perspective-taking Anticipated mood effect of EA predicts more helping of enhancement/Objective.40
manipulation video to be watched in media Katie in the imagine than in the
University senior,
objective condition even when No anticipated EA
Katie, struggling to (objective; imagine- study following listening to prediction
Batson et al. 60 undergraduates (10 how-she-feels) while Katie (no anticipated mood- mood-enhancement is enhancement/Imagine.80
support younger supported, p .001;
(1989, women, 5 men per cell anticipated anticipated. NSR predicts more Anticipated
brother and sister listening to interview enhance-ment; NSR prediction not
Study 3) in 4-cell design). helping in the imagine than in enhancement/Objective.33
after death of parents with Katie. mood-enhancement).
supported.
Manipulation the objective condition only
in auto accident. Manipulation checked, p Anticipated
when mood-enhancement is not
checked, p .001. .001. enhancement/Imagine.73
anticipated.
(Number of hours volunteered
showed the same pattern.)

Cross-cutting
Participants Need Situation Empathy Variable Competing Predictions Results (by cell) Conclusion
Variable

192 undergraduates (16 Female Perspective-taking Manipulation of whether EA predicts more help Proportion helping: EA prediction
Dovidio et women, 16 men per undergraduate who manipulation participants were given (volunteering to post notices Same/Objective.34
supported, p .01; NSR
al. (1990) cell for first has been ill, Tracy, (objective; imagine- opportunity to help Tracy for Tracy) in the imagine than
Same/Imagine.62 prediction not
presentation order; 8 needing help posting how-she-feels) while with the same problem for in the objective condition only
women, 8 men per cell notices across listening to interview which empathy was induced when given opportunity to help Different/Objective.46 supported.
 for second presentation campus to solicit with Tracy. or with a different problem with the same problem for Different/Imagine.34
order). Order had no information for Manipulation (same; different). which empathy was induced. (Number of notices participants
effect, so design was undergraduate NSR predicts more help in the agreed to post produced the
collapsed into 4 cells survey on student checked, p .001. imagine than in the objective same significant pattern.)
(24 women, 24 men per activities. condition even when given
cell). opportunity to help with a
different problem.

Predictions same for NSR as for ESR. Participants, Procedure,

Batson et al. (1988, Study 5)
Predictions, Results, and Conclusion reported in Appendix E.

Predictions same for NSR as for ESP-Self. Participants, Procedure,

Batson & Weeks (1996, Experiment 1)
Predictions, Results, and Conclusion reported in Appendix D.

Predictions same for NSR as for ESP-Self. Participants, Procedure,

Batson & Weeks (1996, Experiment 2)
Predictions, Results, and Conclusion reported in Appendix D.

297
Author Index

Ackerman, P., 43, 96, 238 Aronson, E., 46, 94, 99, 104-5, 108, 175-76, 236
Adams, F., 13, 235 Aronson, J. A., 31, 261
Aderman, D., 34, 66, 78, 168, 235 Arps, K., 71, 242
Adolphs, R., 18, 235 Asendorpf, J. B., 17, 257
Ahmad, N., 53, 170, 181, 196, 201-2, 204, 208, 237 Ashburn-Nardo, L., 178, 245
Ahmadi, S., 52, 267 Asla, N., 167, 244
Ahn, R., 112, 246 Avidan, S., 17, 256
Albrecht, T. L., 164, 258 Avihou, N., 17, 256
Aldeguer, C. M. R., 199, 238 Axelrod, R., 169, 215, 236
Alexander, R. D., 24, 54, 235, 262 Bain, A., 12, 236
Alfano, G., 218, 235 Balzac, H., de, 188, 236
Allen, J. L., 69-70, 129, 245, 261 Banaji, M. R., 159, 235
Allen, K., 186, 235 Bandura, A., 36, 194, 221, 223, 236
Allman, J. M., 37, 41, 50, 235 Banks, J. H., 25, 256
Allport, F. H., 16, 194, 235 Banks, W. C., 193, 268
Allport, G. W., 14, 45, 223, 235 Banse, R., 17, 257
Altemus, M., 50, 265 Bar, H., 175, 236
Ames, D. L., 159, 235 Bargal, D., 175, 236
Amico, J., 52, 249 Bargh, J. A., 14, 242
Anderson, S. W., 41, 235 Barnett, M. A., 15, 165, 236, 266
Andreoli, V., 192, 267 Bar-On, D., 175, 236
Aquinas, T., 27, 65-66, 73, 235 Baron, J., 221, 237
Archer, R. L., 56, 72, 115-17, 236, 282 Barraza, J. A., 52, 237
Aristotle, 42, 91-92, 236 Barrett-Lennard, G. T., 18, 237
Arling, G. L., 52, 249 Barrientos, S., 130, 237
Aron, A., 147, 148, 150, 152, 236 Bar-Tal, D., 27, 237
Aron, E. N., 147, 236 Bartels, A., 46, 50, 52-53, 237
Aronfreed, J., 24, 66, 236

303
Bates, L. A., 39, 237 Boyd, R., 54, 260 Brandt, J. R., 118, 130, 237-38
Batson, C. D., 17-20, 25, 30-31, 37, 43-44, 49, 51, Braud, W. G., 25, 247
53-54, 56, 61, 67, 71-72, 96, 101, 113-14, 116-21, Brehm, J. W., 128, 240
123-25, 127-28, 130, 132-33, 135, 138-39, 142, 151-
Brehm, S. S., 168, 235
55, 158-59, 164-66, 169-70, 178-81, 187, 191-92,
194, 196-97, 199-202, 204, 208-9, 211, 213, 222-25, Breskin, D., 85, 240
237-38, 242, 248, 253-54, 257 - 258, 262, 264 - 265, Bretherton, I., 37, 240
277-79, 286-91, 295-96, 301-2 Brewer, M. B., 173, 181, 218, 240-41, 253
Batson, J. G., 118, 125, 130, 139, 154, 199, 200-2, Bridgeman, D., 175-76, 236, 241
237-38
Britt, T. W., 181-82, 261
Baumann, D. J., 27, 128, 242, 255
Brosnan, S. F., 39, 107, 241, 262, 266
Baumeister, R. F., 159, 239
Brothers, L., 12, 241
Bavelas, J. B., 13, 25, 239-40
Brown, C., 177, 241
Bayly, M. J., 130, 237
Brown, R., 179, 241
Beach, S., 206, 261
Brown, R. M., 55, 241
Beaman, A. L., 71, 242
Brown, S. L., 55, 148, 151-52, 185, 241-42, 255, 257
Becker, H., 12-14, 16-18, 240
Brown, S. W., 167, 254
Bechara, A., 31, 41, 235, 257
Brummett, B. H., 199, 238
Bedell, S. J., 202, 237
Brunet, E., 19, 251
Bednar, L. L., 43-44, 239
Buck, R., 15, 31, 57, 241
Beebe, T., 185, 252
Buckley, T., 43, 96, 238
Beeghly-Smith, M., 37, 240
Bunzl, M., 191, 241
Bell, D. C., 46, 48, 49-50, 53, 240
Burghart, D. R., 26, 249
Belman, J., 179, 240
Burnstein, E., 54, 241
Bentham, J., 213, 240
Burris, C. T., 43, 239
Berenguer, J., 179, 240
Burton, J. W., 174, 241, 252
Berger, S., 15, 35-36, 240
Buss, D. M., 54, 241
Bering, J. M., 13, 37, 39, 259
Butler, L. D., 186, 245
Berkowitz, L., 34, 66, 78, 235
Byren, R. W., 237
Berscheid, E., 45, 181, 240
Byrnes, D. A., 179, 241
Bersoff, D. M., 222, 240
Cacioppo, J. T., 15, 249
Biegel, D. E., 187, 261
Caldwell, D. K., 39, 41, 86, 241
Bierhoff, H. W., 113, 240
Caldwell, M. C., 39, 41, 86, 241
Birch, K., 43, 96, 238
Call, J., 13, 38 - 39, 241, 252, 265
Black, A., 13, 15, 239-40
Caltran, G., 16, 245
Blair, R. J. R., 41, 240
Campbell, D. T., 26, 54, 90, 104, 185, 207, 223, 242
Blake, J. A., 84, 206, 240
Campos, J., 55, 246
Blakemore, S. J., 158, 240
Canevello, A., 182, 243
Blaney, N., 175, 236
Canon, L. K., 34, 255
Blasi, 223, 240
Cantor, J. R., 42, 268
Blum, L. A., 12, 220, 240
Caporeal, L. R., 51, 55, 242
Boehm, C., 51, 240
Carkuff, R. R., 13, 265
Bolen, M. H., 56, 238
Carlo, G., 56, 242
Bowlby, J., 46, 48, 181-82, 240
Bowles, S., 207-8, 224, 240
304
Carlsmith, J. M., 46, 94, 99, 236 Craig, K. D., 36, 243
Carpenter, A., 239 Crandall, C., 54, 241
Carter, C. S., 50 - 51, 186, 242 Crocker, J., 182, 243
Cassirer, E., 91, 242 Cronbach, L. J., 13, 243
Castellanos, M. A., 39, 260 Cross, J. A., 56, 238
Chaminade, T., 15, 49, 244 Curtis, J. T., 50, 52, 243
Chammah, A. M., 168, 259 Damasio, A. R., 12, 25, 30-31, 41, 48-49, 159, 235,
Chanda, M. L., 39, 253 243, 251
Chang, J., 179 - 180, 238 Damasio, H., 41, 48-49, 235, 243, 251
Chao, M. C., 223, 238 Damon, W., 108, 224, 243
Chapman, M., 41, 267 Danziger, N., 14, 243
Charng, H. W., 231, 259 Darby, B. L., 27, 128, 242
Chartrand, T. L., 14, 242, 253 Darley, J. M., 34, 254
Chen, H., 224, 239 Darwall, S., 12, 15, 18, 243
Chermok, V. L., 44, 238 Darwin, C., 12, 16, 39, 46, 53, 243
Church, R. M., 25, 242 Davidson, R. J., 73, 243
Cialdini, R. B., 27, 71-72, 117, 122, 126-32, 148, Davis, K. E., 74, 252
150-53, 155, 160, 242, 255, 257, 261, 298 - 299 Davis, M. H., 12-13, 16, 18, 42, 55-56, 68, 70, 138,
Clark, M. S., 181, 242 148, 150, 152, 156-57, 175, 236, 243-44
Clark, R. D., III, 16, 19, 28, 34, 242, 245, 255, 259 Davis, M. R., 16, 244
Clary, E. G., 225, 264 Dawes, R. M., 51, 169, 204, 215-16, 218-19, 242,
Cline, R. J. W., 164, 258 244, 258
Clore, G. L., 14, 178, 242, 264 Dawkins, R., 24-25, 86, 244, 260
Cohen, D., 87, 184, 186, 242 Dawson, K., 151, 239
Cohen, J. D., 31, 261 Decety, J., 13-15, 18-19, 49, 56, 157-58, 244, 251,
253, 255, 260
Cohen, S. P., 174, 252
Deci, E. L., 222, 244
Cohen, T. R., 170, 242
Decker, S. K., 140, 264
Coke, J. S., 18, 43, 67-69, 101, 116, 121, 141, 155-56,
224, 238, 242, 276 DeCruz, P., 43, 239
Colby, A., 108, 224, 243 DeFries, J., 55, 246
Cole, A. H., 128, 240 Deigh, J., 35, 244
Cole, J., 156, 244 Demos, K. E., 158, 250
Cole, P. M., 57, 267 Denny, B. T., 158, 250
Collins, N. L., 182-84, 243, 247 de Pal, J., 167, 244
Conklin, L., 68, 244 DePaulo, B. M., 190, 247, 257
Conklin, M. E., 181, 249 Des Pres, T., 189, 244
Connor, R. C., 39, 41, 243 de Vignemont, F., 14, 245
Cook, J., 43, 239 de Waal, F. B. M., 12, 14-15, 25, 36, 38-40, 46, 48,
55, 57, 86, 88, 245, 259-60
Cook, S. W., 175, 266
Diaz-Loving, R., 56, 236, 238
Cooley, C. H., 16, 243
Dickens, C., 184, 207, 245
Cooper, B., 50, 265
Dijker, A. J., 35, 245
Corley, R., 55, 246
Dimberg, U., 13-14, 245
Cowan, C. L., 71, 264
Dinnerstein, J. L., 222, 239
Crager, S. E., 39, 253
Craig, A. D., 37, 50, 243

305
Dixon, T., 20, 245 Feeney, B. C., 182-83, 243, 247
Dizon, M., 186, 245 Fehr, E., 26, 215, 247
Dodsworth, R. O., 52, 249 Feldman, R., 50, 247
Dolan, R. J., 15, 31, 42, 249, 262 Feshbach, N. D., 15, 247
Donaldson, Z. R., 51, 245 Figley, C. R., 195, 206, 247
Dondi, M., 16, 245 Fincham, F. D., 167, 184, 247
Doris, J. M., 120-21, 136, 263 Finlay, K., 12, 16, 174, 179, 247, 263
Dovidio, J. F., 19, 28, 61, 69-70, 72-73, 117, 129-30, Fischbacher, U., 26, 247
132-33, 164, 173, 178-80, 185, 218, 245-48, 259, Fisher, J. D., 190, 247, 257
261-62, 302 Fisher, R., 174, 247
Downing, P. E., 14, 256 Flanagan, M., 179, 240
Downs, A., 208, 246 Fleming, D. A., 223, 238
Doyle, A. C., 160, 246 Fletcher, G. J. O., 13, 264
Dulin, L., 239 Floyd, R. B., 181, 238
Duncan, B., 43, 96, 238 Foley, P. J., 25, 254
Dunn, J., 37, 51, 246 Ford, M. B., 183, 243
Durkin, K., 224, 263 Fortenbach, V. A., 116, 248
Dyck, J. L., 118, 154, 164, 238 Fox, N. A., 57, 267
Dymond, R. F., 12, 246 Foushee, H. C., 56, 236, 238
Early, S., 17, 19, 37, 154, 158, 238 Frank, R. H., 55, 104, 247-48
Eghrari, H., 222, 244 Freud, S., 12, 15-16, 72, 215, 223, 248
Eisenberg, N., 12, 15, 26, 56-57, 65, 70, 112, 127, Fridell, S. R., 31, 238
136, 138, 154, 165-66, 176, 224, 242, 246, 256, 279-
Frith, C. D., 15, 42, 158, 240, 262
80
Frodi, A. M., 167, 248
Eklund, J. H., 44, 194, 238
Fulker, D. W., 55, 246
Eliasz, H., 166, 246
Fultz, J., 19-20, 56, 71, 113, 116-17, 127, 225, 238-
Ellsworth, P. C., 99, 236
39, 242, 246, 248, 256, 282-83
Elmehed, K., 13, 245
Gable, S. L., 182, 255
Elson, S. B., 222, 264
Gchter, S., 26, 215, 247
Emde, R. N., 13, 55, 57, 246, 267
Gadol, E., 156, 244
Emler, N., 224, 246
Gaertner, L., 218, 223, 248, 258
Engel, C. L., 31, 238
Gaertner, S. L., 19, 28, 173, 178-79, 245-246, 248,
Englis, B. G., 15, 42, 247, 254 259
Enos, T., 50, 265 Gailliot, M. T., 151, 255
Epley, N., 18, 247 Gainer, P., 25, 260
Epstein, K., 194-95, 247 Gaines, T., 166, 248
Epstein, N., 55, 255 Gale, S., 239
Erkut, S., 224, 247 Galileo, 92-93, 248
Eshkoli, N., 17, 256 Galinsky, A. D., 68, 171-72, 180, 248
Eslinger, P. J., 13, 15, 49, 247 Gardner, W., 166, 260
Esses, V. M., 179, 246-47 Garst, E., 151, 239
Essock-Vitale, S. M., 54, 247 Gentry, W. D., 166, 248
Evans, V. E., 25, 247 George, C., 48, 248
Fabes, R. A., 56, 127, 154, 246, 280 Giambrone, S., 13, 259
Faillenot, I., 14, 243

306
Gibbons, F. X., 34, 248 Hardin, G., 195, 215, 249
Gies, M., 83, 248 Hare, B., 38-39, 252, 265-66
Gilbert, D., 206, 248 Harjusola-Webb, S., 239
Gilin, D., 171, 248 Harlow, H. K., 52, 249
Gillath, O., 17, 56, 256 Harlow, M. K., 52, 249
Gillberg, C. L., 41, 248 Harmon-Jones, C., 167, 249
Gilligan, C., 220, 223, 248 Harmon-Jones, E., 43-44, 167, 239, 249
Gilovich, T., 18, 104, 247-48 Harper, F. W. K., 164, 258
Ginsburg, B., 25, 241 Harrell, K. L., 125, 238
Girdler, S. S., 52, 249 Harris, C., 56, 266
Givens, J. M., 223, 238 Harris, M. B., 66-67, 249
Goetz, J. L., 12, 248 Harrison, M. C., 180, 249
Goldman, A. I., 13, 15, 17-18, 248 Hartigan, J., 189, 260
Gollwitzer, P. M., 56, 236, 238 Harvey, O. J., 173, 262
Gonzales, M. H., 99, 236 Hassan, O., 239
Goodall, J., 39, 86, 248-49, 265 Hatfield, E., 15-16, 249
Gordon, M., 176-77, 249 Hayes, M. L., 181, 249
Gordon, R. M., 13-14, 249 Hayes, R. E., 223, 238
Gottfried, J. A., 31, 249 Heatherton, T. F., 158, 250
Graves, S. B., 181, 249 Hebb, D. O., 86, 250
Green, D. P., 176, 258 Heider, F., 12, 16, 74, 146, 250
Green, M. C., 222, 264 Henrich, J., 39, 241, 262, 266
Greenberg, A. R., 39, 245 Hewitt, L. N., 185-86, 264
Greene, J. T., 25, 249 Hewstone, M., 179, 241, 265
Grewen, K. M., 52, 249 Hickok, G., 14, 250
Griffitt, C., 118, 130, 237-38 Highberger, L., 43-44, 196, 238-39
Gruen, R. J., 12, 15, 42, 249 Hight, T. L., 167, 254
Grusec, J. E., 27, 249 Hindley, M. P., 39, 250
Guerrero Witt, M., 218, 248 Hindman, J. L., 43, 239
Guibert, M., 167, 244 Hobbes, T., 27, 250
Guichard, A. C., 183, 243 Hodges, S. D., 16, 43, 194, 250
Haidt, J., 222, 249 Hoess, R., 193, 250
Hakeem, A. Y., 37, 235 Hoffman, M. L., 9, 12-16, 19, 26, 37, 41, 46, 51-52,
Halabi, S., 190, 257 57, 64-65, 73, 132, 136-37, 139, 142, 144, 165, 194,
Halpern, J., 190-91, 249 207, 250, 261
Halsey, L. B., 29, 256 Holyoak, K. J., 38, 258
Hamilton, W. D., 24-25, 53-55, 85, 169, 236, 249 Hood, W. E., 173, 262
Hammock, G. S., 166, 260 Hornstein, H. A., 19, 28, 73, 136-37, 146-47, 149,
250-51
Hancock, G., 188, 249
Houlihan, D., 71, 242
Hanelin, J., 14, 267
Houston, D. A., 42, 251
Haney, C., 193, 268
Howard, J., 27, 261
Hanson, M., 224, 238
Hoyt, J. L., 44, 238
Hansson, R. O., 65, 264
Hrdy, S. B., 51-52, 55, 251
Hanus, D., 39, 266
Huang, L. C., 66-67, 249
Harbaugh, W. T., 26, 61, 215, 249

307
Hume, D., 9, 12, 16, 20, 26, 251 Kaube, H., 15, 262
Hygge, S., 19, 36, 43, 194, 251 Karbon, M., 56, 246
Iacoboni, M., 158, 265 Keating, J. P., 11, 263
Ickes, W., 13, 250-51 Kelley, H. H., 45, 181, 183, 252
Imhoff, H. J., 43-44, 239 Kelley, W. M., 158, 250
Immordino-Yang, M. H., 49, 53, 251 Kelly, R. L., 51, 252
Insel, T. R., 50-51, 251 Kelman, H. C., 174, 252, 260
Insko, C. A., 170, 242 Keltner, D., 12, 248
Isaacson, W. 198, 251 Kendrick, C., 37, 51, 246
Isen, A., 113, 239 Kendrick, K. M., 50, 252
Iuzzini, J., 218, 248 Kennedy, C. L., 223, 238
Jackson, L. E., 223, 258 Kenny, D. A., 54, 253
Jackson, P. L., 19, 52, 157-58, 251 Kenrick, D. T., 27, 54, 241-42
Jacob, P., 14, 251 Kerr, N. L., 204, 252
Jaffe, D., 193, 268 Kesey, K., 177, 252
James, W., 42, 251 Keysar, B., 18, 247
Jansen, L. A., 206, 251 Kiel, K. J., 43, 250
Jaquette, D. S., 224, 247 Ki, S. W., 49, 252
Jarvis, J. U. M., 54, 262 Kidder, T., 189-90, 252
Jarymowicz, M., 19, 251 Kiger, G., 179, 241
Jasnoski, M. L., 224, 238 Kim, C., 185, 241
Jeffrey, K. M., 178, 242 Kim, J-J., 49, 252
Jenkins, A. C., 159, 235 Kim, J-W., 49, 53, 252
Jenks, C., 209, 251 Kim, S-E., 49, 252
Jennings, G., 43, 239 King, R. A., 41, 267
Jensen, K., 39, 107, 252 Kirwin, P. M., 166, 248
Jeong, B., 49, 252 Kitayama, S., 54, 241
Johnson, D. W., 175, 252 Kitcher, P., 22, 25, 253
Johnson, J. D., 178-79, 245-46 Klein, T. R., 43, 196-97, 200-201, 225, 238-39
Johnson, J. W., 202, 237 Klin, A., 41, 253
Johnson, M. K., 185, 252 Knafo, A., 45, 55, 188, 253, 257
Johnson, R. T., 175, 252 Kobrynowicz, D., 222, 224, 239
Jones, C. R., 69, 267 Kogut, T., 173, 194, 253
Jones, E. E., 74, 252 Kohlberg, L., 220, 223-24, 232, 253
Kabeto, M. U., 185, 241 Kohler, W., 12, 39, 253
Kagan, J., 37, 55, 246, 252 Kohut, H., 13, 18, 253
Kahana, E., 185, 255 Kolchinsky, L. M., 223, 238
Kahneman, D., 194, 208, 252 Komorita, S. S., 215, 253
Kampf, H. C., 222, 239 Koopman, C., 186, 245
Kane, H. S., 183, 243 Korchmaros, J. D., 54, 253
Kang, M., 151, 239 Kozol, J., 222, 226, 253
Kant, I., 26, 220-24, 252 Kramer, A. D. I., 43, 250
Karylowski, J., 28, 73, 252 Kramer, R. M., 218, 241, 253
Kassem, F., 175, 236 Kraus, S. J., 56, 244
Katz, L. B., 168, 235

308
Krebs, D. L., 9, 18-19, 43, 66, 73, 99, 253 McCreath, H., 112, 246
Kristel, O. V., 222, 264 McCullough, M. E., 167, 184, 254
Kropp, A., 150, 264 McDavis, K., 18, 67, 242
Ku, G., 180, 248 McDougall, W., 9, 12, 16, 19, 27, 46-48, 51, 53-55,
Kute, M., 156, 244 57, 229, 254
Lakin, J. L., 14, 253 McGuinness, T., 50, 265
Lamb, M. E., 167, 248 McGuire, M. T., 54, 247
Lambeth, S. P., 39, 241, 262, 266 MacIntyre, A., 22, 254
Lamm, C., 14, 19, 36, 49, 53, 157-58, 244, 253, 262 McIntyre, J., 39, 86, 254
Langa, K. M., 185, 241 Mackey, S. C., 14, 267
Langer, E. J., 186, 253 Mackie, D. M., 218, 263
Langford, D. J., 39, 253 MacLean, P. D., 13, 21, 46, 48-49, 189, 254
Lanzetta, J. T., 14-15, 42, 247, 254, 265 McMaster, M. R., 118, 238
La Rochefoucauld, F., Duke de, 3-4, 71, 254 McNew, S., 37, 240
Latan, B., 34, 254 MacPherson, K., 39, 255
Lavery, J. J., 25, 254 Macrae, C. N., 158, 250
Leimgruber, K., 39, 245 McTavish, J., 204, 244
Lee, P. C., 237 Maddux, W. W., 171, 248
Lemery, C. R., 13, 15, 239-40 Madhavan, G., 188, 257
Lennon, R., 57, 246 Maisel, N. C., 182, 255
Leone, D. R., 222, 244 Malhotra, D., 175, 255
Lepper, M. R., 46, 254 Malone, B., 224, 246
Lerner, J. S., 222, 264 Mandeville, B., 27, 71-72, 255
Lerner, M. J., 28, 35, 63, 71, 146-47, 152, 168, 254- Mansbridge, J. J., 26, 207, 255
55 Manucia, G. K., 128-29, 255
Levenson, R. W., 12-13, 15, 254 Malatesta, C. Z., 13, 266
Levenstadt, J. S., 39, 253 Maner, J. K., 151-55, 255
Levine, A., 50, 247 Mareno, M. C., 39, 241
Levitin, D. J., 39, 253 Margolis, H., 207, 255
Lewin, K., 20-21, 91-94, 210-12, 233, 254 Markwith, M., 222, 260
Lewis, B. P., 148, 151, 242, 257 Marques, A. H., 186, 255
Light, K. C., 52, 249 Martin, G. B., 16, 255
Lipps, T., 14, 17, 254 Martin, L. L., 14, 264
Lishner, D. A., 19, 35, 43, 53, 140, 159, 194, 223, Marwell, G., 218, 235
238-39, 254, 264 Marzette, C. M., 223, 238
Liyanage, S., 175, 255 Mascaro, J., 39, 262
Losoya, S., 56, 246 Maslach, C., 186, 192, 255
Lowenstein, G., 18, 173, 262, 265 Maszk, P., 56, 246
Lowery, J. H., 36, 243 Masserman, J., 25, 255, 266
Luce, C., 56, 68, 148, 151-52, 242, 244, 255, 257 Mathews, K. E., 34, 65, 255, 264
Lucke, J. F., 25, 254 Mathy, R. M., 127, 246
Ludwig, T. E., 167, 267 Matthews, L. L., 129, 261
Luks, A., 185, 254 May, R. M., 169, 257
McCarthy, P. M., 116, 248 Mayr, U., 26, 249
McColl, A., 49, 251

309
Mead, G. H., 16, 18, 255 Nagel, T., 90, 222, 257
Mehrabian, A., 55, 255 Naqvi, N., 31, 257
Meindl, J. R., 71, 146-47, 254-55 Nelligan, J. S., 182, 262
Meintjes, R. A., 52, 186, 258 Nelson, E. E., 50, 257
Melis, A. P., 39, 266 Nelson, G., 147, 236
Meltzoff, A. N., 13-16, 19, 37, 251, 253, 255 Nesse, R., 185, 241
Mendelsohn, G., 12, 15, 42, 249 Netting, F. E., 186, 257
Meyer, J. M., 181, 238 Neuberg, S. L., 148, 151-52, 242, 255, 257
Midlarsky, E., 185-86, 255 Neuringer-Benefiel, H., 56, 238
Mikulincer, M., 17, 56, 181-82, 184, 256 New, J. C., 186, 257
Milgram, S., 34, 108, 256 Newman, S., 185, 257
Mill, J. S., 72, 215, 220-21, 256 Neyer, F. J., 17, 257
Mills, J., 181, 242 Nichols, S., 15, 18, 136, 257
Miller, D. T., 205, 225, 256 Nickerson, R. S., 18-19, 257
Miller, N., 173, 256 Niedenthal, P. M., 14-15, 257
Miller, P. A., 56, 70, 127, 165-66, 246, 256 Nisbett, R. E., 22, 108, 183, 257
Miller, R. E., 25, 256 Nitzberg, R. A., 56, 256
Milner, J. S., 19, 167, 256 Njiraini, N., 237
Milo, R. D., 22, 256 Noddings, N., 220, 257
Milton, J., 209, 256 Nord, L. A., 223, 238
Mitchell, J. P., 158-59, 235, 256 Norris, K. S., 39, 41, 241, 243
Mitchener, E. C., 43-44, 239 Nowak, M. A., 169, 257
Mogil, J. S., 39, 253 Nussbaum, M. C., 12, 18, 34-35, 42, 146, 257
Mohr, S., 167, 249 Nystrom, L. E., 31, 261
Molnar-Szakacs, I., 158, 265 Oakley, B., 188, 257
Momaday, N. S., 177, 256 Oatley, K., 180, 257
Monette, P., 177, 256 OBoyle, C., 56, 246
Mondillon, L., 15, 257 Oceja, L. V., 53, 254
Monroe, K. R., 41, 88, 256 Ochsner, K. N., 14, 267
Mook, D. G., 94, 256 OConnell, S. M., 13, 86, 257
Moore, M. K., 14-16, 255 Odendaal, J. S., 52, 186, 258
Moran, T., 169, 196, 201, 239 ODoherty, J., 15, 31, 42, 249, 262
Morgenstern, O., 208, 266 ODonohue, W., 167, 261
Morris, A. S., 176, 246 Ogawa, N., 25, 256
Morrison, I., 14, 256 hman, A., 14, 258
Mortimer, J. T., 185, 252 Olazbal, D. E., 50, 258
Morycz, R. K., 187, 261 Oleson, K. C., 30, 239
Moskowitz, G. B., 68, 180, 248 Oliner, P. M., 9, 88, 226, 232, 258
Moss, C. J., 39, 41, 237, 256 Oliner, S. P., 9, 88, 226, 232, 258
Mullet, J., 13, 15, 239-40 Olson, M., Jr., 208, 258
Murphy, B., 56, 246 Oman, D., 185-86, 258
Murphy, G., 14, 256 OMara, E. M., 223, 258
Murray, H. A., 21, 212, 256 Omoto, A. M., 150, 187, 195, 258, 264
Myers, M., 156, 244 Onawola, R., 185, 257
Nadler, A., 190, 247, 257

310
OQuin, K., 113, 239 Rachal, K. C., 167, 254
Orbell, J. M., 51, 215-16, 218, 242, 244, 258 Radke-Yarrow, M., 41, 45-46, 48, 52, 267
Oria, M. M., 218, 248 Rainer, J. P., 195, 206, 259
Ormaechea, A., 167, 244 Rand, A., 26, 259
Orne, M., 104, 258 Rapoport, A., 168, 259
Orr, R., 179, 238 Rapson, R. L., 15, 249
Ortiz, B. G., 44, 238 Ratner, R. K., 205, 256
Oswald, P. A., 70, 258 Ravenscroft, I., 13, 259
Paduano, A., 225, 238 Raviv, A., 27, 237
Paleari, F. G., 167, 247 Rawls, J., 26, 220-21, 260
Paluck, E. L., 176, 179, 181, 258 Regalia, C., 167, 247
Panksepp, J., 16, 50-51, 257-58 Regan, D., 18, 68, 104, 180, 248, 260
Paolucci, M. P., 179, 266 Reis, H. T., 181, 240
Park, C-H., 49, 252 Reno, R. R., 127, 246
Parks, C. D., 171, 215, 253, 260 Renwick, S., 224, 246
Pashler, H., 56, 266 Reykowski, J., 28, 260
Patrick, B. C., 222, 244 Reznick, J. S., 55, 246
Pearson, A. R., 178-79, 245-46 Rhee, S. H., 45, 253
Peekna, H. M., 125, 238 Rheingold, H., 41, 260
Penn, D. C., 38, 50, 258 Rholes, W. S., 182, 262
Penner, L. A., 28, 61, 164, 185, 246, 258, 261 Ribar, D. C., 26, 164, 260
Prez-Albniz, A., 167, 244 Ribot, T., 13, 260
Peters, W., 179, 258 Ricard, M., 181, 260
Peterson, A. M., 164, 258 Rice, G. E., Jr., 25, 260
Petrocell, J. V., 218, 258 Richardson, A. S., 39, 262, 266
Pettigrew, T. F., 173, 179, 181, 258 Richardson, B. Z., 65, 264
Peyron, R., 14, 243 Richardson, D. R., 166, 260
Piaget, J., 18, 259 Richerson, P. J., 54, 260
Piliavin, I. M., 27, 60, 64, 73, 259 Rick, B. M., 179, 246
Piliavin, J. A., 19-20, 27-28, 60-61, 64-65, 73, 185, Ridley, M., 24, 260
231, 245-46, 259, 261 Rilling, J. K., 31, 261
Plomin, R., 55, 246 Ritov, I., 173, 194, 252-53
Polycarpou, M. P., 43-44, 159, 178, 194, 239 Roberts, W. A., 39, 255
Poole, J. H., 39, 41, 237, 259 Robinson, J. L., 13, 34, 55, 57, 246, 253, 267
Post, S. G., 186, 259 Robinson, M. D., 14, 264
Poulin, M., 185, 241 Roe, K., 15, 247
Povinelli, D. J., 13, 18, 37-39, 49-50, 53, 258-59, 262, Rodin, J., 60, 259
266 Roedder, E., 120-21, 126, 263
Powell, A. L., 118, 238 Rogers, C. R., 13, 260
Premack, D., 13, 259 Rogers, R. W., 43, 159, 180, 194, 262
Preston, S. D., 12, 14-15, 36, 39-40, 259 Rohmann, E., 113, 240
Prinz, J., 222, 259 Rokeach, M., 45, 211, 260
Prinz, W., 14, 259 Romero, T., 39, 260
Pych, V., 116, 238

311
Ronen, R., 185, 267 Sechrist, G. B., 179, 266
Rosenhan, D. L., 71, 264 Sedikides, C., 222, 261
Rosenthal, L., 36, 236 Seger, C. R., 218, 263
Rouhana, N. N., 174, 260 Sen, A. K., 208, 262
Rowland, J., 179, 238 Seuferling, G., 224, 239
Roy, B., 189, 260 Seymour, B., 15, 42, 262
Rozin, P., 222, 260 Shafir, E., 170, 262
Rubchinsky, K., 151, 239 Shaklee, H., 207, 244
Ruby, P., 18, 49, 157-58, 260 Sharabany, R., 27, 237
Ruckdeschel, J. C., 164, 258 Shaver, P. R., 56, 181-82, 256
Ruef, A. M., 12-13, 15, 254 Shaw, L. L., 30, 43, 69, 133, 192, 196, 199, 238-39,
Rumble, A. C., 171, 260 262, 267
Rusbult, C., 181, 260 Shea, C. L., 56, 246
Rushton, J. P., 23, 260 Shehzad, Z., 39, 253
Russell, C., 18, 253 Shell, R., 56, 127, 246
Ryan, W., 168, 260 Shelton, M. L., 43, 159, 180, 194, 262
Sagarin, B. J., 151-52, 255, 257 Sherif, C. W., 173, 262
Sager, K., 151-53, 155, 194, 239 Sherif, M., 173-74, 262
Sagi, A., 16, 261 Sherman, P. W., 54, 262
Saguy, T., 173, 178, 245 Sherman, S. E., 65, 264
Salvarani, G., 17, 19, 37, 154, 158, 238 Shiv, B., 31, 257
Sampat, B., 239 Sibicky, M. E., 129, 164, 261-62
Sandage, S. J., 167, 254 Siem, B., 150, 264
Sanfey, A. G., 31, 261 Sigelman, J., 167, 249
Sapolsky, R. M., 39, 261 Sigmund, K., 169, 257
Sato, K., 218, 267 Signo, M., 166, 260
Sawyer, S., 43, 239 Sikes, J., 175, 236
Saxe, R., 158, 261 Sikes, S. K., 86, 262
Sayialel, K., 237 Silk, J. B., 39-40, 107, 241, 262, 266
Sayialel, S., 237 Simion, F., 16, 245
Schachter, S., 30, 66, 68, 261 Simon-Thomas, E., 12, 248
Schaller, M., 56, 71-72, 117, 129-30, 242, 246, 261, Simpson, J. A., 182, 262
299 Singer, T., 14-15, 42, 52, 56, 245, 262
Schapiro, S. J., 39, 241, 262, 266 Slater, M. D., 181, 262
Scheler, M., 17, 261 Slingsby, J. K., 125, 238
Schewe, P. A., 167, 261 Slovic, P., 173, 193-94, 208, 252, 262
Schlenker, B. R., 181-82, 261 Small, D. A., 173, 194, 262
Schoenrade, P. A., 20, 225, 238 Smith, Adam, 9, 12, 16, 18, 26, 194, 207, 213, 262
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., 177, 261 Smith, Amy, 68, 244
Schroeder, D. A., 28, 61, 69-70, 129, 164, 185, 245- Smith, D. M., 185, 241
46, 252, 261-62, 300 Smith, E. R., 159, 218, 258, 263
Schultz, P. W., 179, 261 Smith, K. D., 11, 71, 75, 77, 122, 124-26, 263, 294
Schultz, R., 185, 187, 206, 241, 261 Smith, M., 56, 246
Schwartz, C., 186, 261 Smith, S. B., 39, 253
Schwartz, S. H., 27, 261

312
Smith, S. M., 166, 260 Switzer, G., 56, 242
Snapp, M., 175, 236 Sympson, S. C., 43, 194, 239
Snyder, M., 150, 185, 187, 195, 225, 252, 258, 264 Tajfel, H., 217-18, 264
Sober, E., 15, 24-25, 46, 48, 51, 54-55, 136-37, 263 Tamir, M., 14, 264
Soderlund, T., 156, 244 Taub, J. M., 164, 258
Solomon, J., 48, 248 Taylor, L., 87, 184, 186, 242
Solomon, R. C., 226, 263 Taylor, M., 208, 264
Soltis, J., 16, 55, 263 Taylor, S. E., 46, 48, 50, 264
Son, A. R., 49, 252 Templin, C. M., 202, 237
Song, J. E., 49, 252 ten Vergert, M., 179, 246
Sorrentino, R. M., 132, 263 Terris, W., 25, 255, 266
Sotocinal, S. G., 39, 253 Tetlock, P. E., 222, 264
Sparks, P., 224, 263 Tetreault, N. A., 37, 235
Speer, A. L., 56, 242 Thoits, P. A., 185-86, 264
Spencer, H., 16, 263 Thomas, Geoff, 13, 264
Spinrad, T., 56, 246 Thomas, George, 224, 264
Sprengelmeyer, P., 130, 237 Thompson, E. R., 224, 239
Stanley, J. C., 90, 104, 185, 242 Thompson, R., 86, 250
Stanton, A. A., 52, 267 Thompson, R. A., 16, 37, 41, 264
Staub, E., 27, 222-24, 232, 247, 263 Thompson, W. C., 71, 264
Steins, G., 18, 263 Thunberg, M., 13, 245
Stephan, C., 175-76, 236, 263 Titchener, E. B., 14, 17, 265
Stephan, K. E., 42, 262 Todd, R. M., 43, 125, 192, 199, 238-39, 262
Stephan, W. G., 12, 16, 174, 176, 179, 247, 263 Toi, M., 43, 165, 265, 277
Sternberg, E. M., 186, 255 Tolstoy, L., 220, 265
Stewart, T. L., 179, 246 Tomasello, M., 13, 15, 21, 37-39, 41, 49, 53, 241,
Stich, S., 120-21, 136-37, 263 252, 265-66
Stocks, E. L., 53, 68, 140-45, 156, 223, 238-39, 254, Tomkins, S. S., 31, 265
263-64 Tost, L. P., 170, 266
Stoess, C., 222, 260 Totten, J., 18, 68, 180, 260
Stotland, E., 11, 15, 17-19, 36-37, 43, 65, 67, 192, Tranel, D., 41, 235
263-64 Trivers, R. L., 24-25, 39, 54-55, 265
Stowe, H. B., 177, 264 Tronto, J., 220-21, 265
Strange, J. J., 181, 264 Troyer, D., 56, 242
Strayer, J., 12, 15, 246 Truax, C. B., 13, 265
Strongman, J., 224, 239 Tsang, J., 222, 265
Stroop, J. R., 78, 121-22, 264, 270 Tudor, M., 147, 236
Strube, M. J., 222, 261 Turk, C. L., 43-44, 239
Stueber, K. R., 17, 264 Turner, J. C., 148-50, 152, 194, 217-18, 264-65
Stukas, A. A., 225, 264 Turner, R. A., 50, 265
Strmer, S., 150, 155, 193, 264 Tversky, A., 170, 208, 252, 262
Styron, W., 60, 264 Ubel, P. A., 185, 241
Suh, K., 56, 246 Uddin, L. Q., 158, 265

313
Van Boven, L., 18, 247, 265 Wexler, A., 158, 261
Van Hulle, C., 45, 253 Whitaker, D. J., 14, 264
van de Kragt, A. J. C., 51, 215-16, 218, 242, 244, 258 White, B. J., 173, 262
Vander Laan, K. L., 167, 267 White, J. B., 171, 248
Vanderplas, M., 113, 239 Whiteside, A., 202, 237
Van Lange, P. A. M., 170-71, 201, 222, 260, 265 Whitman, P. B., 13, 266
van Lawick, H., 86, 265 Whitney, H., 224, 239
Varney, L. L., 116, 248 Wicklund, R. A., 18, 34, 248, 263, 266
Vasudev, J., 185, 257 Wiesenfeld, A. T., 13, 56, 266
Vaughan, K. B., 14-15, 247, 265 Wilhelm, M. O., 26, 164, 260
Vaughn-Scott, K., 167, 249 Williams, B., 221, 266
Veach, D., 43, 250 Williamson, G. M., 187, 261
Vermeulen, N., 15, 257 Wilson, A. D., 222, 239
Vescio, T. K., 179-80, 265-66 Wilson, C. C., 186, 257
Villanueva, B. R., 43, 250 Wilson, D. S., 15, 24-25, 46, 48, 51, 54-55, 136-37,
Vincent, J. E., 27, 128, 242 188, 257, 263, 267
Vinokur, A. D., 185, 241 Wilson, E. O., 24, 39, 54, 85-86, 267
Vitaglione, G. D., 165, 266 Wilson, T. D., 22, 108, 183, 257
Vollmer, P. J., 39, 266 Winkielman, P. 15, 56, 257, 266
Vonk, J., 38-39, 259, 262, 266 Winner, A. L., 181, 238
Von Neumann, J., 208, 266 Wiser, P. L., 175, 266
Vul, E., 56, 266 Wisp, L., 12, 17-19, 251, 267
Wade-Benzoni, K. A., 170, 266 Witvliet, C. V. O., 167, 267
Wager, T. D., 14, 267 Wood, K., 36, 243
Wagner, E., 41, 267 Woodruff, G., 13, 259
Walker, A., 177, 266 Worchel, S., 192, 267
Wallach, L., 26, 136, 187, 205, 207, 266 Word, L. E., 34, 242
Wallach, M. A., 26, 136, 187, 205, 207, 266 Worthington, E. L., Jr., 167, 254, 267
Wang, Z., 50, 52, 243 Wright, F. E., 179, 266
Warneken, F., 39, 107, 266 Wright, R. A., 69, 267
Watson, K. K., 37, 235 Wundt, W., 16, 267
Wechkin, M. S., 25, 255, 266 Wuthow, R., 85, 267
Weeks, J. L., 43, 118, 120-23, 130, 132, 164, 239, Wyland, C. L., 158, 250
288, 291, 302 Yamagishi, T., 215, 218, 267
Wegner, D. M., 16, 147, 152, 250, 266 Yi, J., 185, 241
Weigel, R. H., 175, 266 Yin, J., 202, 237
Weihing, J., 156, 244 Yogev, A., 184-85, 267
Weiner, B., 34, 266 Young, L. J., 50-51, 245, 258
Weiner, F. H., 34, 266 Zagoory-Sharon, O., 50, 247
Weiner, M. J., 179, 266 Zahn-Waxler, C., 13, 16, 41, 45-46, 48, 52, 55, 57,
Weller, A., 50, 247 246, 253, 258, 267
Welsh, J. D., 57, 267 Zaidel, E., 158, 265

314
Zak, P. J., 52, 237, 267 Zeki, S., 46, 50, 52-53, 237
Zaki, J., 14, 267 Zentall, T. R., 14-15, 268
Zaspel, K., 53, 254 Zerger, T., 223, 238
Zehnder, C., 26, 247 Zillmann, D., 42. 180, 268
Zeifman, D. M., 16, 55, 267 Zimbardo, P. G., 192-93, 268

315
Subject Index

Action-consequence relation, 3841 evolutionary altruism, 2425, 5455

Adoption, 5152 evolutionary origin of, 4655, 229, 232
Affective (emotional) resonance, 1417, 48, 57 experimental tests for, 45, 89109, 11034,
58 23031, 269302
Aggression, 49, 16568, 17374, 17677, 192 evidence for, 46, 83, 87109, 228, 23031,
93 269302
empathic concern as inhibitor of, 16568, 192 dramatic examples, 34, 8189, 95, 230
93 experiments, 45, 81, 89109, 11034, 230,
Alloparenting, 51 269302
Altruism, 36, 9, 11, 2030, 83, 8789, 14546, natural observation, 5, 8587, 91, 94, 108
161, 195, 20910, 21418, 22021, 22431, 233. self-reports, 4, 22, 73, 88, 108
See also Altruistic motivation; Empathy-altruism theoretical deduction, 5
hypothesis
existence of, 34, 16061, 228, 231
as acting morally, 26, 19596, 205
group selection, 25, 55
argument from examples, 4, 8189, 230
and helping, 23, 32, 5961, 6365, 70, 7477,
associated need-state emotions, 214 7980
behavioral consequences of, 5970, 22930 as helping behavior, not motivation, 2326, 88,
benefits of. See Benefits of empathy-induced 215216, 228
altruistic motivation as helping to gain internal rewards, 2627, 88,
in contemporary psychology, 2329 228
definition of, 3, 2029, 8788, 14546, 19596, implications of, 3, 6, 161, 216, 23133
209, 21516, 228 importance in human life of, 34, 161206, 228
directed altruism, 25 inclusive fitness, 25, 5355, 229
and empathy. See Empathy-altruism hypothesis can lead to immoral action, 26, 19598, 225,
in everyday life, 4, 161206, 22829 23233

317
liabilities of. See Liabilities of empathy-induced and not helping, 5961, 6365, 75
altruistic motivation theory of, 9, 1112, 2932, 7980, 22830, 232
and morality, 23, 26, 70, 19598, 22527, 232 34
33 application, 23334
and parental nurturance, 4655, 186, 19091, central tenet, 3, 7980, 228, 232
229, 232 implications of, 3, 22829, 23234
power of, 34, 161, 187, 2035, 21415 ultimate goal of, 2022, 59
possible sources other than empathy, 9, 23132. unintended consequences of, 2122, 63
See also Altruistic personality
Altruistic personality, the, 9, 23132
potential harm resulting from, 18891, 195206
Altruistic punishment, 26
philosophical approaches to, 11, 1732
Anger, 49, 19091, 22223. See also Empathic
psychological altruism, 2425, 5455 anger
question of existence of, 35, 228 Anterior cingulate cortex, 37, 50, 5253, 157
reciprocal altruism, 25, 55, 229 Anterior insula, 37, 52, 157
as reducing own aversive arousal caused by Anthropology, 56, 51, 54, 88
others suffering, 2729. See Aversive arousal
Anthropomorphism, 15
reduction
Anticipated guilt, 62, 72, 78, 121, 137
and self-sacrifice, 23, 88, 21516, 22829
Anticipated mood enhancement, 12731, 272
as source of psychological and physical health,
73, 299, 301
18487, 2056
Aristotelian science, 9196
strengths of, 214, 216
Attachment style, 56, 18284, 229
as a threat to the common good, 2025, 225,
23233 Attachment theory, 48, 18184
ultimate goal of, 2022, 59 Attitude change, 17281
as uniquely human, 3741 Attribution theory, 74
weaknesses of, 214, 216 Attributional ambiguity, 11819
in Western thought, 3, 205, 228 Attributions, dispositional vs. situational, 180
Altruism Question, The, 6 Autism, 41
Altruistic aggression, 165 Aversive arousal reduction, 2729, 6263, 72
80, 88, 96, 11014, 136, 23031
Altruistic motivation, 35, 9, 2032, 5961, 63,
7380, 16365, 20710, 22830. See also Aversive-arousal-reduction hypothesis, 7280,
Altruism; Empathy-altruism hypothesis; 96105, 11014, 13545, 23031, 269, 27680
Empathy-induced altruistic motivation conclusion concerning, 113, 145
and another helping, 5961, 63, 75, 97, 12223, experimental evidence, 11213, 13745, 276
27071 predictions from, 7480, 9697, 11112, 135
behavioral consequences of, 9, 5961, 63, 65, 37, 269, 27680
7380, 22930 tests of, 96105, 11114, 13745, 27680
and cost-benefit analysis, 5961, 6365, 114, Backward inference from emotion to value, 44,
19193, 22930 178
definition of, 2029, 228 Barefoot College, 189
and helping, 5961, 6365, 7580, 11034, 163 Bargaining. See Negotiations
65, 18891 Behavioral economics, 56, 26, 29, 104105
as need specific, 6970, 127, 130, 27273, 302

318
Behaviorism, 24 Common good, 198205
Benefits of another person helping, 5963, 75, Community service, 21011, 21327
97, 12223, 27071 Compassion, 1112, 3435, 4546, 68, 85, 176,
Benefits of empathy-induced altruistic 181, 189, 194, 198, 207. See also Empathic
motivation, 16187, 232 concern
better health, 18487, 232 Compassion abuse, 206
improved attitudes toward and action on behalf Compassion fatigue, 195, 206
of stigmatized groups, 17781, 232 Competitive (conflict) situations, 52, 16877
increased cooperation in conflict situations, 168 Conflict resolution workshops, 17475
77, 232 Concern, 12, 14. See also Empathic concern
less aggression, 16568, 232 Conditional-genetic (genotypic) concepts, 9296
more, more sensitive, and less fickle help, 163 Cooperation, 55, 16877
65, 232
Cooperative breeding, 51
more positive close relationships, 18184, 232
Cost-benefit analysis, 23, 28, 5965, 80, 114,
Benefits of helping, 5963 19193, 22930
Benefits of not helping, 6063 and altruistic motivation, 5961, 6365, 114,
Binti Jua, 40 19193, 22930
Biology, 56, 29, 46, 5354, 57, 92, 177, 231, and egoistic motivation, 6163, 22930
233. See also Evolutionary biology heuristics in, 6364
Birds, 8586 time required for, 6364
Blaming the victim, 168 Cost of helping, 5960, 11314, 19193
Bonobos, 40 Cost of not helping, 5960
Burnout, 18687, 192, 206 Debriefing procedures, 101
Business, 6, 8385, 171, 177, 199, 208, 211, Deception research, 1045, 1089
213, 233
Demand characteristics and reactive
Caregiving, 48, 18284, 18587, 206 arrangements in experiments, 1045, 108
Caring, 34, 41, 109, 16061, 164, 176, 18184, Depersonalization of self-perception, 14849,
205, 210, 213 217
Categorical imperative, 221 Depersonalizing another individual, 19293
Causal hypotheses, 91 Deprivation of the opportunity to help, 12223,
Child abuse and neglect, 19, 167 27071
empathic concern as inhibitor of, 167 Derogation of innocent victims, 28, 168
Child-rearing. See Socialization Desire for update information concerning
Chimpanzees, 16, 3741, 86, 107 anothers need, 12526, 13940, 27172, 295
Close relationships, 45, 147, 176, 18184 96
Cognitive interference. See Latency to respond Dispassionate (objective) orientation, 41, 4344
to cognitive interference Dispositional empathy, 5556, 116, 13839,
Collectivism, 210, 214, 21621, 22427, 233 16566
associated need-state emotions, 214, 218 self-report questionnaire measures of, 5556,
definition of, 210, 21617 116, 13839, 16566
existence of, 21820 Distraction, 6263, 12829, 150
strengths of, 214, 21718 as inhibitor of empathic concern, 12829
weaknesses of, 214, 218

319
Distress, 1112. See also Empathic distress; and helping, 6065, 7080, 163
Personal distress Einfhlung, 19
Dogs, 3839, 43, 5153, 8687, 159, 184, 186, Elephants, 39, 41, 51, 86
216 Emotion, 1112, 3031, 21213. See also
Dolphins, 39, 41, 86 Anger; Compassion; Empthic concern; Personal
Ease of escape from anothers need without distress; Pity, Sadness; Sorrow; Sympathy;
helping, 6263, 7577, 11014, 13545, 165, Tender emotion
23031, 269, 27680, 298, 300 amplification function of, 3031, 21213
experimental manipulation of, 96, 99, 1013, catching anothers emotion, 1516
11113, 13545, 269, 27680, 298, 300 end-state emotions, 31, 212
physical escape, 6263, 96, 99, 101, 11113, information function of, 3031, 212
13539, 23031, 27680, 298, 300
link to goals, values, and goal-directed
psychological escape, 6263, 13545, 23031 motivation, 3031, 49, 21213
Ecological validity, 9294 matching anothers emotion, 1317
Economic Man, 207 misattribution of, 30, 6668
Economics, 56, 26, 29, 104, 164, 171, 2078, need-state emotions, 31, 21213
231, 233. See also Behavioral economics
other-oriented emotion, 1113, 20, 45, 48, 156,
Education, 176, 179, 189, 195, 215, 222, 233 185
Egoism, 2023, 14546, 160, 199, 20910, 213 self-oriented emotion, 12
15, 21721, 22426, 22830, 233. See also
two-factor theory of, 6667
Aversive-arousal reduction; Egoistic motivation;
Punishment avoidance; Reward seeking Emotional contagion, 1617, 48, 5758
associated need-state emotions, 21314 Emotionality, 5657, 229
in contemporary psychology, 2329 Emotional resonance. See Affective (emotional)
resonance
definition of, 2023, 14546, 209, 213, 228
Emotion-motivation relationship, 3031, 49,
and helping, 2329
21213
power of, 21315
Emotion regulation, 56, 229
strengths of, 21415
Emotion-value relationship, 3031, 44, 21213
as a threat to the common good, 199, 2025
Empathic accuracy, 13
weaknesses of, 21415
Empathic anger, 17879, 223
in Western thought, 3, 160, 20710, 228
Empathic concern, 9, 1120, 2932, 59, 6370,
Egoism-altruism debate, 34, 20710, 228 7480, 96104, 11034, 138, 15060, 207, 212,
Egoistic drift, 6465 216, 22830.See also Compassion; Pity;
Egoistic Motivation, 2030, 7080, 163, 20710, Sympathy, Tender emotion
22830. See also Aversive-arousal reduction; antecedents of, 6, 30, 3358, 80, 173, 229, 232
Egoism; Punishment avoidance; Reward seeking perception of need, 3341, 80, 229
and behavior, 6065, 7380 perspective taking, 36, 4345, 229
definition of, 2023, 228 valuing the others welfare, 3334, 4153, 80,
and empathic concern, 7073, 230 194, 229, 232

320
instead of perspective taking, 4345, 229 perspective-taking manipulation of, 4445, 67
instead of similarity, 4243, 19394 70, 116, 118, 12021, 12426, 15253, 166,
attitude effects of, 167, 17781 27677, 283, 28688, 290, 29496, 298302
avoidance of, 19193 physiological assessment of, 3637, 66, 279
behavioral consequences of, 161206 and prior experience of others need, 194
definition of, 1120 self-report measurement of, 6466, 69, 1034,
110, 116, 12325, 150160, 278, 282, 28687,
development in children, 16, 3738, 41, 45, 48,
296, 301
52
and similarity, 4243, 19394
dispositional. See Dispositional empathy
similarity manipulation of, 4243, 96, 99, 112
and distance, 193
13, 166, 277
effects on cooperation of, 16877
as uniquely human, 3741
effects on negotiation of, 17172
and video games, 179
evidence that empathic concern requires
Empathic distress, 1112, 1617, 19, 73, 153
perception of need, 3537
54, 158
evolutionary origin of, 4655, 229, 232
in infants, 1617
experimental manipulation of, 4244, 6670,
Empathic-joy hypothesis, 11, 71, 7480, 111,
96105, 11034, 15253, 166, 27677, 28283,
12426, 230, 27172, 29496
28688, 290, 29496, 298302
conclusion concerning, 126
false-feedback manipulation of, 44, 68, 11516,
276, 282 experimental evidence, 12426, 29496
gender differences in, 57, 107, 229 predictions from, 7480, 124, 27172, 29496
and helping, 6, 6570, 16365, 177, 17980, tests of, 12426, 29496
18891, 19398 Empathic over-arousal, 6465
and immoral action, 19598 Empathic sadness, 1113, 15355
individual differences as moderators, 5557, Empathy, 1120. See also Empathic concern
107, 229 as adopting the posture (motor mimicry) or
as an interpersonal rather than group-oriented matching the neural response of another, 1315,
emotion, 173 20
and liking, 43, 19394 aesthetic empathy, 17
for members of other species, 43, 159, 194, 229 affective empathy, 16
for members of stigmatized groups, 4344, 159, as affective (emotional) resonance, 1417, 20,
194 5758. See also Emotional contagion
misattribution manipulation of, 6668, 96, 101 in clinical settings, 13
3, 11213, 277 cognitive empathy, 13, 18
nature of motivation to help produced by, 7380, as coming to feel as another feels (emotional
9596, 11034, 269302 contagion), 1517, 20, 5758
neurochemistry of, 5051 dictionary definitions of, 13, 15, 17
neurophysiology of, 4850 dispositional. See Dispositional empathy
in other mammals, 3741 as imagining how another thinks and feels
and parental nurturance, 4655, 177, 186, 229 (imagine-other perspective), 17, 20, 5758. See
and perceived innocence, 3435 also Perspective taking
and role-play simulations, 179

321
as imagining how one would think and feel in predictions from, 7480, 9697, 11112, 115,
others place (imagine-self perspective), 1820, 117, 12224, 127, 26973, 27680, 28283,
34, 5758. See also Perspective taking 28688, 29091, 29496, 298302
as intuiting or projecting oneself into anothers recent challenges to, 6, 13560
situation, 17, 20, 5758 sequential testing of, 79, 13134
as knowing anothers thoughts and feelings, 12 strong vs. weak form of, 29
13, 17, 20, 5758 tests of, 6, 9, 95107, 11034, 13745, 14959,
neuroimaging studies of, 14, 19, 4850 27680, 28283, 28688, 29091, 29496, 298
parallel empathy, 16 302
perception-action model (PAM) of, 1415 Empathy-helping relationship, 6570, 89, 150
as personal distress, 1920, 58. See also Personal 51
distress ingroup-outgroup difference in, 150, 152
projective empathy, 1718 motivation underlying, 7380, 8890, 9596,
psychological empathy, 18 151, 155
Russian doll metaphor for, 14 salient cognitions associated with, 78, 12122,
uses of the term, 1120 124, 13031, 27073, 287, 290
Empathy avoidance, 19194 self-other merging unable to account for, 14956
Empathy-altruism hypothesis, 6, 9, 1113, 29 Empathy-induced altruistic motivation, 9, 3132,
32, 33, 59, 7080, 96105, 11034, 14546, 148, 5970, 7480, 110, 216, 22830, 23234
161, 200201, 2079, 22831, 26973, 27680, antecedents of, 9, 30, 3358, 229, 232
28283, 28688, 29091, 29496, 298302 behavioral consequences of, 9, 3132, 5970,
conclusions concerning, 1057, 11314, 117, 7480, 22930
12021, 124, 126, 131, 134, 145, 15960, 230 benefits of. See Benefits of empathy-induced
31 altruistic motivation
egoistic alternatives to, 7080, 11034, 230, evolutionary origin of, 4655, 229, 232
269302 as a fragile flower, 11314, 191
all-at-once alternative, 13234, 230 gender differences in, 57
aversive-arousal-reduction. See Aversive- liabilities of. See Liabilities of empathy-induced
arousal-reduction hypothesis altruistic motivation
empathy-specific punishment. See Empathy- as need specific, 6970, 127, 130, 27273, 302
specific punishment hypothesis neurochemistry of, 5051
empathy-specific reward. See Empathy-specific neurophysiology of, 4850
reward hypothesis
power of, 161, 187, 2035, 215, 23233
experimental evidence, 95105, 11034, 137
as a threat to the common good, 2025
45, 14959, 23031, 27680, 28283, 28688,
29091, 29496, 298302 Empathy-specific punishment hypothesis, 72,
7480, 110, 11421, 230, 26970, 28283
implications of, 6, 160206, 23133
Version 1: Avoiding negative social evaluation,
limitations of, 6, 23132
72, 7480, 110, 11417, 230, 26970, 28283

322
conclusion concerning, 117 Evolutionary biology, 56, 2425, 29, 3741,
experimental evidence, 11521, 28283 46, 88
predictions from, 7480, 115, 269, 28283 Evolutionary egoism, 54
tests of, 11421, 28283 Experimental method, 45, 90109
Version 2: Avoiding negative self-evaluation, as causal caricature, 9091
72, 7480, 110, 11721, 137, 230, 270, 28688. ethical issues raised by, 105, 1089
See also Guilt avoidance; Self-punishment limitations of, 1059
conclusion concerning, 12021 random assignment in, 9091, 96
experimental evidence, 11821, 28688 virtues of, 90105
predictions from, 7480, 117, 270, 28688 Experimental tests for altruism, 45, 81, 89109,
tests of, 11721, 28688 11034, 23031, 269302
Empathy-specific reward hypothesis, 7080, Fairness, 19698, 22027
111, 12231, 230, 27071, 29091 Feedback about needy others state, 71, 7577,
Version 1: Seeking social or self rewards for 27172, 29496
helping, 71, 7480, 111, 12224, 230, 27071, effect on helping, 71, 7577, 12425, 27172,
29091 29495
conclusion concerning, 124 effect on seeking update information, 12526,
experimental evidence, 12324, 29091 13940, 27172, 29596
predictions from, 7480, 12223, 271, 29091 Fellow-feeling, 16
tests of, 12224, 29091 Forgiveness, 16667, 184
Version 2: Seeking empathic joy, 71, 7480, Friendship, 52, 176, 179, 18182, 209
111, 12426, 230, 27172, 29496 Fund raising, 216
conclusion concerning, 126 Galilean science, 9196
experimental evidence, 12426, 29496 Game theory, 16971, 199
predictions from, 7480, 124, 27172, 29496 Goal-directed motivation, 2023, 49, 74, 21013
tests of, 12426, 29496 and behavior, 74, 21013
Version 3: Seeking negative-state relief, 71, 73 and cost-benefit analysis, 59
80, 111, 12631, 230, 27273, 298302 and emotion, 3031, 21213
conclusion concerning, 131 Goals, 2023, 31, 3738, 74, 8889, 21013
experimental evidence, 12731, 298302 inferring goals from behavior, 74
predictions from, 7480, 127, 27273, 298302 instrumental goals, 21, 74, 8889, 21011
tests of, 12631, 298302 superordinate goals, 17377
Environmental protection, 17980, 19495, 215, ultimate goals, 21, 31, 74, 8889, 21011
222
and unintended consequences, 21, 89, 21011
Escape from others need. See Ease of escape
Good Samaritan, 11
from anothers need without helping
Group identity, 173, 19394
Ethnic conflict, 171, 17579, 187
Group interest (welfare), 199200, 208, 21415,
Evolution, 4, 4655
21720
cultural, 38, 54
Group selection, 25, 55, 229
genetic, 4655, 229, 232
Evolutionary altruism, 2425, 5455

323
Guilt, 3839, 49, 62, 72, 78, 121, 170. See also Holocaust, the, 4, 83, 88, 226
Anticipated guilt liability of empathy during, 18990
Guilt avoidance, 6162, 72, 88, 215, 228, 232 rescuers of Jews in, 4, 83, 88, 226
Happiness, 3, 161, 181, 184, 195, 207, 215 Hostile orientation, 4243, 194
Health, 18487, 2056 Humane society, 3, 161, 193, 207, 233
physical, 18487, 2056 Human nature, 3, 160, 20910, 228, 231, 234
psychological, 18487, 206 Identification, 16, 14647. See also Self-other
Hedonic calculus. See Cost-benefit analysis merging
Hedonism. See Egoism; Psychological hedonism Identified-victim effect, 173, 194
Helping, 32, 5077, 7980, 16365, 18487, Identity relationship, 147. See also Self-other
18893 merging; We-ness
altruistic motivation for, 3, 2022, 5961, 63, 70, Imagination, 1721, 19091
7477, 7980, 16365, 18891 Imitation, 1416
by another, 60, 12223, 27071 Immorality from empathic concern, 19598, 225
benefits of, 5970 Including the other in the self, 14748. See also
and cost-benefit analysis, 5961, 6365, 114, Self-other merging
19193, 22930 Inclusive fitness, 25, 5355, 229
costs of, 5970, 7576, 19293 Infanticide, 55
effectiveness of, 6162, 7480, 12021, 123, Inferior parietal cortex, 15759
130 Interdependence theory, 45, 181
egoistic motives for, 3, 6163, 7077, 7980 Intergroup conflict, 17277, 17981
emergency helping, 64, 84 Internalization of values and standards, 27, 222
and empathic concern. See Empathy-helping 24, 232
relationship International aid, 18889
experimental measures of, 6570, 100101, 103, International conflict, 17175
11034, 276302
combating with personalizing contact, 17475
harm from, 18891
Interpersonal relations, 3, 16577, 18184
heroic helping, 45, 23, 8389
Jigsaw classroom, 17576
and feedback, 71, 7577, 12425, 27172, 294
Justice, 23, 17071, 196, 198, 22027
95
as motive for helping, 23
impulsive helping, 64
Justification for ineffective helping, 7577, 120
indirect helping, 61
21, 165, 27073, 288
motives for. See Motives for helping
Justification for not helping, 62, 7577, 11820,
others awareness of, 7577, 11517, 26970, 270, 28687
28283
Just-world hypothesis, 28, 35, 168
of outgroup individuals, 150, 152, 17980
Kin selection. See Inclusive fitness
rewards for, 61
Kin, 41, 54
self-benefits of, 61, 71
Lability-of-mood manipulation. See Mood-fixing
targeted helping, 40 manipulation
Heroism, 4, 23, 8389 Latency to respond to cognitive interference, 75,
Heuristics in the cost-benefit analysis, 6364 7879, 121, 124, 13031, 27073, 287, 290

324
Liabilities of empathy-induced altruistic do no harm, 221
motivation, 161, 188206, 23233 Golden Rule, 221
can be harmful to your health, 2056, 233 justice, 23, 17071, 196, 198, 22027
can be overridden by self-concern, 191, 232 propriety-morality principles, 222
can produce immoral action, 26, 19598, 225, Moral rationalization, 22122
23233 Moral reasoning, 220, 22324, 23132
can threaten the common good, 198205, 225, Moral self-deception, 222
23233
Motivation, 2023, 74, 21013, 234. See also
empathy avoidance, 19193, 232 Altruistic motivation; Egoistic motivation;
help that harms, 18891, 232 Motives for helping; Prosocial motives
may be limited to personal needs, 19395, 232 goal-directed motivation, 2023, 3031, 21013
Life satisfaction, 18487 instrumental goal of, 21, 74, 21011
Likelihood of needy-others condition link to emotion, 3031, 21213
improving, effect of, 12526, 133, 27172, 295 method for inferring nature of, 74
96
asymmetry in, 1056
Love, 3, 46, 52, 72, 18184, 190, 220, 228
inadequacy of self-reports, 22, 73, 183, 219
Marriage, 18184, 21617
inadequacy of physiological indicators, 73
Maternal care, 4753
using the pattern of behavior, 74, 90
Maternalism and paternalism, 19091
ultimate goal of, 21, 74, 21013
Meaning in life. See Life satisfaction; Self-
and unintended consequences, 21, 211
fulfillment
Motivational conflict, 22, 60, 65, 191, 197, 199
Medicine, 6, 164, 187, 18992, 195, 206, 233
200, 21112, 225
Mice, 39, 5152
Motives for helping, 35, 2032, 5970, 73, 88
Ministry, 6, 83, 233 90, 20710, 21327, 232. See also Prosocial
Mirror neurons, 14 motives
Monkeys, 25, 39 altruism. See Altruism
Mood change following unsuccessful helping, collectivism. See Collectivism
12024, 27073, 288 conflicting motives, 60, 65, 21112, 225
Mood enhancement, 71, 73, 12631, 27273, egoism. See Egoism
298. See also Anticipated mood enhancement
inferring nature of, 7380, 8890, 9596
Mood-fixing manipulation, 12627, 27273,
instrumental goal of, 89
299300
principlism. See Principlism
Morality, 26, 70, 19596, 205, 210, 22027
ultimate goal of, 89
Moral emotions, 22223
and unintended consequences, 89
Moral disengagement, 222
Motor mimicry, 1315, 36, 5758
Moral exclusion, 222
communicative function of, 15
Moral hypocrisy, 222
Multiple goals, multiple motives, 22, 212
Moral motivation. See Principlism
Multiple treatment interference, 90
Moral oversight, 222
Naked mole rat, 54
Moral principles, 214, 22027, 233
Natural observation, 5, 8587, 91, 94, 108
care, 22021
Natural selection, theory of, 5, 2425, 41, 51, 53
conflict-morality principles, 22223

325
Negative-state-relief hypothesis, 71, 7380, 111, in humans, 4655, 229
12631, 230, 27273, 298302 in mammalian species, 4755
conclusion concerning, 131 neurochemistry of, 5051
experimental evidence, 12731, 298302 neurophysiology of, 4850
predictions from, 7480, 127, 27273, 298302 Parsimony, 20710
tests of, 12631, 298302 Partiality, 19698, 22021
Need, 1113, 3341, 18284, 19395 Partners in Health, 18990
abstract need, 19495 Paternalism. See Maternalism and paternalism
chronic need, 195 Peace camps and workshops, 17475
definition of, 33, 62 Perception-action model (PAM), 1415, 36
and innocence (or responsibility), 3435, 62 Periaqueductal gray (PAG), 50
non-personalized needs, 19394 Personal distress, 1920, 37, 58, 6265, 6768,
perception of need, 1113, 3341, 62, 173 7273, 11214, 167
cognitive abilities required, 3741, 47 physiological measurement of, 3637
as uniquely human, 3741 self-report measurement of, 6465, 125, 27879
prior experience of anothers need, 194 Personal norms, 27
Negotiations, 17172 Personal sadness, 4, 15354
Neuroimaging, 15759 Personalizing contact, 17377, 18081
Neuroscience, 6, 1415, 19, 4851, 15759, 186 Perspective taking, 14, 1720, 36, 4345, 6770,
Nonviolent protest, 226 17579, 19091
Norms, 66, 12021, 17071, 181, 200, 204, 219, as antecedent of empathic concern, 36, 4345,
22425 5758
Novels, movies, TV, radio, dramas, emotional effects of, 4445, 68, 180
documentaries as sources of empathic concern, experimental manipulation of, 4445, 6768,
17781 116, 118, 120, 12426, 12831, 14043, 15659,
Nursing, 6, 65, 85, 164, 186, 190, 192, 195 167, 17071, 17879, 19697, 200201, 2034,
Nurturance. See Parental nurturance 27677, 283, 28688, 290, 29496, 298302
Oneness. See Self-other merging imagine-other perspective, 1720, 36, 42, 5758,
6770, 116, 118, 120, 12426, 12831, 14043,
Open-set problem, 1056
15659, 167, 17071, 180, 19697, 200201,
Organ donors, 85 2034, 27677, 283, 28688, 290, 29496, 298
Other-oriented emotion, 1113, 20, 45, 48, 156, 302
185 imagine-self perspective, 1720, 36, 5758,
Others awareness of ones opportunity to help, 15659, 180
75, 77, 115, 26970, 28283 objective perspective, 36, 44, 6770, 116, 118,
Oxytocin, 5051, 186 120, 12426, 12831, 14043, 15657, 167,
Parental instinct, 4755, 229 17071, 19697, 200201, 2034, 27677, 283,
Parental investment, 54 28688, 290, 29496, 298302
Parental nurturance, 4, 4655, 58, 177, 186, 189, perceptual/cognitive effects of, 68, 180
229, 232 and stereotyping, 180
cognitive generalization of, 4648, 5155, 229 Pets, 5152, 184, 186

326
Philosophy, 56, 1516, 26, 42, 46, 7173, 88, Psychopathy, 41, 44, 107
22021, 22324, 233 Punishment avoidance, 6162, 72, 7480
Pity, 12, 3435, 42, 73, 190, 207. See also Racial conflict, 171, 17577, 187, 226
Empathic concern combating with personalizing contact, 17576
Prairie voles, 52 Rational choice, theory of, 5, 41, 53, 16971,
Prefrontal cortex, 4850, 15759 199200, 2089, 233
Primates, 13, 3741 rationality assumption of, 208
bonobos, 40 value assumption of, 208, 233
chimpanzees, 16, 3841 Rats, 25, 39, 5152
rhesus monkeys, 25, 39 Reciprocal altruism, 25, 55, 88, 229
Primatology, 6, 25, 29, 3741, 46 Reciprocity, 215, 219
Principlism, 23, 210, 214, 22027, 233 Reducing aversive arousal. See Aversive arousal
associated need-state emotions, 214 reduction
definition of, 210, 220 Regulatory mechanisms, 49
existence of, 22324 Relationship security, 18284. See also
strengths of, 214, 221 Attachment style
weaknesses of, 214, 22123 Relative-benefit analysis. See Cost-benefit
Prisoners Dilemma, 16871, 198 analysis
one-trial dilemma, 16971 Religion, 3, 83, 171, 181, 233
sequential dilemma, 17071 Reproductive success (fitness), 2425, 54
simultaneous dilemma, 16970 Reputation, 215, 219
Promotive tension, 28, 146 Rescuers, 4, 8384, 88
Prosocial motives, 161, 20710, 21327, 233 Reward seeking, 61, 7072, 7480, 111, 12231,
230, 27071, 29091
altruism. See Altruism
Roots of Empathy project, 17677
collectivism. See Collectivism
Role taking, 13, 18, 179
conflict of prosocial motives, 22425
Romantic relationships, 53, 18184
cooperation of prosocial motives, 22427
Russian doll metaphor, 14
egoism. See Egoism
Sadness, 34, 15354. See also Empathic
motives undercutting one another, 22425, 227
sadness; Personal sadness; Sorrow
orchestration of prosocial motives, 210, 22527,
Saints and martyrs, 4, 83, 88
233
Sanctions, 2045, 215
pluralism of prosocial motives, 161, 20710,
224, 227, 23334 against altruism, 2045
principlism. See Principlism against egoism, 2045
Psychic numbing, 194 Schadenfreude, 42
Psychological altruism, 2425, 5455 Scientific method, 45, 8796. See also
Aristotelian science; Galilean science
Psychological hedonism, 2122
Seeing aspects of oneself in the other, 148. See
Psychological reactance, 128
also Self-other merging
Psychology, 5, 9, 13, 1517, 23, 2527, 2930,
Self, 2122, 159160
42, 46, 7273, 88, 160, 231, 233
malleability of, 15960
clinical, 1213, 18, 167, 187, 195, 233
Self and other as interchangeable exemplars of
comparative, 25
common group, 14849, 217. See also Self-
developmental, 9, 16, 23, 26, 29 categorization theory; Self-other merging
social, 56, 9, 27, 29, 104, 108, 160
327
Self-benefit, 3, 23, 61, 71, 8889, 207, 21315, Social reward, 30, 61, 71, 7480, 88, 12231,
223. See also Egoism 166, 223, 230, 27071, 29091
Self-categorization theory, 14849, 21718 Social support, 182
Self-concern, 19, 191 Sociology, 56, 88, 231
Self-esteem, 18587, 190, 217, 232 Sociopathy. See Psychopathy
Self-fulfillment, 18487 Somatic-marker hypothesis, 3031
Self-interest, 3, 26, 28, 15960, 169, 195, 199 Sorrow, 1113, 15, 17, 45, 71, 127, 15354, 190,
200, 205, 20710, 21315, 217 193
enlightened self-interest, 21315, 21819, 223 Stimulus-response relations, 24, 3841, 4749,
24, 227, 231, 233 52
Selfishness, 26, 204 Stroop procedure, 7879, 12122, 124, 27073,
Selflessness, 3, 151 287, 290
Self-oriented emotion, 12, 45 Superordinate goals, 17377
Self-other confusion, 147. See also Self-other Sympathetic orientation, 42, 4445
merging Sympathy, 1112, 16, 1920, 3435, 4546, 65
Self-other distinctiveness (differentiation), 17 66, 72, 190. See also Empathic concern
19, 47, 146, 157, 160, 217, 231 Tender emotion, 12, 35, 4655, 177, 189. See
Self-other merging, 135, 145160, 231 also Empathic concern
empirical evidence, 149159, 231 Tenderness. See Tender emotion
Self-presentation, 5556, 104, 108, 16566, 183 Tending instinct, 50
Self-punishment (censure), 30, 6162, 72, 74 Theology, 5, 27, 6566, 73
80, 110, 114, 11721, 166, 223, 230, 270, 286 Theory of mind, 13
88 perceiving intentionality and internal states in
Self-reward, 27, 30, 61, 71, 7480, 12231, 166, others, 3741
223, 27071, 29091 simulation theory, 1718
Self-sacrifice, 4, 23, 88 theory theory, 17
Shared neural representations, 1415 Trust, 55, 17276, 179, 182
Shared physiology, 1516 Ultimatum game, 52
Side payments, 215, 21819 Undergraduate samples, 1067
Similarity, 4243, 14647, 15253, 156, 19394, Unintended consequences, 21, 23, 89, 21011
277 Universal egoism. See Egoism
Social action, 21011, 21327 Unselfishness, 26
Social desirability, 5556 Utilitarianism, 22021
Social dilemmas, 17071, 198205, 21720, 233 Valued states (values), 3031, 38, 21013, 229
Social evaluation, 56, 7677, 11417, 230, 269 Value extension, 146, 15960, 229, 232
70, 28283
as sentiment relation not unit relation, 146
Social-identity theory, 21718
Valuing anothers welfare, 3334, 4153, 5758,
Social insects, 51, 54, 85 146, 173, 17779, 199, 22829, 232
Socialization, 57, 7172, 114 as antecedent of empathic concern, 3334, 194,
Social learning theory, 23 229, 232
Social norms. See Norms extrinsic (instrumental) valuing, 4546
Social punishment (censure), 30, 6162, 72, 77,
110, 11417, 166, 204, 215, 223, 230, 26970,
28283

328
intrinsic (terminal) valuing, 4546, 229 Welfare and poverty programs, 227
Vigilance, 42, 50 Well-being, 3334, 38, 42, 88, 18487
Volunteering, 85, 18486, 195, 213, 216 dimensions of, 3334
Von Economo neurons, 37 We-ness, 28, 14647, 15153, 156. See also
Vulnerability, 35, 19091 Self-other merging
Warm glow from helping, 61, 215, 228 Whales, 39, 41, 86, 159