See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19598630 The Relation of Empathy to Prosocial and Related Behaviors Article in Psychological Bulletin · February 1987 DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91 · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 1,507 41,352 2 authors: Nancy Eisenberg Paul A. Miller Arizona State University Arizona State University 537 PUBLICATIONS 43,927 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 4,211 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Studies of close relationships in the kibbutz 1974- to the present View project Stress, Coping, and Adaptation View project All content following this page was uploaded by Nancy Eisenberg on 26 March 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. SEE PROFILE Psychological Bulletin 1987, Vol. 101, No. 1.91-119 Copyright 1987 by the American Psychological Association, Inc 0033-2W9/87/JOO-75 The Relation of Empathy to Prosocial and Related Behaviors Nancy Eisenberg and Paul A. Miller Arizona State University In a prior review involving a meta-analysis (Underwood & Moore, 1982), no relation between affective empathy and prosocial behavior was found. In this article, the literature relevant to this issue is reexamined. The studies were organized according to the method used to assess empathy. When appropriate, meta-analyses were computed. In contrast to the earlier review, low to moderate positive relations generally were found between empathy and both prosocial behavior and cooperative/socially competent behavior. The method of assessing empathy did influence the strength of the relations; picture/story measures of empathy were not associated with prosocial behavior, whereas nearly all other measures were. Several possible explanations for the pattern of findings are discussed, as are the implications of the findings. The role of emotion in moral action, especially altruistic be- Definitional Issues havior, has been a topic of philosophical debate for centuries (cf. Hume, 1777/1966; Kant, 1788/1949). Some philosophers have argued that emotions such as sympathy or empathy mediate In the past few decades, empathy has been denned in many ways. Some persons have denned it in cognitive terms, that is, as the ability to comprehend the affective or cognitive status of another (e.g., Borke, 1971; Deutsch & Madle, 1975; Hogan, much altruistic behavior, and that behavior engendered by sympathy or empathy can be considered moral (Blum, 1980; Hume, 1777/1966); others have emphasized the role of cognition in 1969; Kohut, 1971). Similarly, the cognitive ability to discern moral behavior and have argued that moral action is not moti- others' internal states was sometimes termed sympathy (Cooley, 1902/1956; Mead, 1934), although the word also was used by vated by emotion (e.g., Kant, 1788/1949). Psychologists generally have been less concerned than philos- some to denote a vicarious affective response (e.g., Smith, 1759/ ophers with delineating the ontological nature of morality; nonetheless, they have been concerned with the role of emotion 1948). More recently, however, the ability to discern and identity others' affective states frequently has been labeled affective in positive social behavior, whether the behavior was denned as moral or not. Indeed, the idea that empathy or sympathy is a role taking, whereas the ability to understand another's cognitive status or perspective has been called cognitive role taking major determinant of prosocial and altruistic responding has been widely accepted among psychologists (cf. Aronfreed, 1970; Batson&Coke, 1981;Feshbach, 1978b; Hoffman, 1984;Rush- (e.g., Ford, 1979; Shantz, 1975; Underwood & Moore, 1982). ton, 1980;Staub, 1978). Most often debate has concerned issues such as the origins of empathic reactions that mediate altruistic in more affective terms (Batson, in press; Feshbach. 1978b; Hoffman, 1984; Katz, 1963; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972; responding—is such responding innate or learned (e.g., Aronfreed, 1970;Feshbach, 1978b; Hoffman, 1981;Staub, 1978)— Olden, 1958;Stotland, 1969; Underwood & Moore, 1982). Specifically, empathy as an emotional response to another com- Many developmental and social psychologists, as well as some psychoanalytically oriented persons, currently define empathy and the circumstances in which the empathy-altruism link is monly has been defined in two different ways. Some theorists most likely to be manifest (e.g., Batson & Coke, 1981). and researchers have defined empathy as a person's vicarious Nonetheless, questions have been raised recently concerning matching of another's affective state (e.g., Feshbach & Roe, the mediating role of empathy in the performance of altruistic 1968; Stotland, 1969). Thus, to empathize means to feel the behavior. Thus, our purpose is to examine the validity of the assumption that empathic responding is an important source same emotion as another, or at least a similar emotion. In contrast, others have defined empathy as concern for another's posi- of prosocial (including altruistic) behavior. Before proceeding tion, or as experiencing an affective response congruent with the other's well being (e.g., Batson & Coke, 1981). Still others have further, however, it is necessary to clarify the definitions of empathy, altruism, and prosocial behavior. used empathy to refer to a combination of emotional matching and sympathetic responding (e.g., Hoffman, 1984; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). In this article, we use the terms empathy and sympathy to distinguish between two of the aforementioned affectively ori- This work was funded by National Institutes of Health Biomedical Grant 935691 distributed through Arizona State University and National Science Foundation Grant 8509223 to the first author. The authors acknowledge with gratitude the statistical consulting provided by William Stock. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nancy Eisenberg, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287. ented definitions of empathy. Empathy is defined as an affective state that stems from the apprehension of another's emotional state or condition, and that is congruent with it. Thus, empathy can include emotional matching and the vicarious experiencing of a range of emotions consistent with those of others. In contrast, sympathy refers to an emotional response stemming from 91 92 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER another's emotional state or condition that is not identical to the Batson, in press; Eisenberg, 1986). As Hoffman (1982a) has other's emotion, but consists of feelings of sorrow or concern for another's welfare. This definition of sympathy is similar to that noted, young children may be especially likely to lack the skills necessary to enact effective empathically or sympathetically suggested by Wispe (1986). For neither empathy nor sympathy motivated behaviors. is the focus primarily on the self. Usually it is difficult to determine whether a given prosocial act is motivated by feelings of empathy, sympathy, personal dis- It is also necessary to differentiate between prosocial and altruistic behavior. Prosocial behavior generally has been denned as voluntary, intentional behavior that results in benefits for an- tress, or some other factor. That is unfortunate given that altruism, not egoistically motivated prosocial responding, generally other; the motive is unspecified and may be positive, negative, has been associated with empathy or sympathy in theoretical or both (Eisenberg, 1982; Staub, 1978). In contrast, altruistic behavior is defined as a subtype of prosocial behavior—as vol- writings. However, Batson and his colleagues (e.g., Batson, in untary behavior intended to benefit another, which is not performed with the expectation of receiving external rewards or provide one possible method for differentiating between sympa- avoiding externally produced aversive stimuli or punishments. prosocial responding. In their view, because the altruist's goal In most theoretical discussions, prosocial behavior motivated by altruistic motives has been linked conceptually to empathy is to reduce the other's and not his or her own distress, there is a psychological cost for not assisting, and little gain for the or sympathy. potential benefactor or helper in escaping the situation without press; Batson & Coke, 1981; Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978) thetically motivated (i.e., altruistic) and egoistically motivated Often, in both theoretical writings and the research litera- helping. In contrast, if the motive for prosocial responding is ture, it is impossible to determine whether writers are referring to empathy, sympathy, or both. Thus, for ease of reading, we primarily egoistic (i.e., to reduce feelings of personal distress), this goal can be achieved more easily by escaping the aversive use the term empathy rather than empathy and sympathy when discussing work in which the two concepts have not been clearly stimulus than by helping, if escape is both possible and easy. Thus, feelings of sympathy and personal distress should result in different patterns of prosocial behavior in situations in which differentiated. Similarly, because one frequently cannot determine people's motives for their prosocial actions, it often is impossible to distinguish altruistic behavior from nonaltruistic prosocial behaviors. Consequently, "prosocial behavior" is used to refer to prosocial behaviors for which the actor's motives are unknown or unspecified; thus, the term may refer to altruistic and nonaltruistic prosocial actions. Theoretical Issues one can easily escape from the arousal-producing stimuli, and, indeed, much of the limited data supports such a notion (cf. Batson, in press; Batson & Coke, 1981). To date, however, Batson's logic and the resultant research paradigm has been used almost exclusively in work with adults. Thus, there is very little research with children in which it is possible to distinguish between prosocial behavior motivated by sympathy versus personal distress. In studying the relation between empathy and prosocial be- As mentioned previously, psychologists frequently have hy- havior, many investigators have defined prosocial behavior pothesized a causal relation between either empathy or sympathy and altruism. Generally it has been assumed that vicari- broadly. Thus, in some of the empirical research, the relations of empathy to cooperative play, sociability, and social compe- ously induced arousal generated from apprehension of the oth- tence have been examined. The justification for examining the relation of empathy to such behaviors seems to be twofold, (a) er's emotional state (or general situation) produces sympathetic concern for the other, aversive arousal within the self, or both (cf. Batson, in press; Batson & Coke, 1981; Hoffman, 1984; Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981). For very young children who may not clearly differentiate their own internal states from those of others and who have limited helping skills, this Some theorists view prosocial and cooperative behaviors as being conceptually related, perhaps because of the potential for positive outcomes for the other as a consequence of both cooperative or prosocial behavior, and (b) some researchers seem to assume that both affective role-taking skills and empathizing affective arousal is likely to be experienced as personal distress, underlie, in part, the development of socially competent and and is unlikely to lead to helping (Hoffman, 1984). However, for cooperative behaviors (e.g., Marcus, Telleen, & Roke, 1979; individuals who can clearly differentiate between their own and others' internal states, this affective arousal is likely to be experi- Marsh, Serafica, & Barenboim, 1981; Shure, 1982). Conse- enced as either personal distress (self-oriented feelings such as anxiety and worry regarding one's own welfare) or sympathy cooperative play may not be intended to benefit another (as are (other-oriented concern; cf. Batson & Coke, 1981). Feelings of personal distress can be expected to lead to egoistically motivated assisting, that is, prosocial behavior motivated by the desire to relieve one's own uncomfortable internal state by reducing contact with the aversive, arousal-producing cues emanat- quently, although sociable or socially competent behavior and prosocial behaviors by definition), we also review the research on the relation of these types of behavior to empathy. Prior Relevant Reviews ing from the other. In contrast, feelings of sympathy, whether In the past decade, there have been several reviews of the relation of empathy to prosocial behavior. In 1978, Feshbach derived from an initial empathic reaction or from the process (1978b) examined the scant available literature, most of which of role taking, should be expected to produce altruistically motivated behavior if the costs for assisting are not too high, and if had been conducted with her picture/story measure of empathy (see p. 5 for a description of this measure). On the basis of these the potential altruist has the opportunity and skills (social or otherwise) necessary to initiate and complete the behavior (cf. few studies (three on aggression, two on prosocial behavior), she concluded that there was evidence of a negative relation be- EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR tween empathy and aggression after the preschool years; no firm conclusions were drawn regarding prosocial behavior. More recently, Underwood and Moore (1982) reviewed the empirical data on the relation between empathy and altruism. Most of the studies they reviewed were conducted with children and involved picture/story indices of empathy. They conducted a meta-analysis based on the findings of 11 studies (several of which operationalized empathy in terms of emotional recognition), and found no significant association between emotional empathy and altruism. However, they qualified these findings on the basis of two other studies in which either children's facial and gestural responses were used as indices of empathy or empathic feelings were elicited by means of mood-induction procedures. Underwood and Moore concluded that the association between empathy and altruism was stronger when empathy was assessed with nonverbal measures or was elicited in an experimental setting (rather than assessed with picture/story or questionnaire indices). In 1983, Eisenberg reviewed a somewhat larger body of literature on the relation between empathy and prosocial behavior but did not compute a meta-analysis. She concluded that there was a significant positive relation between the two for adults, and perhaps for children when empathy toward the potential recipient of assistance had been correlated with assisting that needy individual. Since 1983, the number of relevant studies published has grown considerably. Moreover, Underwood and Moore (1982) and Eisenberg (1983) did not review a number of dissertations and some published research. Furthermore, neither Underwood and Moore nor Eisenberg reviewed the research related to sociability and social competence. In this article we conduct an extensive review of the research and apply meta-analytic procedures when appropriate. Methods of Analyses Description of the Data Set To provide as comprehensive a review of the literature as possible, all relevant research that could be located was included. Thus, published studies, unpublished manuscripts, and dissertations for which adequate detail was available were included. This approach was taken in an attempt to minimize the "file drawer problem" (Rosenthal, 1979), that is, the bias that stems from the fact that studies containing nonsignificant findings are less likely to be published than those containing significant findings. Of course, inclusion of all available research may result in greater variability in the quality of the research; however, this problem was considered less likely and less important than the file drawer problem. Moreover, methodological aspects of individual studies or groups of studies are discussed to some degree in the qualitative review. In a prior review of gender differences in empathy, Eisenberg and Lennon (1983) found that the method of assessing empathy was highly related to the nature of the results obtained. Because it appeared that this might also be the case with research on the association between empathy and prosocial behavior (cf. Underwood & Moore, 1982), we organized the research in the present review according to method in a manner very similar 93 to that used by Eisenberg and Lennon (1983). This organization resulted in seven groupings, each involving one of seven measures of empathy: (a) individuals' self-reports of emotional state after hearing stories or viewing pictures or slides containing information about a hypothetical other's affective state or situation; (b) responses on self-report scales specifically designed to assess the trait of empathy or sympathy; (c) self-report of emotional responsiveness in experimentally simulated distress situations in which the needy other purportedly is real (involving real people, audiotapes, or films); (d) observers' ratings of individuals' facial, gestural, and/or vocal reactions to another's emotional state; (e) individuals' physiological responsivity to another's predicament; ( f ) report by others of an individual's empathy; and (g) the use of experimental induction procedures or manipulations (other than mere presentation of a needy other) designed to induce empathic responding. This last category of indices, henceforth called induction procedures, includes manipulations of observational set, manipulations of actual physiological arousal, manipulations of attributions regarding one's own arousal, similarity manipulations whereby perceived similarity to a needy other is manipulated, and empathic mood inductions. The categories just delineated differ considerably with regard to the definition of empathy. In some studies (most in group a), empathy was defined primarily as the matching of one's own emotional responses with those of another; in others, empathy was defined, at least in part, as sympathetic concern for others (groups b, c, f, and g). Of course, when empathic responsiveness is operationalized as physiological or facial/gestural responses to another's emotional state (groups d and e), it is difficult to determine whether an affective reaction reflects emotional matching, sympathy, or even personal distress. Similarly, in studies in which empathy has been operationalized as self-report of a global negative state (e.g., "feeling bad") or general arousal, it often is impossible to determine whether the negative response reflects sympathy, empathy, or personal distress. Moreover, most of the various methods for assessing empathy have been used primarily with persons from a relatively narrow age range. Procedures involving stories or pictures of hypothetical others or facial/gestural indices have been used primarily with children aged 4 to 9 years. Similarly, self-reports of emotion in experimental studies, physiological indices, and the various experimental induction procedures have been used mostly with adults. Only the questionnaire indices have been used to any degree with a broad age range (from 6 years to adulthood); nonetheless, only approximately one-quarter of the studies involving such measures have been conducted with children. As will become apparent, the systematic variation across age groups in the use of measures of empathy creates problems when interpreting research findings on the association between empathy and prosocial behavior. Methods of Evaluation Our approach to evaluating the research is both qualitative and quantitative. The pattern of findings as well as variations within a group of research studies are discussed and, when warranted, meta-analyses are computed. The term meta-analysis has been used to refer to any statist!- 94 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER cal technique used to combine the results of independent studies pertaining to a specific hypotheses (cf. Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Hedges & Olkin, 1986). There are many methods for conducting meta-analyses. Given that much of the research on the relation between empathy and prosocial behavior is correlational, we chose to use procedures by which the results from studies are converted to indices of association (e.g., Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, phi coefficients, Kendall's taus, etc.). The procedures we used are outlined in detail by Hedges and Olkin (1986). The first step requires that all statistics be converted into indices of association. Thus, results of t tests were converted to point-biserials; Fs from analyses of variance were converted to epsilons, and phi coefficients were computed from the raw data in some studies by standard formulas (cf. Ferguson, 1976; Stock, Okun, Haring, Kinney, & Miller, 1979). The second step is to transform all estimates of association to zs with the aid of standard r-to-z transformation tables. The third step is to compute a weighted estimate of the common correlation (z+). Hedges and Olkin's formula for doing this is z+ = WiZi + • • • + Wkzk, where the weights are Wt = (n, - 3)/S/-i(n/ - 3). Next, to test the hypothesis that the common correlation (z+) differs from zero, one computes z+(N - 3k)"2, where k is the number of samples and JVis the total number of subjects across all samples. The significance of the resultant number is tested using the twotailed critical value of the standard normal curve (forp = .05, z = 1.96; note that the two-tailed test is more conservative than the one-tailed tests used by some researchers; cf. Rosenthal, 1980). Based on z+, confidence intervals for the sample can be computed with standard procedures. Moreover, an estimate of the population value of z+ can be computed with the following formula: where e = 2.718. The confidence interval for the population estimate can be computed by inserting the values for the confidence interval for the sample in this formula. Hedges and Olkin (1986) have recommended that researchers test the homogeneity of correlations across studies prior to computing a meta-analysis. The purpose of this procedure is to determine whether the estimates of the correlations are reasonably homogeneous, consistent with the model of a single underlying population correlation. If the sample correlations are not consistent with the model of a single common population correlation, then the results of pooling the estimates of r can be misleading and must be interpreted with caution, if computed. On Hedges and Olkin's recommendation, we computed a test of homogeneity of the Fisher's z-transformed r estimates (see chap. 11, Formula 17 in Hedges & Olkin, 1986). This test is reported, followed by a test of the significance of z+ . We chose to report the latter analyses even if the estimates of the rs were not homogeneous. The data provided by this analysis are informative even if the significance of z+ must be considered with caution. A lack of homogeneity for effect sizes indicates that there are probably two or more subsets of studies, each with different mean effect sizes. In that case, the subset including the largest number of subjects is contributing more to the mean effect size than any other subset of studies, and a moderator variable (which differs between subsets of studies) has not yet been identified. Frequently there were several measures of the relation between empathy and prosocial (or social) behavior in a single study. Because of the assumption of independence of the measures involved in a single meta-analysis, only one statistic from any given sample (not article or study) can be used in a given meta-analysis to represent the association between empathy and a given prosocial behavior. To deal with this problem, when multiple measures of the empathy-prosocial behavior association were obtained for a given sample using different methods of assessing empathy (e.g., self-report questionnaires and facial/ gestural indices), each statistic was reviewed separately as each specific mode of assessing empathy was considered. In contrast, in instances in which two or more analyses involving a single method (e.g., a self-report questionnaire) were reported, we used one of two procedures of handling the data. First, if a composite index of empathy and/or prosocial (or cooperative or socially competent) behavior was reported and this composite index did not obscure important patterns of association found when the separate items making up the composite were examined, the composite was used in the meta-analysis. For example, if subscales of a picture/story measure of empathy (e.g., for stories concerning a protagonist who was sad, happy, fearful, and angry) as well as a total composite score were reported, the composite score generally was used in the analysis. However, if no one index of the association between empathy and behavior was considered superior and superordinate, all were included in the tables; however, the estimates of association were averaged, and this mean was used in the meta-analysis. In some of the studies included in this review, indices of association were included for two or more subsamples (e.g., for male and female subjects or for two or more age groups). If composite scores for the total sample were not included, the various groups were treated as separate samples. In contrast, if statistics for the total sample were reported, they were used in the metaanalysis unless the indices of association varied considerably across the subsamples (e.g., were significantly different). When the indices of association were quite different for the subgroups, each subgroup was treated as a separate sample. Yet another problem must be dealt with when computing a meta-analysis. In many research reports, specific statistics are not included; the reader merely is told that a given statistic was significant or nonsignificant (or is left to infer that an unreported relation was nonsignificant). In such a case one cannot compute a precise estimate of association. The best that one can do in such a situation is to assume that findings of "no significant difference" average out, across studies, to a correlation of zero (cf. Cooper, 1979). Similarly, one must assume that a significant finding was significant at the .05 level or higher. Thus, we interpreted a finding of nonsignificance as r = 0, whereas we treated a significant association as being at the .05 probability level using a two-tailed test of significance (the twotailed value was used because many researchers routinely use two-tailed tests and because the significance of our meta-analytic results was evaluated with two-tailed tests). On the basis of these assumptions, an estimate of the index of association could be computed if the number of subjects was reported. EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR To summarize, we examine the literature qualitatively and, if a sufficient number of studies using similar methods was available, meta-analytic analyses were computed. Statistics provided as part of the meta-analysis include (a) a test of the homogeneity of the various indices of association, (b) the weighted estimate of the common correlation (z+), (c) a test of the significance of the weighted estimate of the common correlation, (d) confidence intervals for z+, and (e) estimates of the population values for z+ and its confidence interval. Review of the Empirical Research Concerning Prosocial Behavior Picture/Story Assessment Procedures The most commonly used method of assessing empathy in children has been picture/story procedures. The child typically is told brief stories while being shown pictures (usually photos or drawings) depicting hypothetical children's story protagonists in emotion-eliciting situations. For example, in one story a child may have lost his or her dog. After each story, the child is requested to indicate how he or she feels. Children are considered to have responded empathically if they report an emotion identical to or (in some studies) similar to that of the story protagonist. In most research involving picture/story procedures, investigators have used the story stimuli developed by Norma Feshbach and Kiki Roe (1968), or have modified their materials and procedures. This instrument, called the Feshbach and Roe Affective Situations Test for Empathy (PASTE), was designed to assess empathy in preschoolers and young, school-aged children. The PASTE consists of eight stories, each accompanied by three slides, depicting (two of each) the emotions of sadness, anger, fear, and happiness. After exposure to each scenario, the child is asked "How do you feel?"; "Tell me how you feel"; or "How did that story make you feel?" (Feshbach & Roe, 1968; K. Roe, personal communication, March 1982). Many investigators have modified the PASTE for use in their own research. For instance, sometimes only a subset of the emotions (e.g., only happiness and sadness) has been used (e.g., Eisenberg-Berg & Lennon, 1980; Liebhart, 1972), or the stories themselves have been altered or replaced (e.g., Bazar, 1977; Eisenberg-Berg & Lennon, 1980; Howard, 1983; lannotti, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1985; Liebhart, 1972; Miller, 1979;Staub& Feinberg, 1980). Sometimes the procedures have been modified so that children can indicate their reactions nonverbally by pointing (i.e., to pictures of facial expressions; e.g., EisenbergBerg&Lennon, 1980; lannotti, 1975, 1977, 1985); in addition, some researchers have scored more than one definition of empathy (e.g., lannotti, 1975,1977,1978,1985; Staub& Feinberg, 1980). For example, Staub and Feinberg (1980) scored matching responses and expressions of sympathetic concern. Finally, Feshbach (1980, 1982) has developed a videotaped version of hypothetical story scenarios. Although picture/story procedures were an important first step in the study of affective empathy, there has been considerable concern about the psychometric properties of these indices (cf. Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Hoffman, 1982b; Lennon, Eisenberg, & Carroll, 1983; Sawin, 1979). Picture/story measures 95 usually consist of short narratives about hypothetical events that may not evoke sufficient affect for empathizing, especially over repeated trials. Moreover, some researchers have suggested that the procedure of repeatedly asking the child how he or she feels creates strong demand characteristics (e.g., Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). Others have been concerned that empathy with one emotion (e.g., happiness) may not be equivalent to empathy with another emotion (e.g., sadness; cf. Hoffman, 1982b). Finally, it appears that children score higher on the PASTE when interviewed by same-sex rather than other-sex experimenters (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Lennon etal., 1983). This is a major problem given that the experimenters in most studies have been women (cf. Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). Having outlined some of the potential problems with picture/story measures, we now turn to the results of research concerning the relation of picture/story indices of empathy to prosocial behavior. The studies reviewed are presented in Table 1; 20 studies involving 29 samples are included. (Watson [1976] is not included because her measure of altruism was what children said they would want to do in hypothetical story situations.) These samples are homogeneous with regard to their estimates of the relevant correlation, x2(28) = 33.66, ns. The common correlation (z+) is .02, which obviously is not significant. Ninety-five percent (two-tailed) confidence intervals for z+ are -.04 and .07. The population estimates for z+ and its confidence interval are virtually identical to the sample values. Clearly, there is not a significant relation between picture/ story indices of empathy and prosocial behavior. However, there are some provocative relations embedded within the larger pattern of findings. On a conceptual basis, one would expect sympathetic reactions to be more highly positively related to altruism than solely empathic responses. Consistent with this notion, in the two studies in which sympathy was specifically scored (Liebhart, 1972; Staub & Feinberg, 1980), there was evidence of the expected positive association. Moreover, it has been argued that spontaneously emitted prosocial actions, especially costly behaviors such as sharing, are more likely to be altruistically motivated than are prosocial actions performed in response to a request (because there are interpersonal pressures and potential sanctions for ignoring a request; cf. Eisenberg, Cameron, Tryon, & Dodez, 1981; Eisenberg, Pasternack, Cameron, & Tryon, 1984; Eisenberg, McCreath. & Ahn, 1985). Indeed, Eisenberg (Eisenberg et al., 1984; Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979) has found that spontaneous sharing is related to higher level moral reasoning, whereas requested prosocial acts and low-cost helping acts are not. If this is true, the pattern of association between the index of sympathy and that of altruism (i.e., spontaneously emitted sharing but not low-cost or requested prosocial behavior) is clear in Staub and Feinberg's study. These findings are consistent with the view that sympathy and altruism are positively related, even if empathy (as assessed with picture/story indices) and the broader domain of prosocial behavior are not. It is also of interest to note that self-report of empathy (not specifically sympathy) in reaction to picture/story indices has been marginally positively associated with public (Miller, 1979, for girls only) and requested (Eisenberg-Berg & Lennon, 1980) prosocial behaviors, but negatively related (Eisenberg-Berg & Lennon, 1980; Miller, 1979, for boys) to spontaneously emitted 96 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER Table 1 Relation ofPicture/Story Indices of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior Study Bazar(1977) Age, A' P Measure of empathy Affect matching Girls, 36 Boys, 36 Cohen (1974) PandG2 Affect matching Girls, 36 Boys, 36 Girls and boys Eisenberg-Berg & Lennon (1980) P Girls and boys, 51 Affect matching Verbal report Nonverbal (pointing) report of matching affect Fay(1971) 6-year-old girls and boys, 30 PASTE 8-year-old girls and boys, 30 Feshbach(1980, 1982) Howard (198 3) G3andG4 Girls, «50 Boys, =<50 P Videotaped affect matching task Affect matching Dysphoric Euphoric Affect Matching X Intensity Dysphoric Euphoric Affect matching Dysphoric Euphoric Affect Matching X Intensity Dysphoric Euphoric Affect matching Girls, 18 Boys, 17 Iannotti(1975) Iannotti(1985) lannotti & Pierrehumbert (1985) Kameya (1976, see Hoffinan, 1982a) Knudson & Kagan (1982) Kuchenbecker(1977) K and G3 Boys, 60 P Girls and boys, 52 Emotional matching*1 Situational matching6 Emotional matching*1 2-year-old girls and boys (retested at age 5 for empathy), 44 P Boys, 109 Emotional matching? P and G2 Girls and boys, 88 4-5-year-old and 7-8-year-old girls and boys, 99 Affect matching Measure of prosocial behavior Teacher ratings Help Share Help Share Teacher ratings of consideration for others Peer ratings of consideration Donations Observational indices Spontaneous behaviors Requested behaviors Spontaneous behaviors Requested behaviors Sharing with unknown recipient Sharing with peer Sharing with unknown recipient Sharing with peer Teacher and peer ratings Helping Teacher and peer ratings PASTE Direction of relation NR" NR" NR" -.31" 0 0 0 - -.33C .33' NR' .23C + 0 + -.29 .11 -.41 .25 + + + .04 + -.05 .09 + -.02 .27= NR" — C + 0 .2T ~.2T + - ns ns 0 0 2T ns + 0 -.17 .23 .06 .40 -.16 .00 -.45 .14 .20 + + + 0 + + .19 .02 -.08 + + 0 - -.02 - ns ns nx 0 0 0 n.\ 0 -.27 - .27 ns + 0 Teacher and peer ratings Helping Helping Observational indices Unsolicited helping Compliant helping Comforting Unsolicited helping Compliant helping Comforting Sharing candy Observational measure of prosocial behavior Helping lab task Sharing lab task Teacher ratings Observations in peer play at age2 Situational matching6 PASTE Estimate ofr Picking up paper clips Candy donation Volunteering to color for sick children Altruistic choices in games involving prizes Sharing with peer ns 97 EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Table 1 (continued) Study Age, A1 Measure of empathy Measure of prosocial behavior Lennon, Eisenberg, & Carroll (in press) P Girls and boys, 35 Affect matching Liebhart(1972) G11-G13 German boys, 78 G4 Girls, 27 Boys, 39 G2 Girls and boys, 96 Sympathetic verbal responses to stories of others in distress Affect matching Affect matching Stacking slides to help peer 9-10-year-old Greek girls and boys, 42 Gl Girls, 50 PASTE Sharing with peer Verbal report of caring responses toward others Miller (1979) Panofsky(1976) Roe (1980) Sawin(1979;Sawin, Underwood, Weaver, & Mostyn, 1981) PASTE G3 Girls, 32 Gl Boys, 32 G3 Boys, 33 Staub & Feinberg ( 1 980; E. Staub, personal communication, July, 1985) G3 and G4 Girls, 26 Affect matching Reports of sympathetic responding Boys, 20 Affect matching11 Helping Private donations Public donations Latency to helping someone in distress Estimate ofr Direction of relation -.10 -.03 .35 _ + .38 -.19 -.28' + - .29" .28 + + -.17 Donating candyf Donating Teacher ratings Donating Teacher ratings Donating Teacher ratings Donating Teacher ratings Observational indices Helping Requested sharing Spontaneous sharing Helping Requested sharing Spontaneous sharing Helping Requested sharing Spontaneous sharing .19 «.v -.26 .41 .28 ns -.16 ns + 0 + + 0 0 ns ns -.38 ns ns .36 ns .63 ns 0 0 0 0 +• 0 0 Note. G = grade; P = preschool. PASTE = Feshbach and Roe Affective Situations Test of Empathy (Fesbach & Roe, 1968); affect matching = empathy was assumed if the participants' reported affect matched that of the hypothetical other. NR = not reported; ns = not significant. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive relation between measure of self-reported empathy and prosocial behavior, a minus sign (-) indicates a negative relation, and a zero indicates no relation. * Assumed to be zero. " Estimated fromp < .05 for a 1 test. c Estimated from the report of significance. * Matching of one's own affect to the facial cues of another if facial and situational cues are incongruent. f Matching of one's own affect to situational rather than facial cues if facial and situational cues are incongruent. r Private donations were positively related to empathy for girls (as was public donating at p < .10), but negatively for boys (p < . 10). B Computed from the F for empathy as a covariate in the relevant analysis of covariance. h No boys reported sympathetic reactions. prosocial behaviors (although both modes of prosocial behavior have been unrelated to empathy in some studies; Howard, 1983; lannotti, 1985). These findings provide some support for the notion that self-reports of empathy in reaction to picture/story indices are affected by social demands (i.e., social pressure, the need to behave in a socially approved or expected manner). If this is the case, it is not surprising that no relation between picture/story measures of empathy and prosocial behavior has been found across studies. Self-Report on Questionnaires Questionnaire measures of empathy frequently have been used in research on the association between empathy and prosocial behavior. These questionnaires are believed to assess the trait of empathy (empathic responding across a range of settings), and generally have been examined in relation to prosocial behavior in one specific setting. The most commonly used questionnaire measure is Mehrabian and Epstein's (1972) scale of emotional tendency, which has been used solely with older adolescents and adults. According to Mehrabian and Epstein, this scale contains items pertaining to susceptibility to emotional contagion (e.g., "People around me have a great influence on my moods"), appreciation of the feelings of unfamiliar and distant others (e.g., "Lonely people are probably unfriendly"), extreme emotional responsiveness (e.g., "Sometimes the words of a love song can move me deeply"), the tendency to be moved by others' positive emotional experiences (e.g., "I like to watch people open presents"), sympathetic tendencies or the lack thereof (e.g., "It is hard for me to see how some things upset people so much"), and willingness to have contact with others who have problems (e.g., "When a friend starts to talk about his/her problem, I try to steer the conversation to something else"). Although this measure has been one of the most frequently used indices of emotional empathy, obviously it assesses more (text continues on page 101) 98 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER Table! Relation of Questionnaire Indices of Empathy to Prosodal Behavior Study Amato(1985) Archer, Diaz-Loving, GoUwitzer, Davis, & Foushee(1981) Bamett, Feighny, & Esper (1983) Barnett, Howard, King, & Dino(1981) Barnett, & Thompson (1985) Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Nueringer-Benefiel (1986) Bohlmeyer & Helmstadter(1985) Burleson(1983) Age,JV Australian college students, = 93 College women, Measure of empathy College women, Group 1,30 Group 2, 30 College students, Volunteering to assist graduate students with a study .19 + M&E Volunteering to help handicapped children Making activity booklets for handicapped children Teacher ratings of helplessness When a peer is in obvious need When a peer has a subtle need Willingness to take a shock for another Easy escape condition Difficult escape condition Self-report of cooperative, prosocial attitudes Self-report of comforting communication to a distressed peer Social interest scalec .17 +• .18 + ns 0 .17 •f M&E Bryant Scale Davis Scale (Empathy subscale)" M&E M&E 70 Crandall& Harris (1976) College students, _ M&E 325 College students, Direction of relation Self-report of planned helping 96 GIO-G12 girls and boys, 103 G4-G5 girls and boys, 1 16 Estimate otr M&E 123 College students, Measure of prosocial behavior M&E -.05 -.04 + .41 .40 + .31 + .40 + .10 + .20 .16 .24 .06 + + + + - 60 Davis (1 98 3a) College students, 158 Davis (1983b) College students, 186 Davis Scale (Empathy subscale)" Davis Scale11 Empathy F-E Dolan(1983) G4 girls and boys, Modified M&E 65 Earle, Diaz-Loving, & Archer (1982) Eisenberg, Pasternack, & Lennon(1984) College men, 87 Modified M & E G2 girls and bovs. Bryant Scale 14 G4 girls and boys, 34 Eisenberg-Berg & Mussen (1978) Fultz, Batson, Fortenbach, McCarthy, & Varney (1986) Study 2 Hamett(1981) G9, G i l , and M&E G12 Girls, 37 Boys, 35 College women, 32 Volunteering time to assist a needy student*1 Self-reports Donating to a telethon Helping needy others Donating to charity Donating to a telethon Helping needy others Donating to charity Sharing candy with poor children Volunteering time to assist a graduate student Helping an adult pick up paper clips and toys Donating money to needy children Helping an adult pick up paper clips and toys Donating money to needy children Volunteering to help the experimenter with a boring task .07 .43 + .22' + .19 + .46 •f .24 + .15 + -.02 .40 Davis Scale Empathy Volunteering to spend time with a needy other F-E College students. -.03 + — + .24 .35 + -.20" - .20" + + Scale of empathic tendency 283 Menr Women' Self-reported helping in the last year Volunteering for a study Self-reported helping in the last year Volunteering for a study NRh EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 99 Table 2 (continued) Study Age.JV Measure of empathy Kalliopuska(1980) 9-12-year-old girls and boys, 360 M &E Leftgoff-Sechooler(1979) College students, 180 College students, 72 College women, 81 GllandG12 boys, 27 13-18-year-old male juvenile delinquents, 52 G5 and G6 girls and boys, 85 G6 girls, 88 M&E College students, M&E Martin (1972) Mehrabian & Epstein (1972) Peraino(1977) Reed(1981) Reichman(l982) Rothenberg(1984) Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken(1981) Unspecified scale M&E Modified M & E Modified M&E Modified M & E Bryant Scale Stotland F-E Scale Seaman (1979) Adults, 60 M&E Stotland, Mathews, Sherman, Hansson, & Richardson (1978); Davis, Hansson, & Jones study; Hammersala study Hansson study (1978) Adults, 29 Stotland F-E scale College women First borns, 24 Later borns, 54 Stotland F-E scale College students, 62 Adults, 43 Stotland F-E scale Stotland F-E scale Mathews study (1978) Mathews & Stotland study (1978) Strayer& Roberts (1984; Strayer, 1983) Sturtevant(1985) Van Ornum, Foley, Burns, DeWolfe, & Kennedy (1981) Wisenfeld, Whitman, & Malatesta(1984) Female nurses, 74 Stotland F-E scale 6-8-year-old girls and boys, 33 G4-G6 girls and boys, 161 Bryant Scale College students, 62 M&E Adult women, 38 M&E Bryant Scale Measure of prosocial behavior Self-report of willingness to help in hypothetical situations Peer nominations for altruism Helping to pick up dropped books Volunteering to help with a study Volunteering to help with a study Giving money to another in a game situation Helping to score questionnaires Number scored Accuracy of scoring Peer and teacher ratings and donations Helping hospitalized children at cost to oneself Altruism questionnaire Nurturance questionnaire Altruism questionnaire Nurturance questionnaire Helping a person who fell off of crutches Time spent on crisis phone with suicide calls Helping to pick up dropped packages Estimate ofr Direction of relation .01 + .11 .16 + + .23* + .31 + ns 0 .21 .14 + + .22' + ns1 0 .17 .49 .20 .12 .33s + + + + + -.34 - .46 .01 •+• + Self-report of altruistic values .27 + Time spent on a crisis phone line Time spent with chronic callers Time spent interacting with patients Parental ratings Teacher ratings Helping to staple booklets for hospitalized children Money donated to UNICEF Peer nominations .30" + ns 0 Self-report of inclination to pick up crying or happy infants -.24' .32 ns .05 + 0 + .32 . 12k + + .39 Note. G = grade. M & E = Mehrabian and Epstein's (1972) scale; F-E = Fantasy-Empathy scale (Stotland, Mathews, Sherman, Hansson, & Richardson, 1978). NR = not reported; ns = not significant. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive relation between high scores on empathy and prosocial behavior, a minus sign (—) indicates a negative relation, and a zero indicates no relation. 8 Low-empathy subjects offered to assist, however, if the children to be helped were described as nonresponsive. b The other subscales discussed in this article are less relevant to the issue at hand. c About 50% of the items are prosocial in nature. d Empathic concern was significantly and positively related to helping for subjects who were not provided with empathy-inducing instructions (i.e., who were not told to observe the needy other). e High-empathy subjects were more likely to assist only when the appeal to help was written rather than live. f Specific «s were not available for men and women. 8 Estimated from the report of statistical significance. h Assumed to be zero. ' A subclustcr of empathy items was positively related to helping, however. ' Estimated from F for the regression coefficient; the degrees of freedom were assumed to be 1 and 73. k Estimated from the regression coefficient; however, it is unclear whether empathy was the first variable entered into the regression equation. 100 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER Table 3 Relation of Self-Report Indices of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior in Simulation Experiments Study Archer, Diaz-Loving, Gollwitzer, Davis, & Foushee(1981) Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Neuringer-Benenel (1986) Batson, Cowles, & Coke (1979) Batson, O'Quin, Fultz, Vanderplus, & Isen (1983) Measure of empathy Measure of prosocial behavior College women. 123 Batson empathy adjectives* Volunteering to participate in a graduate student's study College women, 30 Batson empathy adjectives" Volunteering to take a shock for another Easy escape condition Difficult escape condition Donating money to a woman who needs an operation Volunteering to take a shock for another person Age, A' Brehm, Powell, & Coke (1984) Coke (1980) College women, 30 Study 1 : College students, 37 Study 2: College students, 32 Study 3: College students, 40* Gl girls and boys, 67 College women Coke, Batson, & McDavis (1978) Group 1,31 Group 2, 32 Study 2: College women, 33 Eisenberg, McCreath, & Ahn(1985) P girls and boys, 60 Batson empathy adjectives" Batson empathy vs. personal distress adjectives Report of negative affect, including concern Batson empathy adjectives" Batson empathy vs. personal distress adjectives Report of: Negative affect Positive affect Fultz (1982) College women and men, 80 Fultz, Batson, Fortenbach, McCarthy, & Varney (1986) Gaertner & Dovidio (1977) Study 1: College women, 22 Study 2: College women, 32 Study 1: College women, 64 Marks, Penner, & Stone (1982) Study 2: College women, 80 Study 1: College men, 40 Peraino&Sawin(1981) Study 2: College men, 21 r Gl girls, 58 Rosenheim(1973) Hospital staff, 19 Batson empathy vs. personal distress adjectives Batson empathy adjectives" Report of: Arousal Upset Arousal Upset Report of anxiety and tenseness Nonverbal report (pointing) of affect (positive to negative affect)h Response to a model in a situational enactment (few details are available) Addicts, 44 Shelton& Rogers (1981) College students, 118 Report of sympathy and personal distress combined Donating money to a poor child for a birthday cake Donating money to a woman who needs an operation Easy escape Difficult escape Volunteering to participate in a graduate student's study Observational indices during play Spontaneous prosocial acts Requested prosocial acts Helping hospitalized peers Observational indices Spontaneous prosocial acts Requested prosocial acts Helping hospitalized peers Volunteering to take shocks for another Volunteering to spend time with a lonely person Estimate ofr Direction of relation .40 + .25 .34 .34 4+ .04" 4- .15" 4- .21 4 ns 0 -.03 0 0 .59 + 4- .14 + -.18 4- .18 .02 -.21 _d +d .13 —a .02" 4- .70 4 .40 4 -.21e -.31' 4- .36 .28 .37 4- Latency to helping in an emergency Speed of helping in an emergency Sacrificing money to lessen a shock delivered to another Response time to terminate a shock given to another Sharing a toy Putting away toys for a peer Latency to calling for help for a peer being bullied Scoring data for £ Quantity Quality Quantity Quality Report of intent to donate time or money to saving whales -.45 444- +• .24 n.f ns + nx ns 0 0 .30' ns 0 0 101 EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Table 3 (continued) Study Toi& Batson (1982) Age, AT College women, Measure of empathy Batson empathy adjectives 40 Zahn- Waxier, Friedman, &Cummings(1983) Group 1 , 40 Group 2, 40 P,K,G1,G2,G5, and G6 girls and boys, 60 Report of sympathy in reaction to a crying baby Measure of prosocial behavior Estimate off Helping a student injured in an auto wreck with school work Easy escape condition Difficult escape condition Helping a crying baby .32" .03* ns Direction of relation + + 0 Note. G = grade. P = preschool. Batson empathy adjectives = self-report on a list of adjectives presumed to assess sympathetic responding (Batson & Coke, 1981). ns = not significant. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive association between self-report of empathic (or related) emotion and prosocial behavior, a minus sign (-) indicates a negative relation, and a zero indicates no relation. * Self-report of personal distress is not included because such a report is not considered indicative of empathy. b Computed from the table of participants agreeing to help (phi coefficient compared from proportion of subjects experiencing personal distress vs. empathy who assisted). The Ns were taken from the table, not from the report of the number of participants. c It is unclear whether the N for the relevant chi-square is 40 or 34. d A positive relation between displays of positive affect when observing distressed peers and prosocial behavior is considered as contrary to the expected relation between empathy and prosocial behavior, whereas a negative relation is interpreted as support. ' A negative relation between latency to helping and report of arousal/upset indicates a positive relation between empathy and helping. ' It is not entirely clear from the reported degrees of freedom whether N = 21 or 23. ' A negative relation between speed of reaction and empathy indicates that empathic persons helped faster. Attempting to assist when such attempts were clearly noncontingent was not included in the table or the meta-analysis. h Self-report of affect in a given situation was correlated with prosocial behavior in both the same situation and two other situations. The former correlation is presented because it is considered conceptually superior. However, the correlations for the same situation and across situations were very similar. ' Estimated from the report of significance. ' Computed from a structural model using formulas for least squares regression; the r between empathy and belief in efficacy was assumed to be zero. k Partial correlations controlling for self-report of personal distress: zero-order correlations were not reported. than empathy per se. Indeed, the questionnaire seems to tap sympathy, susceptibility to emotional arousal, perspective taking, personal distress (e.g., "I become more irritated than sympathetic when I see someone's tears"), and other aspects of responding to another's emotion. Among the other questionnaire measures used with some frequency are Bryant's (1982) modification of Mehrabian and Epstein's scale for children, and Stotland's (Stotland, Mathews. Sherman, Hansson, & Richardson, 1978) adult-oriented Fantasy-Empathy Scale. Like Mehrabian and Epstein's scale, Bryant's scale also appears to tap empathy, sympathy, perspective taking, personal distress, and still other factors. Stotland's scale assesses primarily involvement with characters in stories, plays, or movies. Only Davis (1980,1983a, 1983b) has constructed separate scales designed to differentiate among empathic concern (sympathy), personal distress, fantasy empathy, and perspective taking; this scale has been used primarily with adults. The results of studies involving questionnaire measures are presented in Table 2. Thirty-six studies including 41 samples were located. The samples are not homogeneous with regard to their estimates of the correlation between empathy and prosocial behavior, perhaps because of differences in content across various questionnaires, x2(37) = 92.70, p < .001. The common correlation is .17, which is small but highly significant, z = 10.24, p < .001. The confidence interval is .14 to .20. Population estimates for 2+ and its confidence interval are. 17, and. 14 to .20, respectively. There are no clear or consistent age differences in the findings. Although the lack of homogeneity across studies must be kept in mind because a moderator variable is likely responsible for the heterogeneity, apparently questionnaire measures of empathy are significantly related to prosocial behavior for children as well as adults. One possible explanation for the different findings for the questionnaire and picture/story measures is that questionnaires, because they comprise many items, may tap individuals' empathic and sympathetic reactions over a much broader range of behaviors and situations. This greater sampling of situations likely improves the stability of questionnaire estimates of empathic responding. Self-Report of Empathy in Simulated Experimental Situations The set of studies included in this grouping generally differs from studies involving picture/story indices in several ways. First, the emotion-evoking stimuli were presented via audiotapes, videotapes, or realistic enactments, not narratives or pictures. Second, in these studies, participants were led to believe that the events and people involved in the stimuli were real, not hypothetical (which is why Feshbach [ 1980,1982] was included with picture/story indices rather than here, even though her stories were videotaped). Third, participants frequently were asked to report sympathetic reactions instead of, or in addition to, affective reactions that matched (or did not match) those of the other. Finally, participants usually reported their reactions by means of pencil and paper measures, not by a verbal or nonverbal (pointing) report given directly to the experimenter; that is because the participants in most of these studies were adults. In a number of these studies (especially those conducted by Batson and his students), zero-order correlations between selfreported empathy and prosocial behavior were not provided. In such cases, phi coefficients generally were computed from tables in which the proportions of participants assisting in various conditions were reported. This index of the degree of association is relatively weak because the continuous variable of amount of helping could not be used in the calculations. More- 102 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER Table 4 Relation of Others' Ratings of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior Study Age, N Rating type Barnett, Howard, Melton, &Dino(1982) Howard (1983) G6 girls and boys, 112 P girls, 18 Teacher and peer Teacher Pboys, 17 Sawin, Underwood, Weaver, & Mostyn (1981) Gl girls, 32 Teacher G3 girls, 33 Gl boys, 34 G3 boys, 35 Strayer& Roberts (1984; Strayer, 1983) 6-8-year-old girls and boys Group l,45 b Group 2, 50" Parent Estimate ofr Direction of relation Making booklets for needy children Naturalistic observations Unsolicited helping Compliant helping Comforting Unsolicited helping Compliant helping Comforting Teaching ratings Donations Teaching ratings Donations Teaching ratings Donations Teaching ratings Donations Teacher ratings of considerateness .34 + .40 .50 .15 .25 .36 .03 .91 + Parental ratings of prosocial behavior Measure of prosocial behavior + + + ns f + + 0 + 0 .74 + ns ns" 0 + 0 0 .48 + ns .93 .62 ns Note. G = grade; P = preschool, ns = not significant; NR = not reported. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive relation between other ratings and prosocial behavior, a minus sign (—) indicates a negative relation, and a zero indicates no relation. * Assumed to be zero. b An n = 48 was used when the two correlations were averaged. over, when the phi coefficients were computed, participants reporting empathy were compared with those reporting a predominance of personal distress without regard to ease of escape from cues indicative of the other's distress. Because Batson has specifically hypothesized differences in helping between those high in sympathy and those high in personal distress only when escape is easy, the results of the phi coefficient calculations can be viewed as underestimating the size of the association between sympathy and helping. For example, in Batson, O'Quin, Fultz, Vanderplus, and Isen (1983, Study 1), the partial correlation between sympathy and helping (controlling for self-reported personal distress) in the condition in which it was easy to escape was r( 17) = .39, p < .05, whereas our phi for this study was .04. Similarly, in Study 2, the equivalent r was .31, whereas the phi was .15. However, because it is not advisable to include partial correlations in the meta-analyses with zero-order correlations when other estimates of the zero-order association are available, we used phis in the meta-analysis. Eighteen articles including 26 samples were included in the meta-analysis (Table 3). These studies were not homogeneous in their estimates of the correlation, x2(25) = 55.47, p < .001. The sample estimate of z+ was .25, z = 8.41, p < .001; the confidence interval was between .19 and .30. The population estimates for z+ and its confidence interval were .24, and. 19 to .29, respectively. Because of the high degree of heterogeneity of the estimates of association, we took a closer look at individual studies. As Table 3 shows, it is clear that the degree of association between self-reported empathy and prosocial behavior is very low for studies involving children (i.e., Brehm, Powell, & Coke, 1984; Eisenberg, Boehnke, Schuhler, & Silbereisen, 1985; Peraino & Sawin, 1981; Zahn-Waxler, Friedman, & Cummings, 1983). This also was true when the children's ages were partialed from the correlations (Eisenberg et al., 1985; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1983). That may be because young children find it more difficult than adults to identify and communicate their emotional responses. Indeed, the z+ was .02 for this group of homogeneous studies, x2(3) = .25, ns, and z = .31, ns. The confidence interval was from -.11 to .15; the population estimates were nearly identical. In contrast, the degree of association for adults appeared to be much higher. Thus, we computed another metaanalysis including only studies of adult samples. Although the heterogeneity of the group of studies was still significant, X 2 (21) = 40.36, p < .01, it was somewhat lower than when studies with children were included. The z+ for this group of studies was .30 (±.06), z = 9.09, p < .001, and the confidence interval was from .24 to .37 (population estimate = .29 ± .06). Thus, there seems to be a moderate association between prosocial behavior and self-report of empathy (sympathy in Batson's research) when adults are confronted with empathy-evoking situations. As discussed previously, this statistical association would have been stronger if we could have used partial correlations rather than phi coefficients in the analysis. Other Report of Empathy We could locate only four studies including eight samples in which other report of empathy was examined in relation to prosocial behavior. All four studies involved children and either parental or teacher reports of empathy (Table 4). EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 103 Table 5 Relation of Physiological Indices of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior Study Gaertner & Dovidio (1977) Sterling & Gaertner (1984) Stotland, Mathews, Sherman, Hansson, & Richardson (1978) Age, A" Measure of empathy Measure of prosocial behavior College women, 64 College men, Group 1,28 Group 2, 26 Female nurses, 74 Deviation in heart rate from baseline Heart rate acceleration Latency of helping in an emergency Latency of helping in an: Unambiguous emergency Ambiguous emergency Time spent interacting with patients Palmar sweating Estimate ofr Direction of relation -.47' + -.47 .18 ns + 0 Note, ns = not significant. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive relation between the physiological index and speed or amount of helping, a minus sign (-) indicates a negative relation, and a zero indicates no relation. a Measures of cardiac acceleration were positively related to helping, whereas deceleration was related to slower helping. This is a partial correlation controlling for baseline heart rate; the zero-order correlation was not available. When all samples were included in the meta-analysis, the hypothesis that the estimates of association across studies were HR for three of the four samples, we recomputed the metaanalysis to determine whether the results differed when the sin- homogenous was accepted, x2(7) = 2.23, ns. The estimate of z+ gle study involving a different physiological index (palmar sweating) was omitted. The estimates of the correlation re- was .36 (±.11), z = 6.27, p < .001; the population estimate of z+ was .35 (the confidence interval was from .24 to .44). In reviewing these studies, it is important to note that the mained heterogeneous, x2(2) = 8.61, p < .02. The estimate of correlations were very high when the same person who rated the child's empathy also provided data on prosocial behavior, whereas correlations were moderate when data concerning em- of palmar sweating was included, z+ = .36 (the confidence interval was from . 17 to .54), z = 3.77, p < .001. This is because the degree of association between empathy and helping was low in pathy and behavior were obtained from different sources. On the basis of this pattern of correlations, it seemed likely that the study involving palmar sweating. The primary reason for the heterogeneity in the estimates of informants were not clearly differentiating between empathy the correlation was the negative association between HR accel- and prosocial behavior when providing ratings, or that a halo effect was operating. Thus, we recomputed the meta-analysis using only data from independent raters (i.e., the data on teachers' reports of prosocial behavior were dropped from Sawin et eration and helping in an ambiguous emergency in Sterling and Gaertner's (1984) study. This negative relation was in sharp contrast to the positive association between HR acceleration and helping in unambiguous emergencies (Gaertner & Dovidio, al.'s study, whereas data on parental report of altruism were 1977; Sterling & Gaertner, 1984). Thus, there is reason to expect HR acceleration to relate to helping in compelling emer- omitted from Strayer's study). For these data, the estimate of association remained homogeneous, x 2 (7) = 8.90, ns; z+ = .16 z+ was considerably higher than when the study with the index gencies, and HR deceleration (rather than acceleration) to re- (the confidence interval was from .04 to .27), z = 2.69, p < .007. Population estimates for z+ and the confidence interval were late positively to helping in ambiguous emergencies. To begin with, it is impossible to know whether cardiac re- .15, and from .04 to .26, respectively. Thus, the association between other-reported empathy and prosocial behavior, although sponsiveness in reaction to another's distress is an index of sympathy, empathy, or some other emotional reaction. There is evi- smaller, remained significant even when independent measures dence, however, that anxiety and self-concern are positively re- of the two variables were used; however, the percentage of vari- lated to HR acceleration (e.g., Craig, 1968; Darley & Katz, ance in prosocial behavior accounted for by empathy was small 1973; Lazarus, Speisman, (less than 3%). whereas reactions to others' distresses in situations in which the Physiological Indices observer is not likely to fear for him- or herself have been associated with HR deceleration (cf. Campos, Rutherford, & Klin- Few researchers have used physiological indices in studies of the association between empathy and prosocial behavior. Three studies were located involving four samples of adults; for all but one sample, the physiological index was heart rate (HR; Mordkoff, & Davison, 1962), nert, 1985; Craig, 1968; Craig & Lowery, 1969; Krebs, 1975). Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a self-focused, personal distress reaction should be associated with HR acceleration, whereas an other-oriented, sympathetic response may be associated with relative HR deceleration.1 Table 5). The estimates of the degree of association were not homogeneous across the four samples, x2(3) — 14.26, p < .005. The estimate of z+ was .22 (the confidence interval was ±.15), z = 2.93, p < .004. The population estimate for z+ was .22 (the confidence interval was from .07 to .35). Because physiological responding was assessed by means of 1 Note, however, that the high-empathy adults in Krebs's study showed heart rate acceleration when receiving instructions related to procedures involving shock for another. Heart rate deceleration was noted when a light came on indicating that another person was to receive electric shock. 104 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER Table 6 Relation of Facial/Gestural Indices of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior Study Cohen (1974) Eisenberg, McCrealh, & Ahn(1985) Age.A' P and G2 girls and boys, 72 P girls and boys, 55" Measure of empathy Nonverbal affective cues during the administration of the picture/story measure Reactions to viewing a film of distressed peers Sympathetic facial/ gestural reactions Happy facial/gestural reactions Ekmanetal. (1972) Howard (1983) 5-6-year-olds Girls, 15 Boys, 15 P Girls, 18 Facial reactions to aggressive films'1 Interest Pleasantness Happiness Pain Sadness Facial reactions during the administration of picture/story measures Boys, 17 Kuchenbecker(1977) Girls and boys 4-5-year-olds, 48 7-8-year-olds, 49 Leiman(1978) Lennon, Eisenberg, & Carroll (in press) Peraino&Sawin(1981) K, Gl girls and boys, 85 P girls and boys, 32 Glgirls,58 Facial reactions/verbal responses (combined) to a film of a peer in a happy, sad, or neutral situation Positive responses Negative responses Hostile responses Positive responses Negative responses Hostile responses Negative facial reactions to a film of a sad peer Negative facial reactions to a film of distressed peers Negative gestural reactions to a film of distressed peers Negative facial reactions to tapes of a peer in need" Facial reactions Gestural reactions Sawin, Underwood, Weaver, & Mostyn (1981) Gl Girls, 18 Facial/vocal affect in reaction to a picture/ story measure11 Estimate ofr Direction of relation Teacher ratings of consideration Peer ratings of consideration NR' 0 NR' 0 Donations to charity Observational indices in peer play Spontaneous prosocial behaviors Requested prosocial behaviors Helping hospitalized children Spontaneous prosocial behaviors Requested prosocial behaviors Helping hospitalized children Helping a peer to win a game rather than hurting the peer NR' 0 .26 + Measure of prosocial behavior .12 .01 -.17 + + +c -.10 -.22 +c ns* 0 -.58 -.26 Observational indices Unsolicited helping Compliant helping Comforting Unsolicited helping Compliant helping Comforting Sharing with a child in the film Donating marbles to a child in a videotape Composite for private donating/helping of peers Public donating Composite for private donating/helping of peers Public donating Donating a toy to a distressed peer Helping put away toys for an injured peer Helping an injured peer Donating a toy to a distressed peer Helping put away toys for an injured peer Helping an injured peer Teacher ratings of altruism Donating marbles to a peer +c += +' ns 0 .30 ns + 0 .05 .26 -.07 .11 -.22 .14 + + + + .26 ns ns -.20 ns -.19 .23 .34 .05 .33 .05 .22 .37 .23 .32 ns -.18 ns .13 0 f 105 EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Table 6 (continued) Age.A' Study Sawin, Underwood, Weaver, & Mostyn (1981) Measure of empathy Estimate ofr Direction of relation ns .03 ns 0 + 0 0 0 Gl Boys, 24 Girls, 24 Boys, 24 Solomon(1985) Measure of prosocial behavior K, G2, G4, and 06 Girls, 43 Facial reactions to films of children in different situations Teacher ratings of altruism Donating marbles to a peer Teacher ratings of altruism Donating marbles to a peer Teacher ratings of altruism Donating marbles to a peer Teacher ratings of otheroriented behavior Weston& Main (1980) 1 -year-old girls and boys, 29' Zahn- Waxier, Friedman, &Cummings(1983)& Chapman, lannotti, Cooperman, & ZahnWaxler(1984) P,K,G1,G2,G5, and G6 girls and boys, 54k ns ns .39 ns ns ns Sad Angry Pleasure Boys, 42 -.03 Sad Angry Pleasure Concerned attention and sadness in reaction to a crying adult Facial/gestural negative emotion in response to a crying baby1 Positive facial/verbal reactions to a crying infant and an adult with an injured back1 -.30 ns Parental report of a child's attempts to comfort distressed others Helping a crying baby Helping a kitten Helping a crying baby Helping an adult with an injured back .37j + 0 0 0 0 + -.34 - -.02 +c .10 .38 -c -c Note. C = grade; K = kindergarten; P = preschool. NR = not reported; ns - not significant. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive relation between empathy (exhibiting the same emotion as the other or exhibiting sympathy) and prosocial behavior, a minus sign (-) indicates a negative relation, and a zero indicates no relation. ' Assumed to be nonsignificant and zero (or perhaps, in this study, inconsistent). b N = 55 for observational indices, and N = 59 for the helping task. Facial expressions considered indicative of personal distress are excluded even though they were significantly and positively related to requested prosocial behaviors. c A negative relation between positive reactions and prosocial behavior is consistent with the hypothesis of a positive relation between empathy and prosocial behavior. d The reactions that seemed most relevant to the issue at hand are reported; therefore, arousal (undifferentiated), anger, and surprise are omitted. e Combined across all types of reactions because none was significant. rGiven that affective reactions have a different meaning when in response to viewing a happy or sad peer (and these were not differentiated in the parts of the dissertation we received), the meaning of these relations is unclear. Thus, this study was omitted from the meta-analysis. * Facial and gestural indices are reported; other less relevant measures (e.g., latency to response, looking away) are not. Correlations between empathy and prosocial behavior in a given situation are reported; across-situational correlations are not because they are less relevant. " To save space, averages across the four story affects (sadness, anger, happiness, and fear) are reported. Exact correlations were available for the latter two emotions; reports of nonsignificance were available for the former two emotions. ' Children were tested at 12 months of age with the mother and at 18 months of age with the father. J Computed from the report of statistical significance. k N = 53 for analyses involving positive affect. ' Affect was coded during exposure to the needy other and also during the period when the child could assist. Thus, this study was omitted from the meta-analysis. In the unambiguous, compelling emergency situations studied by Gaertner and his colleagues, individuals could easily associate the arousal accompanying HR acceleration with the need of the victim. Therefore, HR acceleration may be expected to relate positively to helping because the victims' need offered a highly salient source for attribution of the arousal. In addition, even if some of the persons interpreted their arousal as personal distress, the compelling nature of the circumstances would have made it difficult for them to escape from the distressing stimulus (recall that Batson [in press] has predicted a positive relation between personal distress and helping in situations in which it is difficult to escape from the distressing stimulus). In contrast, in the ambiguous emergency, the victim's need was less salient. Thus, it was possible for individuals' to interpret their arousal as personal distress and therefore seek to remove themselves, either physically or by psychological mecha- nisms (e.g., denying that the other person was hurt). In fact, in Sterling and Gaertner's study, HR acceleration in the ambiguous emergency situation was negatively associated with participants' reports of how serious they judged the other individual's injuries to be. On the other hand, persons experiencing sympathetic rather than personal distress reactions in this situation should be more likely to help. Thus, individuals' sympathetic reactions, as indicated by HR deceleration, would be expected to correlate positively with helping. Unfortunately, in not one of the studies on emergencies have researchers differentiated between sympathetic and personal distress reactions. Facial, Gestural, and Vocal Indices Research examining the association among prosocial and facial, gestural, and vocal (voice tone) indices of empathy is lim- 106 NANCY E1SENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER ited. Eleven studies including 17 samples were located, all conducted with children. The studies using these indices can be divided into two quite different groups (Table 6). In three studies (Cohen, 1974; Howard, 1983; Sawin, Underwood, Weaver, & Mostyn, 1981) with seven subsamples, children's vocal and/or facial/gestural reactions were rated while they were responding to self-report picture/story indices of empathy. In the remaining studies, children viewed videotapes of others in affectively laden situations. In some cases the videotapes were purportedly of real people (Eisenberg et al., 1985; Kuchenbecker, 1977; Leiman, 1978; Lennon, Eisenberg, & Carroll, in press; Peraino & Sawin, 1981); in others, children viewed what was obviously television or movie content (Ekman et al., 1972; Solomon, 1985). Two studies were dropped from all analyses. Kuchenbecker's (1977) study was deleted for two reasons: (a) verbal and facial/ gestural responses were combined, and (b) several affects were coded in response to viewing someone in several different affectladen situations, and it is unclear whether subjects' affect (e.g., happiness) was coded only while viewing another in a situation expected to elicit that specific affect (e.g., a happy situation). Zahn-Waxler et al.'s (1983; Chapman, lannotti, Cooperman, & Zahn-Waxler, 1984) study was excluded because affect was coded not only when children were exposed to a crying baby or a woman who hurt her back, but also when they were given the opportunity to help (e.g., help find the baby's bottle after the baby stopped crying). If children's affect during helping was coded, one would expect positive affect directed toward the baby's mother or the injured adult to be associated with helping. Thus, affect, as coded in this study, reflects not only vicarious affect but also affect displayed during social interaction (which would be expected to be quite different from vicarious affect). Finally, because it is unclear whether an angry response in reaction to a film in which the protagonist could react with either anger or sadness (but exhibited sadness) should be considered empathic, the angry codings ia Solomon's (1985) study were not included in the meta-analysis. Because of the aforementioned questions about the validity of picture/story indices of empathy, we analyzed separately the studies using such indices and those involving more lifelike stimuli. The seven samples for which picture/story measures were administered were homogeneous with regard to estimates of the degree of association, x2(6) = .14, ns. The z+ was .01 (±. 15), z = . 17, ns. The population estimates were nearly identical to those for the sample. Thus, it was clear that there was no consistent relation between facial, gestural, and vocal reactions to the picture/story indices and prosocial behavior. In contrast, the relation of empathy to prosocial behavior was positive and significant for the seven studies (involving nine samples) in which children's reactions to movies, television, and lifelike enactments or films were examined, 2+ = . 18, z = 3.31, p < .001. The confidence interval was from .07 to .28. The studies were homogenous in the estimates of the degree of association, x2(8) = 2.92, ns. The population estimates for the common correlation and the confidence interval were nearly identical to those for the sample. In our view, the abovementioned correlation does not adequately reflect the relation between facial reactions to another's distress and altruistic behavior Indices of purely gestural reac- tions have been found to be less reliable than those for facial reactions (e.g., Lennon et al., in press); nonetheless, they were combined in two studies (Lennon et al., in press; Peraino & Sawin, 1981). Moreover, in some studies, empathy was hypothesized to relate to some modes of prosocial behavior (e.g., anonymous and spontaneously emitted behavior) deemed indicative of altruism but not to those believed to be nonaltruistic in motive (e.g., public prosocial acts likely to result in social approval; Lennon et al., in press) or were mixed in motive (i.e., requested behaviors; Eisenberg et al., 1985). Inclusion of the correlations of empathy with such nonaltruistic behavior in the calculations no doubt lowered the estimate of z+. Finally, controlling for the effects of age (Lennon et al., in press) or sex (Eisenberg et al., 1985) resulted in higher positive correlations in two studies than those included in the meta-analysis. Empathic Induction Procedures The various empathic induction manipulations used in experimental studies to induce empathy vary considerably with regard to both conceptual rationale and method. Thus, each general category is reviewed separately. In some cases, we could locate only a few studies in which a specific mode of induction was instituted, and the studies differed considerably in method. In these cases, a meta-analysis was not computed, although a qualitative review is provided. Observational set. The most commonly used mode of empathy induction in research with adults has involved the manipulation of observational set. Typically, some participants are instructed to imagine how a needy or distressed other feels, and their subsequent assisting of the needy other is compared with that of participants instructed merely to observe, watch, listen to, or evaluate the needy other. In some but not all of the studies, the effectiveness of the empathy set induction in eliciting empathy was assessed by means of self-report measures of empathy administered subsequent to the induction. The manipulations were effective in some studies (e.g., Davis, 1983a; Howard & Barnett, 1981; Shelton & Rogers, 1981;Toi&Batson, 1982), but not all (e.g., Coke, 1980). In yet other studies, effectiveness was ascertained (and affirmed) by asking participants the degree to which they attempted to imagine the other's need (e.g., Coke et al., 1978, Study 1). The results of these studies are complicated because observational set often was expected to interact with other variables or manipulations in producing empathy. By focusing primarily on the main effect of the observational set manipulation, we probably have underestimated the strength of the relation between empathy and prosocial behavior. The studies reviewed are presented in Table 7. They are homogeneous in their estimate of the correlation, x\ 17) = 20.61, ns. The estimate of z+ = .11 (the confidence interval was from .05 to. 17), z - 3.64, p < .001. The population estimates for the correlation were nearly identical. The estimate of the common correlation was significant, but low. It is important to note, however, that in two of the studies with nonsignificant or negative results (Aderman & Berkowitz, 1970; Wispe, Kiecolt, & Long, 1977), the participants were asked either to imagine themselves in the needy other's position or to imagine the position of the needy other. It is likely that 107 EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Table 7 Relation of Observational Set Manipulations of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior Study Aderman & Berkowitz (1970) Brehm, Powell, & Coke (1984) Coke (1980) Coke, Batson, & McDavis (1978) Curry (1978) Age, A' College men, 120 Gl Boys, 32 Girls, 35 College women, 63 Study 1 College students, 44 Adults Women, 32 Measure of observational set manipulation Fultz, Batson, Fortenbach, McCarthy, & Varney (1986) Howard & Barnett (1981) Reed(1981) Rothenberg(1984) Shelton & Rogers (1981) Toi& Batson (1982) Wispe, Kiecolt, & Long (1977) Estimate ofr Direction of relation NR (f .25 -.13" .09b + + Imagine self vs. imagine him' Imagine self vs. observe other's actions Helping the experimenter score data Imagine other's feelings vs. imagine damage vs. observe damage Observe vs. imagine other Donating money to a needy other Volunteering to help a needy peer .23° + Empathize vs. evaluate 0 .50de ns ns .08 0 + 0 0 + College students, 158 Study 2: College women, 32 Imagine vs. observe other Volunteering time and money to needy children Time Money Volunteering to help a needy Imagine other's feelings vs. be objective Volunteering to spend time with a lonely peer .46 + P-G2, girls and boys, 161 Male psychopathic juvenile delinquents, 11 Male neurotic juvenile delinquents, 9 Normal boys, 32 G6 girls, 88 Focus on other's feelings vs. think about other Imagine self vs. listen to him Donating prize tokens to a .17 + -.03" - -.19" - .32" + n.v 0 .24 + .22f + 715 0 ns' 0 Men, 48 Davis (1 98 3a) Measure of prosocial behavior College students, 118 College women, 84 Study 1 College students, 64 peer Listen to needy other vs. listen to interviewer Observe vs. feel whale's plight Observe vs. imagine other Attend to a person needing help or a helper in a film; imagine self in cither's situation Study 2 College students needy peer Scoring questionnaires for the experimenter Helping make booklets for hospitalized children Volunteering for activities to help save whales Volunteering to tutor an injured student Helping experimenter with adding data Helping experimenter with a stapling task Note. G = grade. P = preschool. NR = not reported; ns = not significant. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive relation between the empathy set manipulation and prosocial behavior, a minus sign (-) indicates a negative relation, and a zero indicates no relation. ' It is unclear which of these instructions should induce more empathy if one does not differentiate between sympathy and personal distress. b Computed from raw data. ' Set did have a highly significant effect in the expected direction when interacting with an arousal attribution manipulation. d Data are reported only for subjects testing high on internal locus of control. 'Estimated from the report of significance. 'The index of association is .35 if helping in only the easy escape condition is considered. • However, there was an interaction between set and attending to helper versus helpee in the stimulus film. both observational sets could induce empathic responding. Neither manipulation is similar to that of inducing persons to ob- from .08 to .24), z = 3.75, p < .001; the population estimates were the same and the samples were homogeneous in their esti- serve or evaluate another. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the results of studies involving an observational set manipulation mates of the correlation, x2(9) = 11.25, ns. Despite the fact that observational set manipulations were not effective in all studies appear to be somewhat stronger for adults than for children or and frequently were expected to interact with other variables in adolescents (especially if one ignores Aderman & Berkowitz's, affecting prosocial behavior, there appears to be a significant 1970, and Wispe et al.'s, 1977, studies for the aforementioned but low positive association between observational set (which is reason). In fact, when the meta-analysis was recomputed for the adult samples (minus Aderman & Berkowitz and Wispe et al.), believed to induce empathy) and prosocial action. z+ was somewhat higher, z+ = .16 (the confidence interval was Arousal inductions. In a few studies, investigators have attempted to study the role of empathy in prosocial behavior by 108 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER Table 8 Relation of Arousal Induction Indices of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior Study Archer, Diaz-Loving, Gollwitzer, Davis, & Foushee(1981) Coke, Batson, & McDavis (1978) Leftgoff-Sechooler (1979) Peraino(1977) Age.JV Measure of arousal induction College women, 120 False physiological feedback Study 2 College women, 33 College students, 180 Gll-G12boys, 27 False physiological feedback College men, 28 Arousal due to exercise Arousal induced by music Arousal induced by exposure to noxious vs. pleasant pictures Sterling &Gaertner (1984) Measure of prosocial behavior Volunteering to participate in a needy graduate student's study Volunteering to participate in a needy graduate student's study Helping pick up dropped materials Behavior on a prisoner's dilemma game with a generosity option Speed of helping in an unambiguous emergency Estimate ofr Direction of relation ns" 0 .49 + -.25 49c,d .39' unclear* + + Note. G = grade, ns = not significant. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive relation between the measure of empathy and that of prosocial behavior, a minus sign (-) indicates a negative relation, and a zero indicates no relation. " Arousal interacted with dispositional empathy and demand in the experimental setting in affecting empathy. b The relation to arousal was curvilinear, helping was highest at the moderate level of arousal. If one assumes overarousal is experienced as personal distress, one would expect such a curvilinear relation. c Estimated from the p value for the analysis of variance comparing the control and arousal conditions (n - 14). The F was nonsignificant for the complete factorial design. d Shelton and Rogers (1981) also induced arousal by varying the unpleasantness of the stimuli; however, their stimuli directly concerned the plight of the needy other. Therefore, their manipulation could have produced empathy directly rather than merely inducing arousal that could subsequently be attributed to empathic responding. f Arousal was expected to be misattributed in an ambiguous emergency, so data from that condition are not presented here. inducing physiological arousal or inducing participants to think may inhibit helping. Moreover, according to Archer et al.'s find- that they were aroused. The resultant real or imagined arousal was expected to be misinterpreted by study participants as em- ings, individuals disposed to attribute their arousal to empathic pathy or sympathy. In general, arousal has been induced either by manipulations of the physical setting, for example, by exposure to unpleasant sounds, unpleasant visual stimuli, or arousing versus soothing music, or by providing false physiological feedback indicating that the individual is aroused. The results of these studies are complex (Table 8). Both Peraino (1977) and Shelton and Rogers (1981) found that exposure to unpleasant, arousing visual stimuli was associated with higher levels of prosocial behavior or prosocial intentions than was exposure to less arousing stimuli. In contrast, LeftgoffSechooler (1979) found that helping was greatest when arousal induced by music was moderate; exposure to very arousing mu- feelings were more likely to help. Unfortunately, generally it is unclear whether aroused study participants interpreted their arousal as sympathy, empathy, personal distress, or something else; only Archer et al. (1981) examined this issue and they found that persons provided with false physiological feedback indicating high arousal reported somewhat more sympathy but only if they were high in dispositional empathy and under the experimenter's scrutiny. Misattributions. In several studies, researchers have attempted to demonstrate the role of empathy (or sympathy, arousal, or personal distress) in helping by showing that helping is inhibited if individuals are induced to misattribute their empathic arousal in an arousing situation to another nonempathic sic was associated with low helping, perhaps because high source (e.g., to exercise or a drug). These studies are diverse arousal induced personal distress. Archer, Diaz-Loving, Goll- with regard to both method and specific predictions; for exam- witzer, Davis, and Foushee (1981) obtained no main effect for ple, Coke et al. (1978) combined their misattribution proce- their manipulation of arousal by false physiological feedback; false feedback concerning skin conductance increased helping dures with an observational set induction, whereas Batson, only for adults high on dispositional empathy (as assessed with bution procedures in an attempt to induce a predominance of Mehrabian & Epstein's questionnaire) whose physiological responses were being monitored by the experimenter (i.e., a situa- either personal distress or sympathy. In yet another study, Sterling and Gaertner (1984) referred to the concepts of both tion in which evaluation was likely). In contrast, Coke et al. arousal misattribution and arousal induction in their formulation of hypotheses; they predicted that arousal induced by exer- (1978), using the same induction procedure, found a positive relation between empathy and helping behavior. The methods used in these few studies differ considerably; moreover, specific details about the data were unavailable for two studies. For these reasons, a meta-analysis was not computed. However, the results of the studies are consistent with the Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, and Birch (1981) used misattri- cise would be attributed to internal responding in an unambiguous emergency, whereas such arousal would be misattributed to the exercise if the emergency was unclear. The results of the research are presented in Table 9. The studies are homogeneous in their estimate of the correlation, empathy-inducing situation are somewhat more likely to assist X2(4) = 3.64, ns. The z* = .22, z = 3.90, p < .001; the confidence interval was from . 11 to .34. The population estimate for z+ was another than are less aroused individuals, although overarousal .22; the confidence interval was from. 11 to .32. Thus, it appears view that people who perceive themselves as being aroused in an EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 109 Table 9 Relation of Placebo Misattributions of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior Study Age, W Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch (1981) Study 2: College women, 48 Coke, Batson, & McDavis (1978) Study 1: College students, 44 Gaertner & Dovidio (1977) Study 2: College women, 160 Harris & Huang (1973) College students, 40 Sterling & Gaertner (1984) College men, 26 Measure of empathy Estimate ofr Direction of relation Volunteering to take shocks for an upset other .17' + Volunteering time to assist a needy peer .38 + Going to assist in an emergency .19 + Helping a woman who hurt her knee .36 + Speed of helping in an ambiguous emergency ns" + Measure of prosocial behavior Placebo misattribution procedure; attribute arousal to either personal distress or sympathy Placebo misattribution procedure; subjects were told they would feel relaxed vs. aroused Placebo misattribution procedure; subjects were told they would feel aroused vs. experience other symptoms Misattribution procedure; subjects were told that noise would make one aroused or cause irrelevant symptoms Misattribution procedure: arousal due to exercise vs. no arousal Note. The plus sign (+) indicates a negative relation between misattribution of arousal and prosocial behavior. * Phi coefficient computed from raw data. b These data were consistent with the notion that some arousal will be attributed to an unambiguous emergency, whereas in an ambiguous emergency, arousal is misattributed to the exercise. However, because the simple effect for the ambiguous emergency condition was not significant (although it was in the specified direction), the r was estimated conservatively at zero. that the perceived nature of one's vicarious arousal affects one's than race) are considered, the positive relation between proso- prosocial action; empathic arousal, when misattributed to factors other than the needy other, is less likely to be positively cial behavior and empathy (operationalized in terms of the similarity manipulation) is higher, z+ = .23 (the confidence interval was from .09 to .37), z = 3.16, p < .002. The population value related to prosocial behavior than is empathic affect that is not misattributed. Similarity manipulations. Researchers frequently have assumed that inducing an individual to identify with another increases the probability of empathizing with another. One procedure used successfully by investigators to enhance identification has involved encouraging individuals to believe they are similar to another in values, preferences, behaviors, or physical characteristics (e.g., Stotland, 1969; cf. Feshbach, 1978b). In only a few studies have researchers purposefully manipu- for z+ is .23 (confidence interval was from .09 to .35). The studies are still heterogeneous, however, x2(3) = 10.45, p < .02. Mood inductions. In studies involving mood induction procedures, positive or negative mood, which can be interpreted as empathic in origin, purportedly is induced by requiring participants to imagine the feelings of another person. Unlike the observational set manipulation studies, in these studies the potential recipient of aid has not been the same person who was de- lated the similarity between study participants and another in scribed in the experimental affect induction procedure; the goal of this research has been to examine the relation between mood order to examine the association between empathy and prosocial behavior. In only one of these did the investigator attempt and helping immediately after the mood induction, not the relation between empathic set per se and assisting. Such work to verify that the similarity manipulation affected empathic responding. In this study, physiological indices of empathy sup- makes up only a small part of the research on the relation be- ported the assertion that the similarity induction increased em- tween mood and prosocial behavior. Because of the small number of these studies, and the fact that the results differ dramati- pathic responding (Krebs, 1975). The studies involving similarity manipulations are presented cally with valence of mood, only a qualitative review of this work is provided. in Table 10. When both similarity of interests and race are con- Imagining another's distress has been more highly associated sidered, 2+ = . 15 (the confidence interval was from .04 to .25), z = 2.76, p < .003. The population estimates of the common with prosocial behavior than has imagining one's own distress correlation and confidence interval were nearly identical to son, Cowan, & Rosenhan, 1980). In contrast, imagining one's sample values. The studies are heterogeneous in regard to their own joy has been related to higher levels of helping among estimate of the degree of association, x 2 (4) = 12.67,p< .02. It is clear that manipulating race of the needy other was not adults than has imagining another's joy or the inducement of a an effective way to induce feelings of similarity. Indeed, if only the data related to similarity of interests and preferences (rather Rosenhan, 1983). More specifically, Salovey and Rosenhan (1983) not only found that self-focused joy resulted in more in the same situation (Barnett, King, & Howard, 1979; Thomp- neutral mood (Rosenhan, Salovey, & Hargis, 1981; Salovey & 110 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER Table 10 Relation of Similarity Inductions of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior Study Batson, Duncan. Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch (1981) Gaertner & Dovidio (1977) Age,JV Similarity induction Measure of prosocial behavior Study 1: College women, 44 Similarity of interests Volunteering to take shocks for another Study 2: College women, 164 Race of victim manipulated Speed of helping in an emergency Ambiguous emergency Unambiguous emergency Volunteering to take shocks for another vs. keeping money Volunteering time to participate in a student's study Helping stack slides for a child in a picture/story presentation Sharing peanuts with a child in a picture/story presentation Helping Sharing Krebs(1975) Adult men, 30 Similarity of interests manipulated Mehrabian & Epstein (1972) Study 2: College women, 8 1 Similarity of interests Panofsky(1976) G2 girls and boys, 48 Similarity of interests manipulated Similarity of race manipulated Estimate ofr Direction of relation .52 + ns .15 .41* 0 + + ns 0 0 0 .36 + 0 0 0 0 Note. G = grade. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive relation between the measure of empathy and that of prosocial behavior; a zero indicates no relation. " This point-biserial r was estimated from the available data provided for the similar versus dissimilar groups for those 30 subjects in the high-affect (empathy) conditions. Apparently the degrees of freedom for the / tests were misreported as 14 rather than 29 or 28. helping than empathic joy, but also that the type of focus inter- pants' internal states have shown that empathy relates positively acted with the status of the potential recipient of help. Self-focused joy was associated with helping higher and same-status to prosocial behavior. Although procedures involving arousal inductions apparently have been less effective than most other recipients, whereas empathic or other-focused joy was associated with helping a lower status person. manipulations, most induction procedures have yielded low to moderate positive associations between empathy and prosocial behavior. It is likely that inducement of empathic joy has not been associated with prosocial behavior directed toward same- or highstatus persons because thinking about another's joy results in feelings of self-deprivation or neediness rather than an orientation toward others (Salovey & Rosenhan, 1983). These feelings may sometimes hinder helping, especially of those in a more priviledged or desired position. It appears that inducing individuals to think about another's distress is associated with enhanced helping, whereas thinking about another's joy is not. Although it is not clear whether thinking about others' distresses actually induces empathy or an empathic predisposition rather than global negative mood (which itself has been associated with prosocial behavior in In some studies, the procedures instituted apparently were not effective at manipulating empathy. Thus, it is likely that the results of these studies underestimate the degree of association between empathy and prosocial behavior. Nonetheless, some of the procedures might affect factors other than empathy (or sympathy), and the positive relations between some of the indices and prosocial behaviors could be due, in part, to processes other than empathic responding. However, a number of investigators have used various sorts of manipulation checks and, in general, the results of such checks support the notion that the manipulations have influenced empathic reactions (e.g., Batson et al., older children and adults, cf. Cialdini, Kenrick, & Baumann, 1981;Cokeetal., 1978;Fultz, l982;Krebs, 1975). The types of experimental manipulations just reviewed have 1982), the pattern of findings is at least consistent with the view been instituted on a one-time basis in brief laboratory studies. that sympathizing or empathizing with another's, but not one's Other researchers have attempted to use more extended proce- own, negative state facilitates helping persons other than those dures to alter individuals' empathic responding, and have tried with whom individuals have empathized. It may be that think- to produce longer lasting effects. We now briefly review these ing about one's own distress is akin to eliciting personal distress or self-focused attention, which leads to less helping in some situations (cf. Batson, in press; Berkowitz, 1972). studies. Training Studies Summary: Inductive Procedures Most of the experimental procedures used by investigators to manipulate empathic responding by altering study partici- In some studies with children, researchers have attempted to enhance empathic tendencies via training procedures, with the expectation that such procedures would indirectly increase al- EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR truistic tendencies. In general, the training procedures have involved role reversal, role taking, inductive techniques (reasoning), and affect-labeling procedures (Feshbach, 1978a; lannotti, 1975;Peraino, 1977;Staub, 1971). lannotti (1975) found that 6-year-olds, but not 9-year-olds, exposed to either role-playing or role-switching procedures subsequently shared more than did children in a control group. Similarly, Feshbach (1978a) found that third to fifth graders' participation in training sessions was related, at least to some degree, to teachers' ratings of prosocial behavior. Staub (1971) also noted positive although relatively weak effects on peer-directed helping or sharing of training resulting from role-taking procedures; however, his inductive training procedures actually resulted in decreased helping of adults by kindergarteners. Staub's procedures were related to change in prosocial behavior 1 week after training; lannotti (1977) retested his boys and found no effects 1 year later. Overall, then, it appears that training procedures designed to enhance empathy (as well as role taking) do have at least a limited, short-term effect on younger children's prosocial behavior. Such facilitative effects have not been found for adolescent boys (Peraino, 1977); however, the sample size in the one relevant study we located was small. Whether the positive effects of training on behavior are actually mediated by enhanced empathic or sympathetic responding is not known; researchers have not tried to tease out the effects of training on sympathy, role taking, and other related capacities. Another type of training procedure is that used by Aronfreed and Pascal (Aronfreed, 1968, 1970) in their work on the conditioning of empathy. In this classic research, Aronfreed and Pascal attempted to demonstrate that altruism develops as a result of the conditioned association between the child's affective state and cues indicating similar emotions in another. For example, in one study 6- to 8-year-old girls were given the opportunity to press either a lever that dispensed candy or a lever that turned on a red light. Each time the child pressed the latter lever, she received positive reinforcement from the experimenter (hugs, smiles, and affection), viewed the experimenter's expressions of delight, or both. In the latter case, it was assumed that the child's feelings of pleasure (evoked by the reinforcement) were conditioned over trials to the experimenter's expressions of joy. Later, the children were given another opportunity to choose between pushing the two levers. Girls who had been exposed to both reinforcement and affective cues were more likely than those exposed to only one or the other to push the lever that gave the experimenter pleasure rather than the lever that produced candy. In a similar study, Midlarsky and Bryan (1967) replicated Aronfreed and Pascal's finding, and also demonstrated that children who received training involving combined positive reinforcement and affect were more generous than other children even when donating anonymously. These findings suggest that conditioned affect mediates some prosocial behavior; however, it is also possible that positive affect expressed by an adult acts as an exhortation to behave in a prosocial manner, and that exhortation combined with reinforcement is simply more powerful than either procedure alone (Underwood & Moore, 1982). It is noteworthy that research in the socialization literature is consistent with that from training studies. Parental use of disci- 111 pline or exhortations that appeal to the child's capacity for sympathy and encourage the child to interpret his or her arousal as sympathy have been positively related to children's prosocial responding (cf. Hoffman, 1977; Moore & Eisenberg, 1984;RadkeYarrow, Zahn-Waxier, & Chapman, 1983). Such practices can be viewed as training procedures, procedures that appear to be effective in enhancing empathic and prosocial responding. Other Relevant Work Information about the relation between empathy and altruism sometimes is embedded in research in a manner that precludes extracting the data for a meta-analysis. An example of such research is that of Radke-Yarrow and Zahn-Waxler (1984; Zahn-Waxier & Radke-Yarrow, 1982). Radke-Yarrow and Zahn-Waxler (1984) studied 1- to 2-yearolds' prosocial behavior in the home and the antecedents of such behavior. The bulk of their data was obtained through detailed maternal reports of children's responses to others' distresses. They found that by 86-109 weeks of age, children sometimes expressed verbal concern for or helped another in distress, often by providing sympathetic reassurance. Moreover, children aged 10-14 months seemed to respond vicariously to another's distress. Although Radke-Yarrow and Zahn-Waxler did not directly assess empathy, their data are consistent with the conclusion that very young children experience either empathy or personal distress, and can engage in sympathetically motivated prosocial acts by 18 months. Another indirect source of information is Eisenberg's work on prosocial moral reasoning and moral self-attributions. In several studies, she and her colleagues and students have found that the frequency of children's prosocial behavior is positively related to the use of moral reasoning categories that seem to express awareness of another's need and/or concern for the other (e.g., Eisenberg, Boehnke, Schuhler, & Silbereisen, 1985; Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979). Moreover, she has found that preschoolers frequently justify naturally occurring prosocial acts by referring to the other's need (e.g., Eisenberg, Pasternack, Cameron, & Tryon, 1984; Eisenberg-Berg & Neal, 1979). Although only suggestive, these data support the notion that empathy or sympathy frequently mediates prosocial, including altruistic, behavior. Relation of Empathy to Sociability, Cooperation, and Social Competence As discussed previously, there appears to be an implicit assumption in much of the work on social competence and cooperation that both affective role-taking skills and empathizing underlie, in part, the development of interpersonal competence in social interactions (e.g., Marsh et al., 1981; Shure, 1982; Spivack & Shure, 1974). Moreover, many researchers seem to view prosocial and cooperative behaviors as being on the same continuum or within the same general domain of behavior, and thereby assume that the same processes mediating prosocial behavior play a role in cooperative behavior (e.g., Hoffman, 1977; lannotti, 1985; Levine & Hoffman, 1975; Marcus, Roke, & Bruner, 1985). This is true despite the fact that cooperative behaviors traditionally have been defined more in terms of conse- 112 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER Table 11 Relation of Empathy to Indices of Cooperative Interactions, Sociability, and Social Competence Study Bazar (1977) George (1985) Age.N P Measure of empathy Picture/story Girls, 36 Boys, 36 5-year-old girls and boys, 36 Howard (198 3) P girls and boys, 35 Iannotti(1985) P girls and boys, 52 lannotti & Pierrehumbert (1985) 2-5-year-old girls and boys, 46" Facial reactions to a film Sad affect Happy afiect Picture/story Facial reactions to a picture story Teacher ratings Picture/story Picture/story (emotional matching)' Measure of sociability Teacher ratings of interpersonal competence P Picture/story Girls, 38 Boys, 42 Marcus, Telleen, & Roke (1979) and Marcus (1980)' P girls and boys, 32 Picture/story Broad Coding system*1 Narrow Coding system Broad system Narrow system Broad system Marcus, Roke, & Bruner (1985) Solomon (1958) 3-6-year-old girls and boys, 32 K, G2, G4, and G6 Girls, 43 Picture/story Facial responses to picture/ story indices Vocal responses Facial reactions to films of children in different situations Sad Angry Pleasure Sad Observational measures of social play Observational measure of cooperation in the classroom Observational measure of social responsivity in peer interaction Observational measure of cooperative play Game measure of cooperation Observational measure of cooperative play Game measure of cooperation Observational measure of cooperation Teacher ratings of cooperation* Observer ratings (two sets) Teacher ratings of popularity Teacher ratings of social acuity Teacher ratings of cooperative social behavior1 Staub&Feinberg(1980) G3 and G4 Girls, 26 Sad Angry Pleasure Sad Angry Pleasure Picture/story Affect matching Report of sympathy .29 -.26 + - NR' .27 .21 .20 0 + + + .10 .23 + + .40 .11 ns + + 0 ns ns 0 0 ns 0 -.16 -.04 .59 .39 .48 .46 .40 .42 .38 - -.46 - - + + + + + + + .12 + ns ns ns 0 0 0 Teacher ratings Social competence Social responsibility* .35 + Social competence ns ns ns 0 0 0 Angry Pleasure Boys, 42 Direction of relation Rating of security of attachment 2 years 5 years Levine & Hoflman (1975) Estimate ofr -.37 Social responsibility ns ns -.46 Observational measures of peer interaction Cooperative play Positive physical contact Social initiation Cooperative play Positive physical contact Social initiation _h 0 0 _h ns 0 ns ns ns 0 0 0 .39 ns ns + 0 0 EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 113 Table 11 (continued) Study Staub&Feinberg(1980) Age, AT Boys, 20 Measure of empathy Affect matching' Measure of sociability Cooperative play Positive physical contact Social initiation Estimate ofr Direction of relation -.36 ns ns 0 0 Note. G - grade. P = preschool. NR = not reported; ns = not significant. A plus sign (+) indicates a positive relation between the measure of empathy and the measure of sociability, social competence, or cooperation; a minus sign (—) indicates a negative relation; a zero indicates no relation. " Assumed to be zero. b n = 49 at age 2 and 44 at age 5; thus, N = 46 was used in the meta-analysis. c The index of situational matching empathy (matching situational rather than facial cues) was not included because it is considered to reflect egocentric responding. d These two studies apparently involve the same sample. e In the narrow system, an exact match of emotion is needed to score a response as empathic; only a genera] match in valence is needed for the broad coding system. f Cooperative behavior was denned primarily as social behavior. 8 Social responsibility included cooperative behavior, role taking, self-confidence, concern for treating others justly, active problem solving, compliance with adults1 wishes, accepting responsibility for one's own behavior, and concern about doing well. b It is difficult to know whether angry reactions to the films should be positively or negatively related to social competence. ' No boys reported sympathetic reactions. quences for the self than the other, that is, as coordinating one's behavior with that of another in order to achieve one's own goal. the studies are homogeneous in their estimate o f r , x 2 (12) = 14.26, ns; z+ = .12 (the confidence interval was from .03 to Clearly, by definition there is a difference between cooperative .21), z = 2.54, p < .011 (the population estimates are virtually and altruistic behaviors with regard to motive; however, prosocial behavior, denned broadly, could include cooperative behav- identical). Interestingly, the correlation between empathy and indices of iors aimed at increasing the other's, as well as one's own, outcomes. social behavior was highest when empathy was assessed with picture/story indices and behavior was indexed by observer or The research on the relation of empathy to indices of social competence and cooperative behavior is limited. Moreover, the operational definitions of cooperation in studies with children teacher ratings. As discussed previously, responses to picture/ story indices may reflect, to some degree, an orientation to seeking approval from adults and/or the tendency to behave in so- generally overlap definitions of sociability because cooperation is operationalized as involving coordinated play or work (e.g., cially expected ways. Thus, it is not surprising that picture/ story indices should be more highly related to adults' ratings of lannotti, 1985; Levine & Hofiman, 1975; Marcus, 1980; Mar- sociability and interpersonal competence than to other indices of social behavior. cus et al., 1985; E. Staub, personal communication, July 1985; Staub & Feinberg, 1980). In addition, interpersonal competence and socially adaptive behavior generally are operationalized as teachers' ratings, ratings that most likely reflect the teacher's perceptions of the child's sociability. Because of the overlapping definitions of sociability, social competence, and cooperative behavior and the small number of studies available on each, data on these indices were combined in the same metaanalysis. Ten studies (including 14 samples) related to social interactions and social competence were located, all with children (Ta- Summary and Conclusions It is clear from the review of the research that the degree of positive association between measures of empathy and prosocial behavior varies depending on the method of measuring empathy. The association between picture/story indices of empathy and prosocial behavior, when tested with meta-analytic procedures, was nonsignificant, whereas the associations between other indices of empathy and prosocial behavior generally were ble 11). All of these except George's (1985) study (which con- significant. Moreover, the degree of association for the signifi- cerned security of attachment rather than social competence or cant correlations varied considerably, from a common correla- sociability per se) were included in the analysis. These studies tion of about .10 to .36. The relations were strongest for self- were homogenous with regard to their estimates of the degree of association between empathy and sociability, x2(13) = report indices of empathy in simulated experimental situations, physiological indices of empathy, misattribution procedures, 16.098, ns. The estimate of zt was .11 (the confidence interval and manipulations of similarity designed to induce empathy. was from .01 to .20), z = 2.23,p < .03. The population estimates were nearly identical. Thus, as for many indices of prosocial social behavior differ from the index unrelated to empathy (pic- behavior, the degree of association between empathy and indices of sociability and social competence appears to be signifi- The indices of empathy that were more highly related to proture/story indices) in important ways. First, with picture/story cant though fairly low. procedures, the individual is presented with scenarios that are clearly hypothetical, and generally involve stimuli that are not In Solomon's (1985) study, angry responses in reaction to films in which a child was sad and upset because she was un- lifelike. In contrast, with the experimental procedures in which the relations between empathy and prosocial behavior were fairly blamed and punished for an offense were considered empathic. Because the child in the film was not depicted as angry, strongest, the empathy-evoking situations have not been pre- it is questionable that anger (rather than sadness or concern) are the only measure of empathy to consistently involve self- should be considered an empathic response in this study. If an- report of emotional responses directly to the experimenter. gry responses in the study are omitted from the meta-analysis, Thus, it is quite possible that picture/story indices of empathy sented as hypothetical stories. Moreover, picture/story indices 114 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER are less emotion provoking than are most other methods of assessing empathy, and may be subject to more demand characteristics than some other indices of empathy (cf. Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Hoffman, 1982b). Another important difference between the research related to picture/story indices of empathy and those indices of empathy most highly related to prosocial behavior concerns the context in which prosocial behavior and empathy have been assessed. With picture/story indices, empathy with hypothetical others has been measured, and then has been related to prosocial behavior in a context unrelated to that in which empathy was assessed. In other words, the object of participants' empathizing has not been the object of participants' potential prosocial responding. In contrast, in studies involving experimental simulations or experimental inductions, the object of one's empathizing and prosocial action generally has been one and the same (except for mood induction procedures). Thus, an empathic emotion or state directed at a specific individual or group in a given situation has been related to assisting those with whom one has been empathizing. Given that one should expect a relation between empathy and prosocial behavior only when empathic responding is activated, it is reasonable to find stronger relations between empathy and prosocial behavior involving the same object and set in the same situation. Just because individuals experience empathic reactions in one situation does not necessarily mean that they will do so in another situation when presented with the opportunity to assist. One last difference between the research related to picture/ story measures of empathy and most other indices of empathy is noteworthy. Nearly all of the research involving picture/story indices has been conducted with samples of children. In contrast, most of the research involving those indices of empathy most highly associated with prosocial behavior has been conducted primarily with adults. Thus, as Underwood and Moore (1982) noted, there is reason to question whether there is a relation between empathy and prosocial behavior among children. However, given that there are low to moderate positive correlations between children's prosocial behavior and facial indices, other report indices, and questionnaire measures of children's empathizing, it appears that the respondents' age is not the primary factor accounting for the lack of association between picture/story indices of empathy and children's prosocial behavior. Nonetheless, because the findings for children sometimes are not as strong as those for adults even when the methods of assessing empathy were similar, especially in studies involving self-report of empathy in experimental simulations and observational set inductions, it appears that the association between empathy and prosocial behavior is somewhat weaker for children than for adults. One alternative explanation for the somewhat stronger relation between empathy and altruism for adults is that adults may be more attuned than children to demands in the experimental setting prescribing responsive and prosocial reactions. Thus, adults might be more likely both to report sympathetic or empathic reactions and to enact prosocial behaviors. However, the positive relation between adults' physiological responsiveness to others' emotional states (which people have relatively little direct control over, cf. Boggess, 1977) and their subsequent prosocial behavior is not consistent with the notion that the associ- ation between adults' empathy and prosocial behavior is due primarily to experimental demands. Although situational demands, societal pressures, and internalized societal images of masculine and feminine behavior probably affect both the report of empathy (cf. Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983) and the performance of nurturing and other prosocial behaviors (cf. Berman, 1980), such factors are unlikely to account for the relations between facial/gestural or physiological measures of empathy and prosocial behaviors, especially those performed under relatively demand-free conditions (which is the case in many studies). Perhaps a more plausible explanation for the somewhat stronger pattern of association between empathy and prosocial behavior is that people's affective responses and behavioral reactions become more integrated with age. Young children may not have the competence to enact altruistic behaviors even if they would like to (e.g., Peterson, 1983a, 1983b); moreover, children may have more difficulty than adults in interpreting their own vicarious arousal. As children develop greater prosocial competencies and are better able to interpret their own sympathetic reactions, one would expect a stronger association between indices of empathy and altruism. This may explain why indices of self-report of empathy in simulated experimental situations, which were collected primarily from younger children, were not associated with prosocial behavior, whereas questionnaire indices, which were used with somewhat older children were, in general, positively correlated with prosocial behavior. Although usually significant, the common correlation coefficients from a number of the meta-analyses were not large; they ranged from approximately .10 to .39. However, it is likely that these correlates are a low estimate of the degree of association between empathy and altruism. There are a number of reasons for this. First, we included all relevant studies in the metaanalyses even though the measures in some studies were weak or of questionable validity. Indeed, in some studies, manipulation checks for the measure of empathy suggested that the index of empathy was not implemented successfully. Second, in many studies, the measure of empathy could have reflected personal distress reactions or other nonempathic reactions; if this were the case, relations between the measure and that of prosocial behavior frequently should have been attenuated. Third, in much of the research, the measure of prosocial behavior itself was not one likely to index altruism. Theorists (e.g., Batson, in press; Hoffman, 1984) generally have argued that empathy or sympathy mediates prosocial actions that are altruistic (e.g., other oriented) in motivation, at least after the first few years of life (Hoffman, 1984). Nonetheless, in much of the research on the association between empathy and prosocial behavior, the measure of prosocial behavior has been one that is unlikely to be motivated by altruistic considerations. For example, prosocial behavior may be operationalized as public acts of donating or helping, which are likely to be motivated by social approval concerns, or as noncostly and/or compliant acts of helpfulness that probably reflect either scripted social behavior (cf. Karniol, 1982; Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978) or mere compliance with peer demands (cf. Eisenberg, 1986; Eisenberg etal., 1981). In instances such as these, there is no conceptual reason to expect empathy to relate to the index of prosocial behavior. Indeed, in research in which the investigators have attempted to differentiate between altruistic and nonaltruistic prosocial be- 115 EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR haviors as well as between empathy (operationalized as sympathy) and personal distress, they generally have obtained substantial associations between empathy and altruism (e.g., Batson et al., 1981; Coke etal., 1978;Eisenbergetal-., 1985; Toi& Batson, 1982). Finally, not all altruistic behaviors may be motivated by empathy. Because some altruistic behaviors appear to be motivated by internalized moral values rather than empathic responding per se (cf. Eisenberg-Berg, 1979; Schwartz & Howard, 1984), one would not expect an extremely strong or consistent relation between empathy and altruism. A fourth reason for assuming that the results of the metaanalyses underestimate the degree of positive association between empathy and altruism was mentioned previously. In most studies involving questionnaire or picture/story indices of altruism, an index of a person's dispositional empathy has been examined in relation to an index of prosocial behavior obtained in a situation unrelated (with regard to target) to that in which the individual's empathic reactions were assessed. Thus, a measure of one's general tendency to be empathic is correlated with prosocial action in a situation that may or may not evoke empathy for even the most empathically inclined individual. Given this procedure, it is not surprising that the degree of association between prosocial behavior and questionnaire or picture/story indices is modest at best. One last reason to assume that the meta-analytic findings underestimate the degree of association between empathy and altruism is that most researchers have measured empathy and/or altruism on a one-time basis. Researchers have seldom correlated an index of empathy (aggregate or not) with an aggregate measure of prosocial behavior. This is true despite the fact that the sum of a set of multiple measurements of a characteristic or behavior is a more stable and unbiased estimator than is a single measurement from the set (Epstein, 1979). If one combines across measures, the error associated with particular instruments may average out; moreover, the generality of the measure across situations or time is enhanced. In short, the degree of association between empathy and prosocial behavior in the empirical research would likely be higher if investigators used aggregate measures of prosocial behavior and empathy more frequently (cf. Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983). The association between empathy and indices of interpersonal competence, sociability, and cooperative behavior among children was significant and positive, although low. Many of the same limitations in the research just described apply to this body of work; in fact, much of the relevant work involved picture/story indices (which did not relate significantly to prosocial behavior) and was designed so that a dispositional measure of empathy was correlated with behavior in a different situation. Moreover, given the weak conceptual link between sociability or interpersonal competence and empathy, the association between empathy and these aspects of social functioning would not be expected to be strong. Despite all the aforementioned factors that could have attentuated the degree of association between empathy and prosocial behavior in the empirical research, most indices of empathy were positively and significantly related to measures (however inadequate) of prosocial or altruistic behavior. Thus, contrary to the conclusions of some prior reviews, the empirical data do provide support for the theoretical assertion that empathy is related to some forms of prosocial behavior. Moreover, it is likely that researchers will obtain more conclusive evidence of a link between the two as more attention is paid to the operationalization and conceptualization of both empathy and altruism, and the nature of the developmental processes underlying their association. References Aderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. (1970). Observational set, empathy, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 141-148. Amato, P. R. (1985). An investigation of planned helping behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 232-252. 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, 786-796. Aronfreed, J. (1968). Conduct and conscience: The socialization of internalized control over behavior. New York: Academic Press. Aronfreed, J. (1970). The socialization of altruistic and sympathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental analyses. In J. Macauley & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 103-126). New York: Academic Press. Barnett, M. A., Feighny, K. M., & Esper, J. A. (1983). Effects of anticipated victim responsiveness and empathy upon volunteering. Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 211 -218. Barnett, M. A., Howard, J. A., King, L. M., & Dino, G. A. (1981). Helping behavior and the transfer of empathy. Journal of Social Psychology, US, 125-132. Barnett, M. A., Howard, J. A., Melton, E. M., & Dino, G. A. (1982). Effect of inducing sadness about self or other on helping behavior in high and low empathic children. Child Development, 53, 920-923. Barnett, M. A., King, L. M., & Howard, J. A. (1979). Inducing affect about self or other: Effects on generosity in children. Developmental Psychology, 15. 164-167. Barnett, M. A., & Thompson, S. (1985). The role of affective perspective-taking ability and empalhic disposition in the child's Machiavellianism, prosocial behavior, and motive for helping. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 295-305. Batson, C. D. (in press). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press. Batson, C. D., Bolen, M. H., Cross, J. A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, H. E. (1986). Where is the altruism in the altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50. 212-220. Batson, C. D., & Coke, J. S. (1981). Empathy: A source of altruistic motivation for helping? In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 167-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Batson, C. D., Cowles, C., & Coke, J. S. (1979). Empathic motivation for helping: Could it be altruislic?Unp\ib\ished manuscript. University of Kansas, Lawrence. Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40, 290-302. Batson, C. D., O'Quin, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplus, M.. & Isen, A. M. (1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, IQd-lW. Bazar, J. W. (1977). An exploration of the relationship of affect awareness, empathy, and interpersonal strategies to nursery school children's competence on peer interactions (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 5691 A. 116 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vet. 6, pp. 63-108). New York: Academic Press. Berman, P. W. (1980). Are women more responsive than men to the young? A review of developmental and situational variables. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 668-695. Blum, L. A. (1980). Friendship, altruism and morality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Boggess, C. (1977). Reliability of a measure of perception of autonomic responses to affective visual stimuli. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37. 4979A. (University Microfilms No. 77-02, 597) Bohlmeyer, E. M., & Helmstadter, G. C. (1985, March). Cooperative and competitive attitudes as predictors of emotional empathy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychology, Las Vegas, NV. Borke, H. (1971). Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy. Developmental Psychology, 5, 262-269. Brehm, S. S., Powell, L. K., &Coke, J. S. (1984). The effects of empathic instructions upon donating behavior: Sex differences in young children. Sex Roles, 10, 405-416. Bryant, B. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413-425. Burleson, B. R. (1983). Social cognition, empathic motivation and adults' comforting strategies. Human Communication Research, 10. 295-304. Campos, J. J., Rutherford, P., & Klinnert, M. (1985, April). Cardiac and behavioral differentiation of negative emotional signals: An individual differences perspective. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Chapman, M., lannotti, R., Cooperman, G., &Zahn-Waxier, C. (1984). Cognition, affect, and attributions as predictors of children's helping. Unpublished manuscript, Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education, Berlin. Cialdini, R. B., Kenrick, D. T., & Baumann, D. J. (1982). Effects of mood on prosocial behavior in children and adults. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 339-359). New York: Academic Press. Cohen, E. C. (1974). Empathy, awareness of interpersonal responsibility and consideration for others in young children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 6192B. (University Microfilms No. 74-13,879) Coke, J. S. (1980). Empathic mediation of helping: Egoistic or altruistic? Dissertation Abstracts International, 41. 405B. (University Microfilms No. 80-14,371) Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 752-766. Cooley, C. H. (1956). Two major works: Social organization and human nature and the social order. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1902) Cooper, H. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 131-146. Craig, K, D. (1968). Physiological arousal as a function of imagined, vicarious, and direct stress experiences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 513-520. Craig, K. D., & Lowery, H. J. (1969). Heart-rate components of conditioned vicarious autonomic responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 11, 381-387. Crandall, J. E., & Harris, M. D. (1976). Social interest, cooperation, and altruism. Journal of Individual Psychology, 32,50-54. Curry, J. F. (1978). Effects of locus of control and empathy on attributions and altruism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 1947B. (University Microfilms No. 78-17, 587) Darley, S. A., & Katz, I. (1973). Heart rate changes in children as a function of test versus game instructions and test anxiety. Child Development, 44, 783-789. Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology. 10, 85. Davis, M. H. (1983a). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 167-184. Davis, M. H. (1983b). Empathic concern and the muscular dystrophy telethon: Empathy as a multidimensional construct. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9. 223-229. Deutsch, F, & Madle, R. A. (1975). Empathy: Historic and current conceptualizations, and a cognitive theoretical perspective. Human Development, 18. 267-287. Dolan, V. L. (1983). The relationship of parent discipline and parent empathy and altruistic behavior (Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2358A. Earle, W. B., Diaz-Loving, R., & Archer, R. L. (1982, August). Antecedents of helping: Assessing the role of empathy and values. Paper presented at the 90th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Eisenberg, N. (1982). The development of reasoning about prosocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 219-249). New York: Academic Press. Eisenberg, N. (1983). The relation between empathy and altruism: Conceptual and methodological issues. Academic Psychology Bulletin. 1. 195-208. Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic cognition, emotion, and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenberg, N., Boehnke, K.., Schuhler, P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (1985). The development of prosocial behavior and cognitions in German children. Journal of Cross-Cullural Psychology, 16, 69-82. Eisenberg, N., Cameron, E., Tryon, K.., & Dodez, R. (1981). Socialization of prosocial behavior in the preschool classroom. Developmental Psychology, 17, 773-782. Eisenberg, N., &. Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100-131. Eisenberg, N., McCreath, H., & Ahn, R. (1985). Vicarious emotional responsiveness and prosocial behavior: Their interrelations in young children. Manuscript submitted for publication. Eisenberg, N., Pastemack, J. E, Cameron, E., & Tryon, K. (1984). The relation of quantity and mode of prosocial behavior to moral cognitions and social style. Child Development, 55, 1479-1485. Eisenberg, N., Pasternack, J. E, & Lennon, R. (1984, March). Prosocial development in middle childhood. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Southwestern Society for Research in Human Development, Denver, CO. Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1979). Development of children's prosocial moral judgment. Developmental Psychology, 15, 128-137. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. (1979). The relationship of preschoolers' reasoning about prosocial moral conflicts to prosocial behavior. Child Development, 50, 356-363. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Lennon, R. (1980). Altruism and the assessment of empathy in the preschool years. Child Development, 51, 552-557. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Mussen, P. (1978). Empathy and moral development in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 14, 185-186. Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Neal, C. (1979). Children's moral reasoning about their own spontaneous prosocial behavior. Developmental Psychology, 15, 228-229. Ekman, P., Liebert, R. M., Friesen, W. V., Harrison, R., Zlatchin, C., Malmstrom, E. J., & Baron, R. A. (1972). Facial expressions of emotion while watching televised violence as predictors of subsequent aggression. In G. A. Comstock, E. A. Rubenstein. & J. P. Murray (Eds.), EMPATHY AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR Television and social behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 22-43). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior I On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097-1126. Fay, B. (1971). The relationships of cognitive moral judgment, generosity, and empathic behavior in six- and eight-year-old children (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 3951A. Ferguson, G. A. (1976). Statistical analyses in psychology and education (4th Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill. Feshbach, N. D. (I978a, March). Empathy training: Afield study in affective education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto. Feshbach, N. D. (1978b). Studies of empathic behavior in children. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 8, pp. 1-47). New York: Academic Press. Feshbach, N. D. (1980, May). The psychology of empathy and the empathy of psychology. Presidential address, presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI. Feshbach, N. D. (1982). Sex differences in empathy and social behavior in children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development ofprosocial behavior (pp. 315-338). New York: Academic Press. Feshbach, N. D., & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in six- and seven-yearolds. Child Development, 39, 133-145. Ford, M. E. (1979). The construct validity of egocentrism. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1169-1188. Fultz, J. N. (1982). Influence of potential for self-reward on egoistically and altruistically motivated helping. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Fultz, J., Batson, C. D., Fortenbach, V. A., McCarthy, P. M., & Vamey, L. L. (1986). Social evaluation and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal <»/'Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 761-769. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1977). The sublety of white racism, arousal, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 691-707. George, C. C. Y. (1985). Individual differences in affective sensitivity: A study of five-year-olds and their parents. Dissertation A bstracts International, 45, 3093B. (University Microfilms No. 84-26,968) Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Mela-analyses in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Harnett, C B. (1981). Personality traits, values, and empathic capabilities as predictors ofprosocial behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International. 42, 1587B. (University Microfilms No. 81-21,271) Harris, M. B., & Huang, L. C. (1973). Helping and the attribution process. Journal of Social Psychology, 90, 291-297. Hedges, L. V., &Olkin, I. (1986). Statisticalmethods for meta-analyses. New York: Academic Press. Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Moral internalization: Current theory and research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(\o\. 10, pp. 85-133). New York: Academic Press. Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 121-137. Hoffman, M. L. (1982a). Development ofprosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development ofprosocial behavior (pp. 218-2 31). New York: Academic Press. Hoffman, M. L. (1982b). The measurement of empathy. In C. E. Izard (Ed.), Measuring emotions in infants and children (pp. 279-296). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior (pp. 103-131). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 117 Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307-316. Howard, J. A. (1983). Preschoolers' empathy for specific affects and their social interaction (Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3954B. Howard, J. A., & Bamett, M. A. (1981). Arousal of empathy and subsequent generosity in young children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 138, 307-308. Hume, D. (1966). Enquiries concerning the human understanding and concerning the principles of morals (2ndEd.). Oxford, England: Clarenden Press. (Original work published 1777) lannotti, R. J. (1975, April). The effect of role-taking experiences on role-taking, altruism, empathy, and aggression. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO. lannotti, R. J. (1977, March). A longitudinal investigation of role taking, altruism, and empathy. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA. lannotti, R. J. (1978). Effect of role-taking experiences on role taking, empathy, altruism, and aggression. Developmental Psychology, 14, 119-124. lannotti, R. J. (1985). Naturalistic and structural assessments ofprosocial behavior in preschool children: The influence of empathy and perspective taking. Developmental Psychology, 21, 46-55. lannotti, R. J., & Pierrehumbert, B. (1985, April). The development of empathy in early childhood. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Kalliopuska, M. (1980). Children's helping behaviour: Personality factors and parental influences related to helping behaviour. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 24. (Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica) Kameya, L. I. (1976). The effect of empathy level and role-taking training upon prosocial level. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 3151 B. (University Microfilms No. 76-29, 321) Kant, I. (1949). Critique of practical reasoning (L. W. Beck, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1788) Karniol, R. (1982). Settings, scripts, and self-schemata: A cognitive analysis of the development of prosocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 251-278). New York: Academic Press. Katz, R. L. (1963). Empathy: Its nature and uses. London: Free Press. Knudson, K. H. M., & Kagan, S. (1982). Differential development of empathy and prosocial behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 140, 249-251. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of self. New York: International Universities Press. Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1134-1146. Kuchenbecker, S. L. Y. (1977). A developmental investigation of children's behavioral, cognitive, and affective responses to empathically stimulating situations (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International. 37, 5328B-5329B. Langer, E., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of "placebic" information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635-642. Lazarus, R. S., Speisman, J. C., Mordkoff, A. M., & Davison, L. A. (1962). A laboratory study of psychological stress produced by a motion picture film. Psychological Monographs, 76(34, Whole No. 533). Leftgoff-Sechooler, R. (1979). Helping as a function of pleasure, arousal, and dominance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Califor- 118 NANCY EISENBERG AND PAUL A. MILLER ma, Los Angeles, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 3590B. Leiman. B. (1978, August). Affective empathy and subsequent altruism in kindergarteners and first graders. Paper presented at the 86th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Lennon, R., Eisenberg, N., & Carroll, J. (1983). The assessment of empathy in early childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4, 295-302. Lennon, R., Eisenberg, N., & Carroll, J. (in press). The relation between empathy and prosocial behavior in the preschool years. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. Levine, L., & Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Empathy and cooperation in 4year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 11, 533-534. Liebhart, E. H. (1972). Empathy and emergency helping: The effects of personality, self-concern and acquaintance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8,404-411. Marcus, R. F. (1980). Empathy and popularity of preschool children. Child Study Journal, 10, 133-145. Marcus, R. E, Roke, E. J., & Bruner, C. (1985). Verbal and nonverbal empathy and prediction of social behavior in young children. Perceptual & Motor Skills. 60, 299-309. Marcus, R. E, Telleen, S.,& Roke, E. J. (1979). Relation between cooperation and empathy in young children. Developmental Psychology, 15, 346-347. Marks, E. L., Penner, L. A., & Stone, A. V. W. (1982). Helping as a function of empathic responses and sociopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 1-20. Marsh, D. T, Serafica, F. C., & Barenboim, C. (1981). Interrelationships among perspective taking, interpersonal problem solving, and interpersonal functioning. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 138, 37-48. Martin, P. L. (1972). Empathy and observation in the modeling of altruistic behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 4108A. (University Microfilms No. 72-25,10) Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. A. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality. 40, 523-543. Midlarsky, E., & Bryan, J. H. (1967). Training charity in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5,408-415. Miller, S. M. (1979). Interrelationships among dependency, empathy and sharing: A preliminary study. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 183199. Moore, B. S., & Eisenberg, N. (1984). The development of altruism. InG. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals ofchi/d development (pp. 107-174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Olden, C. (1958). Notes on the development of empathy. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 13, 505-518. Panofsky, A. D. (1976). The effect of similarity/dissimilarity of race and personal interests on empathy and altruism in second graders (Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 200A. Peraino, J. M. (1977). Role-taking training, affect arousal, empathy, and generosity. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley. Peraino, J. M., & Sawin, D. B. (1981, April). Empathic distress: Measurement and relation to prosocial behavior. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA. Peterson, L. (1983a). Influence of age, task competence, and responsibility focus on children's altruism. Developmental Psychology, 19, 141-148. Peterson, L. (1983b). Role of donor competence, donor age, and peer presence on helping in an emergency. Developmental Psychology, 19, 873-880. Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D., III. (1981). Emergency intervention. New \brk: Academic Press. Radke-Yarrow, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1984). Roots, motives, and patterns in children's prosocial behavior. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), Development and maintenance of prosocial behavior: International perspectives on positive behavior (pp. 81-99). New York: Plenum Press. Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M. (1983). Prosocial dispositions and behavior. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality and social development (Vol. 4, pp. 469-545). New York: Wiley. Reed, N. H. (1981). Psychopathic delinquency, empathy, and helping behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International 41, 4275-4276B. Reichman, F. L. (1982). Empathy and trait anxiety in relation to altruism in children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1626B. (University Microfilms No. 82-23, 889) Roe, K. V. (1980). Toward a contingency hypothesis of empathy development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 991-994. Rosenhan, D. L., Salovey, P., & Hargis, K. (1981). The joys of helping: Focus of attention mediates the impact of positive affect on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40, 899-905. Rosenheim, H. D. (1973). Empathy, identification, altruism, and role similarity in the hospitalized opiate addict and hospital staff. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 2950B. (University Microfilms No. 73-29,909) Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641. Rosenthal, R. (1980). On telling tails when combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 88,496-497. Rothenberg, S. H. (1984). Empathy and sacrifice as factors in altruistic helping of sixth grade girls (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45. 3657B. Rushton, J. P. (1980). Altruism, socialization, and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin. 94, 18-38. Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 1-11. Salovey, P., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1983, August). Effects of joy, attention, and recipient's status on helpfulness. Paper presented at the 91 st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA. Sawin, D. (1979, March). Assessing empathy in children: A search for an elusive concept. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, CA. Sawin, D. B., Underwood, B., Weaver, J., & Mostyn, M. (1981). Empathy and altruism. Unpublished manuscript. University of Texas, Austin. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1984). Internalized values as motivators of altruism. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), The development and maintenance of prosocial behavior: International perspectives on positive development (pp. 229-255). New \brk: Plenum Press. Seaman, R. P. (1979). Variables affecting bystander intervention in a simulated minor emergency: Empathy, locus of control, and social responsibility. Dissertation Abstracts International. 39, 5152B. (University Microfilms No. 79-07, 828) Shantz, C. U. (1975). The development of social cognition. In E. M. EMPATHY AND PROSOC1AL BEHAVIOR Hetherington (Ed.), Review of chilli development research (Vol. 5, pp. 257-323). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shelton, M. L., & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear-arousing and empathyarousing appeals to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 11, 366-378. Shure, M. B. (1982). Interpersonal problem solving: A cog in the wheel of social cognition. In F. C. Serafica (Ed.), Social-cognitive development in context (pp. 133-166). New York: Guilford Press. Smith, A. (1948). The theory of moral sentiment. In H. Schneider (Ed.), Adam Smith's moral and political philosophy. New "York: Hafner. (Original work published 1759) Solomon, J. (1985, April). The relationship between affective empathy and prosocial behavior in elementary school children. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Spivack, G., & Shure, M. B. (1974). Social adjustment of young children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Staub, E. (1971). The use of role-playing and induction in children's learning of helping and sharing behavior. Child Development, 42, 805-816. Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press. Staub, E., & Feinberg, H. K. (1980, September). Regularities in peer interaction, empathy, and sensitivity to others. Paper presented at the 88th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Sterling, B., & Gaertner, S. L. (1984). The attribution of arousal and emergency helping: A bidirectional process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 286-296. Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., Haring, M. J., Kinney, C., & Miller, W. (1979). Codebookfor deriving and coding data points in meta-analysis: The sample case of subjective well-being. Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University, Tempe. Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory studies in empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271314). New York: Academic Press. Stotland, E., Mathews, K. E., Sherman, S. E., Hansson, R. Q, & Richardson, B. E. (1978). Empathy, fantasy, and helping. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Strayer, J. (1983, April). Emotional and cognitive components of children's empathy. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, MI. Strayer, J „ & Roberts, W. L. (1984). Children's empathy, role taking and related factors. Unpublished manuscript, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. View publication stats 119 Sturtevant, A. E. (1985). The relationship of empathy, mood, prosocial moral reasoning, and altruism in children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New \brk University, New York. Thompson, W. C, Cowan, C. L., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1980). Focus of attention mediates the impact of affect on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 38, 291-300. Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. JournalofPersonality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292. Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91. 143-173. Van Omum, W., Foley, J. M., Bums, R., DeWolfe, A. S.. & Kennedy, E. C. (1981). Empathy, altruism, and self-interest in college students. Adolescence, 16, 799-808. Watson, M. S. (1976). The development of cognitive and emotional aspects of empathy and their relationship to a verbal measure of altruism (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 446B. Weston, D. R., & Main, M. (1980, April). Infant responses to the crying of an adult actor in the laboratory: Stability and correlates of "concerned attention." Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Infant Studies, New Haven, CT. Wisenfeld, 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, 118-124. Wispe, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 314-321. Wispe, L., Kiecolt, J., & Long, R. E. (1977). Demand characteristics, moods, and helping. Social Behavior and Personality. 5, 249-255. Zahn-Waxler, C., Friedman, S. L., & Cummings, E. M. (1983). Children's emotions and behaviors in response to infants' cries. Child Development, 54, 1522-1528. Zahn-Waxler, C, & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1982). The development of altruism: Alternative research strategies. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 109-137). New York: Academic Press. Received December 2, 1985 Revision received April I , 1986
