Is Empathic Emotion a Source of Altruistic Motivation?

Home , Affect theory, Daniel Batson, Emotion, Empathic concern, Interest (emotion), Suffering

C. Daniel Batson, Bruce D. Duncan, Paula Ackerman, Terese Buckley, and Kimberly Birch University of Kansas

It has been suggested that empathy leads to altruistic rather than egoistic motivation to help. This hypothesis was tested by having subjects watch another female undergraduate receive electric shocks and then giving them a chance to help her by taking the remaining shocks themselves. In each of two experiments, subjects' level of empathic emotion (low versus high) and their ease of escape from continuing to watch the victim suffer if they did not help (easy versus difficult) were manipulated in a 2 X 2 design. We reasoned that if empathy led to altruistic motivation, subjects feeling a high degree of empathy for the victim should be as ready to help when escape without helping was easy as when it was difficult. But if empathy led to egoistic motivation, subjects feeling empathy should be more ready to help when escape was difficult than when it was easy. Results of each experiment followed the former pattern when empathy was high and the latter pattern when empathy was low, supporting the hypothesis that empathy leads to altruistic rather than egoistic motivation to help.

Evidence indicates that feeling empathy The egoistic orientation of modern psy- for the person in need is an important mo- chology should not be dismissed lightly; it tivator of helping (cf. Aderman & Berko- has prevailed for decades, and it can easily witz, 1970; Aronfreed & Paskal, cited in account for what might appear to be altruis- Aronfreed, 1970; Coke, Batson, & McDavis, tic motivation arising from empathic emo- 1978; Harris & Huang, 1973; Krebs, 1975; tion. To illustrate: You may answer the ques- Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). In the past tion of why you helped someone in other- few years, a number of researchers (Aron- directed, altruistic terms—you felt sorry for freed, 1970; Batson, Darley, & Coke, 1978; that person and wished to reduce his or her Hoffman, 1975; Krebs, 1975) have hypoth- distress. But this apparently altruistic con- esized that this motivation might be truly cern to reduce another's distress may not altruistic, that is, directed toward the end- have been the end-state goal of your action state goal of reducing the other's distress. If but rather an intermediate means to the ul- the empathy-altruism hypothesis is correct, timate end of reducing your own distress. it would have broad theoretical implications, Your own distress could have arisen not only for few if any major theories of motivation from the unpleasant emotions you experi- allow for the possibility of truly altruistic enced as a result of knowing that the other motivation (cf. Bolles, 1975, for a review). person was suffering (shock, disgust, fear, Current theories tend to be egoistic; they are or grief) but from the increase in unpleasant built on the assumption that everything we emotion you anticipated if you did not help do is ultimately directed toward the end- (guilt or shame). Interpreted in this way, state goal of benefiting ourselves. your helping was not altruistic. It was an instrumental egoistic response. You acted to We would like to thank Edward Morrow, Elaine Al- reduce the other person's distress because exander, Theresa Lahey, Paula Fremerman, and Mar- that reduced your own distress. tha Rosette for their assistance in making the videotapes If we allow that apparently altruistic help- used in these experiments. Jack Brehm, Jay Coke, Rick ing may be no more than an instrumental Gibbons, and Mary Vanderplas made helpful comments egoistic response, and we believe that we on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to C. Daniel must, then there is no clear empirical evi- Batson, Department of Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y of Kan- dence that empathic emotion leads to al- sas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045. truistic motivation to help. The difficulty in

290 EMPATHIC EMOTION AND ALTRUISTIC MOTIVATION 291 providing evidence is, of course, that egoism own welfare; it is an end in itself. Although and altruism are motivational concepts, and one's own welfare may be increased by al- we cannot directly observe motivation, only truistically motivated helping (for example, behavior. If we are to provide empirical ev- it may produce feelings of personal satisfac- idence that empathic emotion leads to al- tion or relief), personal gain must be an un- truistic motivation, we need to identify some intended by-product and not the goal of the point at which the egoistic and altruistic in- behavior. This conception of altruism and of terpretations differ at a behavioral level. If the distinction between it and egoism seem no such point can be found, then we must quite consistent not only with Auguste conclude that the claim that empathy evokes Comte's (1875) initial use of the term but altruistic motivation is of no real theoretical also, with modern dictionary definitions, for significance. example, "unselfish concern for the welfare of others." Conceptual Distinction Between Egoism and Altruism Empirical Distinction Between Egoism and Altruism In an attempt to find a point of behavioral difference, it is important, first, to be clear Equipped with this conceptual distinction, about the points of conceptual difference. we may turn to the problem of making an Therefore, let us be explicit about what we empirical distinction between egoistic and mean by egoistic and altruistic motivation altruistic motivation for helping. As we have for helping. As we shall use the terms, a said, all we can directly observe is the be- person's helping is egoistic to the degree that havior, helping. The challenge is somehow he or she helps from a desire for personal to use the behavior as a basis for inferring gain (e.g., material rewards, praise, or self- whether the motivation underlying it is esteem) or a desire to avoid personal pain egoistic or altruistic. (e.g., punishment, social castigation, private Batson and Coke (in press) have recently guilt, or shame). That is, egoistically mo- proposed a technique for doing this. Building tivated helping is directed toward the end- on the work of Piliavin and Piliavin (Note state goal of increasing the helper's own 1), they point out that the effect on helping welfare. In contrast, a person's helping is of a cost variable—the cost of escaping from altruistic to the degree that he or she helps the need situation without helping—should from a desire to reduce the distress or in- be different, depending on whether the by- crease the benefit of the person in need. That stander's motivation is egoistic or altruistic. is, altrusitically motivated helping is di- If the bystander's motivation is egoistic, his rected toward the end-state goal of increas- or her goal is to reduce personal distress ing the other's welfare. caused by seeing the other suffer. This goal This conceptual distinction between ego- can be reached either by helping, and so re- ism and altruism leads to three observations: moving the cause of one's distress, or by es- (a) Helping, as a behavior, can be either caping (physically or psychologically) and egoistically or altruistically motivated; it is so removing contact with the cause; either the end-state goal, not the behavior, that behavior can lead to the desired goal. The distinguishes an act as altruistic, (b) Moti- likelihood that the egoistically motivated vation for helping may be a mixture of al- bystander will choose to help should, there- truism and egoism; it need not be solely or fore, be a direct function of the costs asso- even primarily altruistic to have an altruistic ciated with choosing to escape. These costs component, (c) Increasing the other's wel- include the physical effort involved in es- fare is both necessary and sufficient to attain caping from the need situation (often min- an altruistic end-state goal. To the degree imal) and, more importantly, the feelings of that helping is altruistically rather than distress, guilt, and shame anticipated as a egoistically motivated, increasing the other's result of knowing that the person in need is welfare is not an intermediate, instrumental continuing to suffer. Thus, if the bystander response directed toward increasing one's were egoistically motivated and all other 292 BATSON, DUNCAN, ACKERMAN, BUCKLEY, BIRCH variables were held constant, increasing the Table 1 cost of escaping by, for example, preventing Rate of Helping When Difficulty of Escape is the bystander from leaving the scene of the Varied and Motivation is Egoistic or Altruistic accident and so making it hard to avoid Type of motivation thinking about the continuing distress of the (level of empathic emotion) unhelped victim should increase the rate of helping. Conversely, reducing the costs of Difficulty Egoistic Altruistic escaping by, for example, making it easy for of escape (low empathy) (high empathy) the bystander to leave the scene of the ac- Easy Low High cident and thus avoid thinking about the Difficult High High victim's continuing distress should decrease the rate of helping. If the bystander's motivation is altruistic, associated with feeling empathy for the per- his or her goal is to reduce the other's dis- son in need is altruistic (the empathy-altru- tress. This goal can be reached by helping, ism hypothesis), individuals induced to feel but not by escaping. Therefore, the likeli- a high degree of empathy should help re- hood that the altruistically motivated by- gardless of whether escape is easy or difficult stander will help should be independent of (column 2 of Table 1); individuals feeling the cost of escaping because escaping is a little empathy should help only when escape goal-irrelevant behavior. Increasing or de- is difficult (column 1). Thus, if empathy creasing the cost of escaping should have no leads to altruistic motivation to help, one can effect on the rate of helping; the rate should relabel the columns in Table 1, as has been remain as high when escape is easy as when done in parentheses. If, however, the moti- it is difficult. vation to help resulting from empathic emotion is egoistic, as seems to be implied by These predictions suggest a way of deter- those who speak of "empathic pain," helping mining whether the motivation for helping in the high-empathy condition should be af- is egoistic or altruistic. The motivation can- fected by the ease of escape. Then we would not be inferred from any single behavioral expect to observe two main effects: As in response, but it can be inferred from the previous research, high empathy should lead pattern of helping responses presented in to more helping than low empathy, presum- Table 1. To the extent that the motivation ably as a result of an increase in feelings of for helping is egoistic, the helping rate personal distress or in anticipated guilt or should be affected by the difficulty of es- shame. And in each empathy condition d i f - caping. The easier it is to escape continued ficult escape should lead to more helping exposure to the need situation, the lower the than easy escape. cost of escaping and the less chance of a Note that the entire one-versus-three in- bystander's helping. But to the extent that teraction pattern depicted in Table 1 is im- the motivation for helping is altruistic, the portant if one is to provide evidence for the helping rate should be unaffected by the difficulty of escaping; helping should be just empathy-altruism hypothesis. If, for example, one were to compare the easy and dif- as high when escape is easy as when it is difficult.1 ficult escape cells only in the column marked altruistic motivation (high empathy), the

Application to the Problem of the 1 It is worth noting that another cost variable, the cost Motivation Resulting From Empathic of helping, is frequently thought to be the key to altru- Emotion ism. If helping occurs when the cost of helping is high (at the extreme, when the helper's life is in danger), this Now let us apply this general technique is thought to be evidence of altruistic motivation. A little for discriminating between egoistic and al- reflection shows that such an inference is unfounded, for even highly costly helping could easily be an instru- truistic motivation to the specific question mental egoistic response, motivated by a desire to avoid of whether empathic emotion leads to al- guilt or to attain praise and honor either in this life or truistic motivation to help. If the motivation an anticipated life to come. EMPATHIC EMOTION AND ALTRUISTIC MOTIVATION 293 altruistic prediction is for no difference in Experiment 1 the rate of helping. Such a result could easily occur simply because the escape manipula- There is evidence (e.g., Hornstein, 1976; tion was too weak or the behavioral measure Krebs, 1975; Stotland, 1969) that people are was insensitive. If, however, an escape ma- more likely to identify with a person they nipulation has a significant effect on helping perceive to be similar to themselves and, as when a bystander feels little empathy but a result, to feel more empathy for a similar does not when a bystander feels much em- than for a dissimilar other. In the clearest pathy, the evidence that empathic emotion demonstration of this relationship, Krebs evokes altruistic motivation is much stronger. (1975) manipulated male subjects' percep- Then the evidence cannot be dismissed as tions of their similarity to a young man (an being the result of a weak escape manipu- experimental confederate) prior to having lation or an insensitive measure. them watch him perform in a roulette game It is also clear that one must be on guard in which he received money if the ball landed for a possible ceiling effect. A ceiling effect on an even number and an electric shock if in the high-empathy column could obscure the ball landed on an odd number. Similarity the two-main-effect pattern that would be was manipulated by telling subjects that expected if the motivation were egoistic, their responses to a personality test com- making it look like the one-versus-three in- pleted several days earlier indicated that teraction that would be expected if the mo- they and the performer were either similar tivation were altruistic. or different. In addition, subjects received information suggesting that the performer's values and interests were either similar or Present Research different from their own. Compared with We conducted two experiments to test the subjects in the dissimilar condition, subjects hypothesis that empathic emotion leads to who perceived themselves to be similar to altruistic motivation to help. As suggested the performer showed greater physiological by the preceding analysis, a 2 X 2 design was arousal in response to his pleasure and pain, used in each. Subjects observed a young reported identifying with him to a greater woman named Elaine receiving electric degree, and reported feeling worse while shocks; they were given an unanticipated waiting for him to receive shock. These sub- chance to help her by volunteering to take jects also subsequently helped him more. But the remaining shocks in her stead. Cost of it was not clear whether the motivation to escaping without helping was manipulated help was egoistic or altruistic. To clarify this by making escape either easy or difficult. issue, we used a procedure similar to Krebs's Subjects believed that if they did not take but varied perceived similarity and difficulty Elaine's place, either they would continue of escape in a 2 X 2 factorial design. to observe her take the shocks (difficult escape condition) or they would not (easy es- Method cape condition). Level of empathic emotion (low versus high) was manipulated differ- Subjects ently in the two experiments. Following the Subjects were 44 female introductory psychology stu- classic studies of Stotland (1969) and Krebs dents at the University of Kansas participating in partial (1975), in Experiment 1 we used similarity fulfillment of a course requirement. They were randomly information to manipulate empathy. In Ex- selected from those who had completed a personal value and interest questionnaire, which formed the basis for periment 2 we sought to manipulate empa- the similarity manipulation, at a screening session held thy more directly through the use of an a few weeks earlier. Subjects were assigned to the four emotion-specific misattribution to a placebo. conditions of the 2 (easy versus difficult escape) X 2 In both experiments, the empathy-altruism (similar versus dissimilar victim) design through the use of a randomized block procedure, 11 subjects to each hypothesis predicted that helping responses cell. Four additional participants, one from each cell, would conform to the one-versus-three pat- were excluded from the design because they suspected tern depicted in Table 1. Elaine was not actually receiving shocks. 294 BATSON, DUNCAN, ACKERMAN, BUCKLEY, BIRCH

Procedure any more shocks; in the difficult-escape condition they would. All subjects were tested individually by a female ex- Similarity manipulation. After the subject finished perimenter. On arrival, subjects were told that they reading the detailed instructions, the experimenter would have to wait a few minutes for the arrival of a handed her a copy of the personal values and interest second subject, Elaine (actually a confederate). They questionnaire administered at the screening session, ex- were given an introduction to read while waiting: plaining that this copy had been filled out be Elaine and would provide information about her that might be of In this experiment we are studying task performance help in forming an impression. Elaine's questionnaire and impression projection under stressful conditions. was prepared in advance so that it reflected values and We are investigating, as well, whether any ineffi- interests that were either very similar or very dissimilar ciency that might result from working u n d e r aversive to those the subject had expressed on her questionnaire. conditions increases proportionately with the amount In the similar-victim condition, Elaine's responses to six of time spent working under such conditions. items that had only two possible answers (e.g., "If you had a choice, would you prefer living in a rural or an Since this study requires the assistance of two par- urban setting?") were identical to those the subject had ticipants, there will be a drawing to determine which given; her responses to the other eight items were similar role will be yours. One participant will perform a task but not identical (e.g., "What is your favorite maga- (consisting of up to, but not more than, ten trials) zine?" Answers: Cosmopolitan for the subject, Seven- under aversive conditions; the aversive conditions will teen for Elaine; Time for the subject, Newsweek for be created by the presentation of electric shock at Elaine). In the dissimilar-victim condition, Elaine's re- random intervals during the work period. The other sponses to the six two-answer items were the opposite participant will observe the individual working under of those the subject had given, and her responses to the aversive conditions. This role involves the formation other eight were clearly different (e.g., Cosmopolitan and report of general attitudes towards the "worker" for the subject, Newsweek for Elaine). so that we may better assess what effect, if any, working under aversive conditions has upon how that in- The experimenter was blind to subjects' escape con- dividual is perceived. dition and to whether Elaine's questionnaire was similar or dissimilar. She remained blind to the similarity ma- After reading the introduction and signing a consent nipulation until after all measures were recorded, but form, subjects drew lots for their role. The drawing w a s she made herself aware of the escape manipulation just rigged so that they always drew the observer role. prior to presenting the opportunity to help Elaine. This Subjects were then escorted to the observation room was to allow her to remind the subjects how many more and given more detailed instructions. They learned that trials they would be observing if they did not help. Since they would not actually meet the worker but would in- the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicted that the two stead observe her over closed-circuit television as she independent variables would interact, remaining blind performed up to 10 2-min. digit-recall trials. At random to one independent variable was sufficient to rule out intervals during each trial, the worker would receive an experimenter-bias e x p l a n a t i o n (Rosenthal, 1966) for moderately uncomfortable electric shocks. The instruc- the predicted pattern of helping. tions went o n to explain that equipment limitations made While the subject looked over Elaine's questionnaire, it impossible to capture visually all of the worker's re- the experimenter left to see if Elaine had arrived. She actions and that this was a problem, since prior research returned to say that she had and that the subject could suggested that nonverbal cues were important in as- now begin observing her over the closed-circuit televi- sessing another person's emotional state. To compensate sion. So saying, the experimenter turned on a video for this lost information, t h e worker would be connected monitor, allowing the subject to see Elaine. Unknown to a galvanic s k i n response (GSR) monitor, which w o u l d to the subject, what she saw was actually a videotape. be visible in the lower right-hand corner of the television Need situation. On the videotape, subjects first saw screen. The level of arousal indicated on the monitor Elaine, a moderately attractive young woman, tell the would enable the subjects to assess more accurately the research assistant (female) that she would complete all worker's emotional response, and help them form an 10 of the digit-recall trials. As the assistant was going impression. over the procedure, Elaine interrupted to ask about the Difficulty of escape manipulation. To manipulate nature of the electric shocks that were to be used. The difficulty of escape without helping, the last line of the assistant answered that the shocks would be of constant detailed instructions varied the number of trials that intensity and, although uncomfortable, would cause "no subjects expected to observe. In the easy-escape con- permanent damage." "You know if you scuff your feet dition, subjects read: "Although the worker will be com- walking across a carpet and touch something metal? pleting between two and ten trials, it will be necessary Well, they'll be about two to three times more uncom- for you to observe only the first two." In the difficult- fortable than that." escape condition they read: "The worker will be com- After GSR electrodes were attached to the first and pleting between two and ten trials, all of which you will third fingers on Elaine's nondominant hand and a shock observe." All subjects were later to learn that Elaine electrode was attached to her other arm, the digit-recall agreed to complete all 10 trials, and they were given the trials began. The experimenter left subjects alone at this chance to help her by trading places after the second point. As the first trial progressed, Elaine's facial expres- trial. Therefore, in the easy-escape condition, subjects sions, body movement, and the GSR monitor all indi- who did not help would not have to watch Elaine take cated that she was finding the shocks extremely un- EMPATHIC EMOTION AND ALTRUISTIC MOTIVATION 295

pleasant. By midway thorough the second trial, her and you'll do the aversive conditioning trials with the reactions were so strong that the assistant interrupted shocks. And then you'll be free to go. the procedure to ask if Elaine were all right. Elaine What would you like to do? [Experimenter gets re- answered that she was but would appreciate having a sponse from subject.] OK, that's fine. [If subject says glass of water. The assistant readily agreed to this re- she wants to trade places with Elaine, the experi- quest and went to get the water. menter continues.] How many trials would you like Manipulation check. During this 90-sec break, the to do? Elaine will go ahead and do any of the eight experimenter reentered the observation room and gave remaining trials that you don't want to do. [Experi- subjects a brief questionnaire, ostensibly assessing their menter gets response.] Fine. impression of Elaine thus far. The questionnaire included six 7-point trait rating scales (attractive, intel- The experimenter then left, ostensibly to go tell the as- ligent, competent, friendly, mature, cooperative). Sub- sistant what had been decided. In fact, she recorded jects were also asked how likable Elaine was and how whether the subject wanted to trade places and, if so, enjoyable they thought it would be to work with her. how many of the eight remaining trials she would do. To check on their perceptions of her distress, subjects This information provided the dependent measure of were asked, "In your opinion, how uncomfortable were helping. Then the experimenter made herself aware of the aversive conditions (random shocks) for the person the subject's similarity condition. in the working c o n d i t i o n s experiment?" Finally, to check Debriefing. The experimenter returned promptly and on the effectiveness of the similarity manipulation, they fully debriefed the subject. Subjects seemed readily to were asked, "How similar to you is the person in the understand the necessity for the deception involved in working conditions experiment?" Responses to each of the experiment, and none seemed upset by it. After de- these four questions were on 7-point scales (1 = not at briefing, subjects were thanked for their participation all; 7 = extremely). When subjects finished the ques- and excused. tionnaire, the experimenter collected it and left. Returning with the glass of water, the assistant asked Results and Discussion Elaine if she had ever had trouble with shocks before. Elaine confessed that she had—as a child she had been thrown from a horse onto an electric fence. The doctor Effectiveness of the Similarity had said at the time that she suffered a bad trauma and Manipulation in the future might react strongly to even mild shocks. (This information was provided to ensure that subjects To check the effectiveness of the similarity would view Elaine's extreme reaction to the shocks as manipulation, subjects were asked how sim- atypical and would not expect to find the shocks as un- - ilar the worker (Elaine) was to them. On the pleasant if they chose to take her place.) Hearing this, the assistant said that she did not think Elaine should 7-point response scale, subjects in the simi- continue with the trials. Elaine replied that even though lar-victim condition perceived Elaine to be she found the shocks very unpleasant, she wanted to go more similar to themselves (M = 5.09) than on: "I started; I want to finish. I'll go on . . . I know subjects in the dissimilar-victim condition your experiment is important, and I want to do it." At (M= 2.69), F(\, 40) = 39.56, p < .001. No this point, the assistant hit upon an idea: Since the observer was also an introductory psychology student, other effects approached significance (Fs < maybe she would be willing to help Elaine out by trading 1.20). Similar but weaker patterns were places. Elaine readily consented to the assistant check- found for two related items: ratings of ing about this possibility. The assistant said that she Elaine's attractiveness and likability. Sub- would shut off the equipment and go talk with the experimenter about it. Shortly thereafter, the video screen jects in the similar-victim condition per- went blank. ceived Elaine to be more attractive (Ms = Dependent measure: Helping Elaine. About 30 sec 5.86 versus 5.14), F(l, 40) = 4.38, p < .05, later, the experimenter entered the observation room and more likable (M= 5.14 versus 4.23), and said: F(l, 40) = 5.06, p < .03. For each of these items, no other effects approached signifi- First of all, let me say that you're under no obligation cance (Fs < 1.30). These results suggested to trade places. I mean, if you would like to continue in your role as observer that's fine; you did happen that the similarity manipulation was suc- to draw the observer role. If you decide to continue cessful, although as might be expected, ma- as the observer, ([easy-escape condition] you've fin- nipulating similarity did not just affect per- ished observing the two trials, so all you need to do ceived similarity; it had some effect on is answer a few questions about your impression of perceived attractiveness and liking as well.2 Elaine and you'll be free to go) ([difficult-escape condition] I need you to observe Elaine's remaining trials. After you've done that and answered a few questions about your impression of Elaine, you'll be free to go.). 2 There were no reliable differences across conditions If you decide to change places with Elaine, what will in ratings of how enjoyable it would be to work with happen is that she'll come in here and observe you, Elaine (overall M = 4.57) or in ratings of her intelligence 296 BATSON, DUNCAN, ACKERMAN, BUCKLEY, BIRCH

Table 2 Following the procedure recommended by Proportion of Subjects Agreeing to Trade Langer and Abelson (1972) and Winer Places With Elaine in Each Condition of (1971, pp. 399-400), these dichtomous data Experiment 1 were analyzed through analysis of variance Similarity condition by employing a normal approximation based on an arc sine transformation. The 2X2 Dissimilar victim Similar victim analysis revealed a highly significant main Difficulty effect for similarity, x 2U) = 11.69,p < .001, of escape Propor- Propor- condition tion M no." tion M no.' qualified by a significant Escape X Similar- ity interaction, x20) = 4.19, p < .04. The Easy .18 1.09 .91 7.09 main effect for difficulty of escape did not Difficult .64 4.00 .82 5.00 approach significance, x2( 1) = 1.34, p > .20. Inspection of the proportion of helping in Note, n = 11 in each condition. " Mean number of shock trials (from 0 to 8) that subjects each condition revealed that the interaction agreed to take for Elaine (AfSe = 9.70, df= 40). was of the form predicted by the empathy- altruism hypothesis; the proportion in the easy-escape-dissimilar-victim condition was A formal check on the escape manipula- much lower than in the other three condition seemed impractical. It also seemed un- tions. To test the statistical significance of necessary, since subjects received the ma- this predicted one-versus-three pattern, the nipulation twice—once in their written rate of helping in this condition was con- instructions and again orally just prior to trasted with the rate in the other three con- indicating whether they wished to help. Ex- ditions. This planned comparison revealed amination of debriefing notes indicated that, a highly significant difference, x 2U) = 14.62, as expected, subjects were aware of their p < .001. Residual variance across the other escape condition and its implications. three conditions did not approach significance, x2(2) = 2.60, p > .25. Individual cell Perception of Elaine's Distress comparisons revealed that, as predicted, the proportion of helping in the easy-escape-dis- As intended, subjects in all conditions per- similar-victim condition was significantly ceived Elaine to be suffering. When asked lower than the proportion in each of the on a 1-7 scale to indicate how uncomfortable other three conditions (zs ranging from 2.27 the shocks were for her, subjects' modal re- to 3.87, all/js < .015, one-tailed). Compar- sponse in each condition was 7 (extremely isons among the other three conditions re- uncomfortable); the overall mean was 6.25. vealed no reliable differences (all zs < 1.60). There were no reliable differences across conditions. With one exception, an identical pattern of significant effects emerged from analysis of variance and planned comparisons on the Relieving Elaine's Distress by Helping number of shock trials subjects in each condition volunteered to take for Elaine.The o n e The proportion of subjects in each experimental condition who offered to help Elaine exception was that the number of trials was by trading places is presented in Table 2. significantly lower in the two difficult-escape conditions (pooled) t h a n in the easy-escape- similar-victim condition, ?(40) = 2.25, p < .03, two-tailed. (overall M = 4.23), friendliness (overall Af=5.18), maturity (overall 4.77), or cooperativeness (overall These results were quite consistent with M = 5.45). On ratings of her competence, there was an the empathy-altruism hypothesis; they were unexpected, significant (p < .03) interaction; Elaine was not consistent with the view that empathy perceived to be more competent i n the easy-escape-sim- simply increases egoistic motivation to help, ilar-victim and the difficult-escape-dissimilar-victim conditions than in the other two conditions. Since there In the dissimilar-victim condition, where em- was no ready explanation for this interaction, it seemed pathic emotional response to Elaine's dis- best attributed to chance. tress was expected to be relatively low and, EMPATHIC EMOTION AND ALTRUISTIC MOTIVATION 297 according to the empathy-altruism hypoth- attractiveness and likability. But these c o r - esis, the motivation to help was expected to relations appeared to be, if anything, nega- be primarily egoistic, the difficulty of escape tive (rs = -.08 to -.31). There was, then, manipulation had a dramatic effect on help- no evidence that derogation was inhibiting ing. When escape was easy, subjects were helping in this condition. And covariance not likely to help, presumably because a less analyses indicated that derogation could not costly way to reduce any personal distress account for the pattern of helping across caused by watching Elaine receive shock was experimental conditions. Removing the ef- to answer the experimenter's final questions fects of perceived attractiveness or of l i k - and leave. When escape was difficult, sub- ability on either likelihood or amount of jects were likely to help, presumably because helping, the predicted one-versus-three p a t - taking the remaining shocks themselves was tern of helping responses remained highly less costly than sitting and watching Elaine significant (all F s ;> 13.63, all ps < .001). take more. Overall, the results of Experiment 1 In the similar-victim conditions, however, seemed to conform closely to the one-versus- where empathic emotional response to three pattern that, according to Table 1, Elaine's distress was expected to be rela- would be expected if increased empathic tively high and, according to the empathy- emotion led to altruistic motivation; they did altruism hypothesis, the motivation to help not conform to the two-main-effect pattern should be at least in part altruistic, difficulty that would be expected if increased empathy of escape had no effect on subjects' readiness led to egoistic motivation. Still, although to help. Presumably, because their concern Stotland (1969) and Krebs (1975) had pro- was to reduce Elaine's distress and not just vided rather strong evidence that a similarity their own, they were very likely to help, even manipulation like the one used in Experi- when escape was easy. ment 1 manipulated empathic emotion, the Nor could this pattern of results be d i s - manipulation was indirect. Therefore, a sec- missed as an artifact of a ceiling effect in ond experiment was conducted in which we the difficult-escape-similar-victim condi- sought to test the empathy-altruism hypoth- tion. Although the proportion of helping in esis by manipulating empathic emotion more both similar-victim conditions was high, directly. there was a nonsignificant trend for the proportion to be higher under easy than under Experiment 2 difficult escape (z = —.63). This was not what would be expected if a ceiling effect Based on the results of four different stud- were operating. Moreover, a ceiling-effect ies, Batson and Coke (in press) have sug- explanation was even less plausible for the gested that two qualitatively distinct emo- number of shock trials subjects volunteered tional states are elicited by witnessing another to take, since the mean response on this person in distress: empathic concern, made measure in the difficult-escape-similar-vic- up of emotions such as compassion, concern, tim condition was far from the upper end- warmth, and softheartedness, and personal point of the scale. And on this measure too distress, made up of emotions such as shock, there was a nonsignificant trend for the num- alarm, disgust, shame, and fear. It seemed ber of trials to be larger under easy than to us that in the absence of a similarity ma- under difficult escape, <(44) = -1.58. nipulation, watching Elaine take shocks Finally, internal analyses provided an op- should elicit a reasonably high degree of portunity to check on a possible alternative both of these emotional states. And, gener- explanation for the low level of helping in alizing from the work on the misattribution the easy-escape-dissimilar-victim condition: of dissonance arousal (Zanna & Cooper, derogation of Elaine. If derogation were in- 1974; Zanna, Higgins, & Taves, 1976), we hibiting helping in this condition, we would thought that if subjects could be induced to expect positive correlations between the misattribute one of these emotions to some helping measures and the ratings of Elaine's other source, such as a placebo, they would 298 BATSON, DUNCAN, ACKERMAN, BUCKLEY, BIRCH perceive their response to Elaine's distress reported below. Therefore, the relatively high suspicion to be predominated by the other. That is, if rate did not appear to provide an alternative e x p l a n a t i o n for the results. they attributed their feelings of empathic concern to the placebo, they should perceive their responses to Elaine to be predomi- Procedure nantly personal distress. If they attributed The procedure was the same as in Experiment 1, ex- their feelings of personal distress to the pla- cept for three changes. First, instead of using a s i m i l a r i t y cebo, they should perceive their response to manipulation, level of empathic response to Elaine's distress was manipulated by having subjects misattri- Elaine to be predominantly empathic con- bute either empathic concern or personal distress to a cern. So if empathic emotion leads to al- placebo administered in the context of a separate study. truistic motivation to help, crossing such a Second, time constraints arising from employing two misattribution manipulation with a diffi- studies restricted the number of shock trials subjects watched and were given a chance to take for Elaine. culty-of-escape manipulation, like the one This restriction led to a minor wording change in the used in Experiment 1, should again produce escape manipulation and the use of only a dichotomous the one-versus-three pattern of helping re- (yes-no) measure of helping. Third, since the change sponses depicted in Table 1. Subjects in- in the number of trials necessitated creation of a new duced to attribute their empathic concern to videotape, two new actresses played the parts of Elaine and the research assistant. Except for minor changes the placebo should attribute relatively little required by the procedural differences, the script for the empathic concern to watching Elaine suffer, videotape was the same as in Experiment 1. and as a result, their motivation to help Introduction. The introduction subjects read on ar- should be predominantly egoistic. This egois- rival informed them that we were running two studies concurrently because one involved a time delay and the tic motivation should be reflected in less other required the assistance of an observer. Through helping under easy than difficult escape. In a drawing, s u b j e c t s were assigned to the former study— contrast, subjects induced to attribute their the effect of Millentana on short-term memory—and personal distress to the placebo should at- Elaine was assigned to the second study—task perfor- tribute a relatively large amount of empathic mance under aversive conditions. As a rationale for the first study, subjects read, "One concern to watching Elaine, and as a result, of the enzymes in the drug Millentana is believed to their motivation to help should be predom- increase the level of serotonin in the brain. This modi- inantly altruistic. This altruistic motivation fication . . . results in greater ability for short-term should be reflected in a lack of effect for the memory recall." To test the possible effect of Millentana on short-term memory, subjects were to complete two escape manipulation; helping should be rel- brief memory tasks, one before and one after taking a atively high under both easy and difficult capsule containing Millentana. Since it would take ap- escape. proximately 25 min. for the Millentana to be completely absorbed into their system, and absorption was necessary before the second memory task could be adminis- Method tered, subjects were to serve as the observer for the aversive conditions study in the interim. Subjects Emotional response manipulation. After completing Subjects were 48 female introductory psychology stu- the first memory task, subjects were given a capsule dents at the University o f Kansas participating in partial containing Millentana (actually a corn starch placebo). fulfillment of a course requirement. They were assigned Before taking the capsule, all subjects were informed to the four conditions of the 2 (easy vs. difficult on a typed statement that in addition to its brief effect escape) X 2 (personal distress vs. empathic concern as on short-term memory, the oral form of Millentana we response to watching Elaine) design through the use of were using had a side effect. Subjects in the personal- a randomized block procedure. Twelve subjects were distress condition read: assigned to each cell. Five additional participants were Prior to total absorption, Millentana produces a clear excluded from the design because they did not believe feeling of warmth and sensitivity, a feeling similar to that the placebo capsule contained a drug, and six more that you might experience while r e a d i n g a particularly were excluded because they suspected Elaine was not touching novel. You should begin to notice this side actually receiving shocks. Although this relatively high effect sometime within the first five minutes after suspicion rate (19%) was regrettable, it was not unex- ingestion. The side effect will disappear within t w e n t y - pected in an experiment using a placebo manipulation. five minutes, when the drug is totally absorbed. Fortunately, there was no evidence of reliable differences across conditions in the number of participants Subjects in the empathic-concern condition read the excluded for suspicion, and data analyses, with all sus- same statement, except that the side effect of Millentana picious participants included, revealed the same, al- was described as "a clear feeling of uneasiness and dis- though somewhat weaker, pattern of significant effects comfort, a feeling similar to that you might experience EMPATHIC EMOTION AND ALTRUISTIC MOTIVATION 299

while reading a particularly distressing novel." These serving the task performance study caused them to ex- manipulations were based on the assumption that sub- perience (1 = none; 9 = a great deal). The last two ques- jects who were led to misattribute feelings of empathic tions asked how likable the worker was and how concern to Millentana would perceive their emotional uncomfortable the aversive conditions (random shocks) response to watching Elaine to be primarily personal were for her (for both questions, 1 = not at all; 9 = distress, whereas those led to misattribute feelings of extremely). personal distress to Millentana would perceive their Debriefing. On completion of this questionnaire, sub- emotional response to Elaine to be primarily empathic jects were fully debriefed. As with Experiment 1, they concern. All subjects signed the statement to indicate seemed readily to understand the necessity for the de- that they had read and understood the information about ception involved, and none seemed upset by it. After the side effect of Millentana. The experimenter re- debriefing, subjects were thanked for their participation mained blind to the emotional response manipulation and excused. until debriefing.3 Escape manipulation. After ingesting the Millen- tana capsule, subjects were given instructions for their Results and Discussion role as observer in the aversive conditions study. As in Experiment 1, the last sentence of these instructions Perception of Elaine's Distress contained the escape manipulation. In the easy-escape Ratings of how uncomfortable the shocks condition subjects read: "Although the worker will be completing two trials, you will be observing only the were for Elaine suggested that subjects in first." In the difficult-escape condition they read: "The all conditions perceived her to be in consid- worker will be completing two trials, both of which you erable distress. On the 9-point response will observe." scale, the modal response in the difficult-es- Need situation. As in Experiment 1, subjects watched over closed-circuit television as Elaine reacted very cape-personal-distress condition was 8; in strongly to the moderately uncomfortable s h o c k s . At the each of the other three conditions, it was 9. end of the first trial, the assistant interrupted the pro- The overall mean was 8.07, with no reliable cedure and, at Elaine's request, went to get her a glass differences across conditions. of water. Manipulation check. During this break, subjects were given a list of 28 emotion adjectives and asked to Effectiveness of the Emotional Response circle any that they were experiencing as a result of Manipulation taking the Millentana capsule. The list contained 10 adjectives that in previous research (cf. Batson & Coke, Perceived emotional response to Millen- in press) had tended to load together on an empathic tana. To check the effectiveness of the concern factor (sympathetic, kind, compassionate, warm, emotional response manipulation, subjects softhearted, tender, empathic, concerned, moved, and touched) and 10 that had tended to load together on an were first asked to circle adjectives describ- orthogonal, personal distress factor (alarmed, bothered, ing the emotions that they were experiencing disturbed, upset, troubled, worried, anxious, uneasy, as side effects of Millentana. Because there grieved, and distressed). Not only did completion of this were large individual differences in the num- form provide a partial check on the effectiveness of the ber of adjectives circled, the most appropri- emotional response manipulation, it also served to remind subjects of the possibility that any emotion they ate index of the type of emotion experienced were experiencing could be due, in part, to the Millen- seemed to be a simple classification: If a sub- tana capsule. ject circled more empathic concern than per- Dependent measure: Helping Elaine. When the as- sonal distress adjectives, she received a score sistant returned, the conversation began about Elaine's reaction to the shocks. As in Experiment 1, it led up to of 1; if she circled an equal number, she re- the idea that the subject might be willing to help Elaine ceived a score of 0; and if she circled fewer, by trading places. Shortly thereafter, the experimenter entered the observation room and presented the subject with the opportunity to help. Paralleling the procedure 3 Unlike the typical placebo-misattribution manipu- in Experiment 1, in the easy-escape condition subjects lation, in which some people are told that the placebo were reminded that if they did not help they would not will arouse them and some are told that it will not or have to watch Elaine's second trial; in the difficult-es- some are led to expect side effects relevant to the arousal cape condition subjects were reminded that they would. they are experiencing and others to expect irrelevant The dependent variable was whether or not subjects side effects, all subjects in Experiment 2 were told that volunteered to trade places with Elaine for the second the placebo would produce relevant arousal. What was trial. manipulated was the nature of the arousal the placebo Response to Elaine and her need. After subjects would produce—empathy or distress. Because the na- indicated whether they wished to help, they were given ture rather than the amount of arousal was being ma- a four-item questionnaire assessing their reactions to nipulated, a no-side-effect condition of the sort em- observing Elaine. The first two questions asked how ployed as a control when amount of arousal is much "uneasiness" and "warmth and sensitivity" ob- manipulated was not appropriate for our design. 300 BATSON, DUNCAN, ACKERMAN, BUCKLEY, BIRCH she received a score of —1. A 2 X 2 analysis tions between this index and the index of of variance on this measure revealed only type of emotion experienced as a side effect one reliable effect, a main effect for the of Millentana provided no evidence for dif- emotional response manipulation, F(l, 44) = ferences independent of the experimental 14.82, p < .001. As intended, subjects in the manipulations; none of the within-cell c o r - personal-distress condition reported experi- relations differed reliably from zero. Look- encing a relative predominance of empathic ing separately at the ratings of uneasiness concern emotions as a result of taking the and of warmth and sensitivity, the main ef- Millentana capsule (M = .21), whereas sub- fect on the index of nature of emotional re- jects in the empathic-concern condition response was found to be primarily a result of ported experiencing a relative predominance a difference in reported warmth and sensi- of personal distress emotions (M = -.46). tivity (M = 3.46 a n d 5.08 f o r the distress Thus, the emotional response manipulation and empathy conditions, respectively), F(l, appeared to produce the intended percep- 44) = 5.41, ;>< .03; the difference in re- tions of side effects. But did it produce reported uneasiness was not reliable (Ms = ciprocal perceptions of emotional response 4.96 and 4.88, respectively). There were no to Elaine's distress? other reliable differences on either emotional Perceived emotional response to Elaine's response item. distress. Subjects' ratings of the amount of It appeared, then, that the emotional re- uneasiness and of warmth and sensitivity sponse manipulation was effective. Although caused by observing the aversive conditions there was no difference across conditions in experiment provided indices of their e m o - the total amount of emotion reported as a tional response to Elaine's distress. It was result of observing Elaine, there was a dif- expected that subjects in the two emotional ference in the relative amount of empathic response conditions would not differ in the emotion reported. Significantly more em- average amount of emotion attributed to pathy was reported in the empathic-concern watching Elaine, but they would differ in the than in the personal-distress condition. nature of the emotion. To provide an index Moreover, unlike the similarity manipula- of the overall amount of emotion experi- tion used in Experiment 1, the emotional enced, ratings of uneasiness and of warmth response manipulation produced no reliable and sensitivity were averaged. (Across the differences across conditions in how likable entire design, these ratings were positively Elaine was perceived to be; she was seen as correlated: r [46] = .45, p < .01, presumably moderately likable in all conditions (overall reflecting individual differences in emotion- M = 6.04 o n the 9-point response scale). ality or in response set.) A 2 X 2 analysis of As in Experiment 1, it was not considered variance revealed no reliable differences on practical or necessary to have a formal check this index (overall M = 4.59). on the escape manipulation. Debriefing notes To provide an index of the nature of the again indicated that subjects were aware of emotion experienced, a difference measure their escape condition and its implications. was created by subtracting the rating of uneasiness from the rating of warmth and Relieving Elaine's Distress by Helping sensitivity. Analysis of this index revealed only one reliable difference, a main effect Since the subjects reported less empathy for the emotional response manipulation, as a result of witnessing Elaine's distress in F(l, 44) = 5.92, p < .02. A s intended, this the distress condition than in the empathy main effect was a mirror image of the main condition, it was possible to test the empa- effect on emotion experienced as a side effect thy-altruism hypothesis once again. The of the placebo. Subjects in the distress con- proportion of subjects offering to help Elaine dition reported a predominance of uneasi- in each experimental condition of Experi- ness in their response to observing Elaine ment 2 is presented in Table 3. As in Ex- (M = -1.50); subjects in the empathy con- periment 1, these dichotomous data were dition reported more warmth and sensitivity analyzed through analysis of variance and (M = .21). Moreover, within-cell correla- planned comparisons by employing a normal EMPATHIC EMOTION AND ALTRUISTIC MOTIVATION 301 approximation based on an arc sine trans- -.32, z = 1.97, p < .05, two-tailed. This formation. A 2 X 2 analysis revealed only indicated a more positive association be- one significant effect, an Escape X Emotional tween relative empathy and helping in the Response interaction, x20) = 6.10, p < .02. easy- than in the difficult-escape conditions, As predicted by the empathy-altruism hy- as would be predicted by the empathy-al- pothesis, this effect was due to the proportion truism hypothesis. of helping being lower in the easy-escape- And again there was no evidence of a ceil- distress condition than in the other three ing effect in the difficult-escape-empathy conditions. A planned comparison revealed condition. Instead, in the empathy condi- that this predicted one-versus-three pattern tions there was again a nonsignificant trend was highly significant, x2( 1) = 5.96, p < .02; for the rate of helping to be higher under residual variance across the other three easy than under difficult escape (z = -1.38). conditions did not approach significance, Moreover, the rate of helping in the difficult- X2(2) = 1.94, p > .40. Individual cell com- escape-empathy condition was near the mid- parisons revealed that the proportion helping point of the response scale. Nor was there in the easy-escape-distress condition dif- any evidence that derogation could account fered significantly from the proportion in the for the pattern of results. Paralleling results easy-escape-empathy condition (z = 2.62, of Experiment 1, within-cell correlation and /?<.01, one-tailed), and the difficult-es- covariance analyses revealed no evidence of cape-distress condition (2 = 2.12, />< .02, derogation in the easy-escape-distress con- one-tailed), but not from the difficult-es- dition. cape-empathy condition (z=1.24). Com- parisons among the other three conditions General Discussion revealed no reliable differences (all zs <. 1.38). As we noted at the outset, the hypothesis These results were again quite consistent that empathic emotion produces truly al- with the empathy-altruism hypothesis. In truistic motivation contradicts the egoistic the distress conditions, where motivation was assumption of most, if not all, current the- assumed to be egoistic, the rate of helping ories of motivation. Because egoism is a was significantly lower under easy than un- widely held and basic assumption, it is only der difficult escape. In the empathy condi- prudent to require that the evidence sup- tions, where motivation was assumed to be porting altruism be strong before this hy- at least in part altruistic, the rate of helping pothesis is accepted. remained high, even when escape was easy. To the degree that the conceptual analysis In addition, the correlation between helping and resulting predictions presented in Table and the index of nature of emotional re- 1 provide an adequate framework for an em- sponse was significantly more positive in the pirical test of truly altruistic motivation, the easy-escape conditions, rpb(24) = .27, than two experiments reported here seem to make in the difficult-escape conditions, rpb(24) = an initial step toward providing such evidence. The results of the two experiments Table 3 were highly consistent; in each, conditions Proportion of Subjects Agreeing to Trade assumed to produce relatively high empathic Places With Elaine in Each Condition of response to a person in distress led to helping Experiment 2 regardless of whether escape without helping was easy or difficult. In contrast, conditions Subject's dominant emotional assumed to produce relatively low empathic response to Elaine's distress response led to helping only when it was of escape Personal Empathic difficult to escape without helping. This was condition distress concern precisely the pattern of results predicted by the hypothesis that empathic emotion evokes Easy .33 .83 Difficult .75 .58 altruistic motivation to see another's need reduced. Note, n = 12 in each condition. Still, two experiments are not many on 302 BATSON, DUNCAN, ACKERMAN, BUCKLEY, BIRCH which to base so radical a change in our view Aronfreed, J. M. The socialization of altruistic and sympathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental of human motivation, especially when they analyses. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), have at least two limitations. First, in each Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic experiment the person in need was female, Press, 1970. and because it seemed likely that subjects Batson, C. D., & Coke, J. S. Empathy: A Source of would be more likely to empathize with a altruistic motivation for helping. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping same-sex individual, only female subjects behavior. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, in press. were used. Although there is evidence that Batson, C. D., Darley, J. M., & Coke, J. S. Altruism females report experiencing quantitatively and human kindness: Internal and external determi- more empathy than males (Hoffman, 1977), nants of helping behavior. In L. Pervin & M. Lewis we know of no evidence nor any a priori rea- (Eds.), Perspectives in interactional psychology. New York: Plenum Press, 1978. son why empathy, when experienced, would Bolles, R. D. Theory of motivation (2nd ed.). New elicit qualitatively different kinds of moti- York: Harper & Row, 1975. vation in males than in females. But future Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. Empathic research should look more closely at the mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 752- motivational consequences of empathy for 766. males. Second, both experiments came out Comte, I. A. System of positive polity (Vol. 1). London: of the same laboratory—ours. Confidence in Longmans, Green, 1875. the hypothesis that empathic emotion eilicits Harris, M. B., & Huang, L. C. Helping and the attri- truly altruistic motivation would certainly bution process. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 291-297. be strengthened by converging evidence from Hoffman, M. L. Developmental synthesis of affect and other laboratories, especially ones with per- cognition and its implications for altruistic motiva- spectives different from our own. tion. Developmental Psychology, 1975, //, 607-622. It may be, then, too early to conclude that Hoffman, M. L. Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 1917,84, 712-722. empathic emotion can lead to altruistic mo- Hornstein, H. A. Cruelty and kindness: A new look at tivation to help. But if future research pro- aggression and altruism. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: duces the same pattern of results found in Prentice-Hall, 1976. the experiments reported here, this conclu- Krebs, D. L. Empathy and altruism. Journal of Per- sion, with all its theoretical and practical sonality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1134- 1146. implications, would seem not only possible Langer, E. J., & Abelson, R. The semantics of asking but necessary. For now, the research to date a favor: How to succeed in getting help without really convinces us of the legitimacy of suggesting dying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, that empathic motivation for helping may 1972, 24, 26-32. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. A measure of emotional be truly altruistic. In doing so, we are left empathy. Journal of Personality, 1972, 40, 525-543. far less confident than we were of reinter- Rosenthal, R. Experimenter effects in behavioral re- pretations of apparently altruistically moti- search, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. vated helping in terms of instrumental Stotland, E. Exploratory investigations of empathy. In egoism. L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press, 1969. Reference Note Winer, B. J. Statistical priniciples in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. 1. Piliavin, J. A., & Piliavin, I. M. The Good Samar- Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. Dissonance and the pill: An itan: Why does he help? Unpublished manuscript, attributional approach to studying the arousal prop- University of Wisconsin, 1973. erties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and So- cial Psychology, 1974, 29, 703-709. Zanna, M. P., Higgins, E. T., & Taves, P. A. Is dis- References sonance phenomenologically aversive? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976,12, 530-538. Aderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. Observational set, empathy, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 141-148. Received March 17, 1980 •