1 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

Associations between Empathy and Self-Conscious Emotions during Social Interactions

Jenna D. Gilchrist, PhD1,2

David E. Conroy, PhD1,3

Aaron L. Pincus, PhD4

Nilam Ram, PhD5,6

1Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

2Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Canada

3Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL

4Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

5Department of Human Development & Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, PA

6German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), Berlin, Germany

This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging grant AG035645, the National Institute on Health grants R01 HD076994, P2C HD041025, UL TR00012, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, or the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jenna D. Gilchrist, Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, e-mail: [email protected]

Original article Word count: 4901 Table 1: Correlations between Study Variables Table 2: Results from Multilevel Models Examining Associations between Empathy and Self- Conscious Emotions in Social Contexts 2 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

This manuscript does not represent the official copy of record. Draft Version March 15th, 2019. Abstract

Empathy can alter the emotional state of an individual, yet little is known about how empathy impacts emotions in daily life. This study investigated how cognitive and affective empathy experienced during social interactions was associated with pride and shame. Participants (N =

150) between 19-89 years of age (M = 47.64, SD = 18.85) completed three 21-day measurement bursts of experience sampling every 4.5 months. Following each of 64,111 interactions, participants rated the intensity of two emotional states (proud, ashamed) and their experience of cognitive and affective empathy for their interaction partner. Results from multilevel models indicated that, at the within-person level, greater momentary cognitive empathy was associated with dampened shame and increased pride whereas greater momentary affective empathy was associated with increased shame and pride. At the between-person level, people who reported more cognitive empathy overall reported less shame and greater pride, and people who reported more affective empathy overall also reported greater shame but not any more or less pride. The emotional consequences differ based on the valence of the emotion experienced for cognitive empathy but not for affective empathy. Empathy is a dynamic process with different underlying processes for cognitive and affective empathy.

Keywords: pride, shame, self-conscious emotions, emotion regulation, experience sampling 3 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

Associations between Empathy and Self-Conscious Emotions during Social Interactions

The emotions we experience in daily life serve important functions, from orienting our attention and guiding our behavior to facilitating our interactions with others. As much as 98% of emotion regulation occurs in the presence of other people (Gross, Richards, & John, 2006). Thus, emotional experiences – and the processes that shape them - need to be investigated in explicitly interpersonal contexts (Zaki & Williams, 2013). Self-conscious emotions such as shame and pride may provide a useful model for such investigations because they are inherently social emotions that function to promote the attainment of social goals (Keltner & Buswell, 1997;

Tracy & Robins, 2004). One interpersonal process that may impact these goals is the individual’s experience of empathy for their interaction partner. This study investigated how empathy experienced during naturalistic social interactions was associated with experiences of shame and pride.

Self-Conscious Emotions: Shame and Pride

Self-conscious emotions are emotional reactions to the self - they emerge when attention is turned inward, and the self is the object of evaluation (Tracy & Robins, 2004). Experiences of shame stem from appraisals that the self has not lived up to a set of standards or that the self has violated some sort of social norm and generally signals incompetence (Lazarus, 1991). Shame is experienced as highly aversive, difficult to alleviate, and is associated with avoidant motivational tendencies as people seek to hide from attention drawn to their perceived defects or shortcomings

(Lewis, 1971). Whereas shame is largely elicited as a result of failure, pride is a pleasant self- conscious emotional response to success or mastery experiences (Lazarus, 1991) that functions to promote and maintain social status and acceptance within a group (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich,

2010). 4 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

Empathy

As researchers recognize the inherently social aspect of emotions, increased attention is being given to the ways in which emotions are shaped in social contexts (Hatfield, Cacioppo, &

Rapson, 1994; Rimé, 2009; Van Kleef, 2009). Given the social nature of self-conscious emotions, one overlooked but potentially important part of emotional experiences in social contexts is the empathy that one has for another during an interaction in shaping one’s own emotional experience.

Empathy is generally regarded as the process through which individuals come to understand and share how others are feeling and is thus an inherently social process with direct implications for interpersonal emotion experiences and regulation (Batson & Ahmed, 2009).

Empathy comprises overlapping cognitive and affective components (Cuff, Brown, Taylor, &

Howat, 2014; Preston & De Waal, 2002). Cognitive empathy, also referred to as mentalizing, refers to the cognitive aspect of empathy that involves making inferences about other people’s internal states based on one’s own understanding of the situation and the other individual’s outward expression – an understanding of how the other person is feeling (Blair, 2005).

Affective empathy, also referred to as experience sharing, is the affective component of empathy that involves taking on others’ emotions – ‘I feel what you feel’ (Blair, 2005; Vachon & Lynam,

2016). Research on empathy has generally examined the prosocial and antisocial behaviors associated with levels of empathy and little empirical research has examined how empathy is associated with emotional responding following social interactions, specifically the inherent social emotions of pride and shame. Anderson and Keltner (2002) argue that the primary function of empathy is to promote the formation and maintenance of social bonds so 5 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS consideration of how empathy shapes emotion experiences in interpersonal contexts is warranted.

Associations between Empathy and Social Emotions

There are competing hypotheses about how empathy alters emotional responses. One argument is that empathy directs attention toward others and away from the self so it is likely to alter what people appraise about their context (Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987). This is similar to the antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategy of attentional deployment in which individuals regulate their emotions by directing attention either toward or away from an emotion- eliciting feature (Gross, 1998). In this case, one’s perspective is oriented outward toward a target and away from the self. Because pride and shame are self-conscious emotions that rely on self- reflection and self-evaluation for their elicitation, attention oriented toward others may serve to dampen self-conscious emotional responses.

Researchers have also put forth a motivated account of empathy with the central tenet that people are motivated to engage or not engage with the emotions of others (Zaki, 2014). For example, the personal distress that accompanies negative emotions like shame may lead people to avoid empathizing with others experiencing this emotion while people may be more likely to open themselves up to share experiences of pleasant emotions like pride (Rimé, 2009). This argument suggests a motivated account of empathy based on the pleasant/unpleasant valence of the emotion expressed on behalf of the target.

Alternatively, research on emotional contagion generally supports that people tend to experience and express the same emotions of others around them, regardless of valance, in line with prior theorizing on the role of ‘motor mimicry’ in empathy (Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987; 6 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

Hatfield et al., 1994). Such processes are relatively automatic, thereby circumventing the complex cognitive requirements involved in the elicitation of pride and shame.

Empathy as a Dynamic Process

Typically, investigations into empathy have focused on differences between people who are more or less empathic and how those differences are associated with various outcomes (e.g., prosocial behaviors). Researchers have also demonstrated that empathy is a dynamic process that varies across contexts and time (Nezlek, Feist, Wilson, & Plesko, 2001; Roche, Jacobson, &

Pincus, 2016; Toomey & Rudolph, 2017), but little research has been conducted examining empathy as a within-person process. Nezlek et al. (2001) found that fluctuations in daily empathy were associated with fluctuations in daily positive and negative affect. Similarly, Roche et al.

(2016) found that daily impairments in empathy was associated with fluctuations in daily anger and depressed mood. That empathy is coupled together with affective experiences implies some degree of within-person dynamicity, yet the dynamics of empathy have not been widely explored. Further, it is possible that associations between empathy and emotion at the between- and within-person levels of analysis differ, not just in magnitude but also in direction (Brose,

Voelkle, Lövden, Lindenberger, & Schmiedek, 2015; Curran & Bauer, 2011). Thus, conclusions at one level of analysis cannot be extrapolated to another level of analysis. This represents a significant gap in our understanding of the dynamic process of empathy and self-conscious emotions.

Present Study

The present study uses rich experience sampling data to evaluate associations between cognitive and affective empathy and experiences of pride and shame in daily life. We hypothesized that both cognitive and affective empathy would shift the focus from the self to the 7 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS other, subsequently down-regulating feelings of pride and shame because of the high degree of self-involvement necessary for their elicitation. This pattern of negative associations was hypothesized at both the within- and between-person level of analysis. Both gender and age- related differences have been observed in pride and shame (Carstensen, Fung, & Charles, 2003;

Else-Quest, Higgins, Allison, & Morton, 2012; Gross & John, 2002) and will be controlled for in overall levels of emotion.

Methods

Data for the present analyses are drawn from the BLINDED FOR REVIEW, an intensive longitudinal study that collected rich repeated measures of its namesake variables at multiple time scales. Comprehensive information about the larger study can be found elsewhere

(BLINDED FOR REVIEW), with details relevant to the present analysis included below.

Participants

Participants were 150 adults recruited from BLINDED FOR REVIEW and surrounding areas (51% female; Mage = 47.10, SDage = 18.76). The majority of participants were Caucasian

(91%), engaged or married (49%), had attained an average of 16 years of schooling, were employed full-time (49%), and reported a median income of $50,000–$74,999. Of the 150 participants, 136 (90.7%) completed the entire intensive protocol. Participants who withdrew did not differ systematically from those who completed the entire protocol with respect to the measured demographics (ps > 0.05).

Procedure

Participants completed a series of three 21-day measurement bursts of experience sampling at approximately 4.5 month intervals (M = 5.25 months between Bursts 1 and 2; 4.25 months between Bursts 2 and 3). Prior to each burst, participants attended a session with 8 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS members of the research team where they provided consent, completed demographic questionnaires, and were introduced to study procedures including how to complete questionnaires on the study-provided smartphone. During each 21-day burst, individuals provided event-contingent reports about their social interactions as they went about their daily lives using a study-provided smartphone (Verizon XV6900). Participants were instructed to provide reports at the end of each interaction (lasting longer than five minutes) about their empathy during the interaction and their feelings after the interaction. In total, participants reported on 64,111 interactions, with each individual providing between 88 and 869 reports (M =

477, SD = 128, Median = 472).

Measures

Demographics. Participants provided descriptive information including gender, age, marital status, ethnicity, education level, and employment status during completion of baseline questionnaires.

Self-Conscious Emotions. After each social interaction participants completed two items to assess their current self-conscious emotion state. Specifically, participants reported how

“proud” and “ashamed” they felt after every interaction using a slider-type interface that was digitally coded from 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely). The numbers were not visible to the participants. Single-items measures of the self-conscious emotions increased measurement scope while reducing participant burden in the intensive longitudinal design of the study (see

BLINDED FOR REVIEW).

Empathy. After each social interaction participants completed two-items to assess dimensions of cognitive and affective empathy using a digitally-coded sliding scale anchored at a

0 (not at all) to 100 (very much). Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the extent to 9 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS which they understood how the other person was feeling during the interaction as a measure of cognitive empathy (“I understood the other person’s feelings”) and the extent to which they got caught up in the other person’s feelings during the interaction as a measure of affective empathy

(“I got caught up in the other person’s feelings”) (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006).

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were calculated at both the individual level and aggregated sample level. Distributions of scores were examined to inform the modeling strategy. Pride was distributed normally (skew = -0.32, kurtosis = -0.61) but shame was positively skewed (skew = 4.43, kurtosis = 26.04), and thus transformed using a Box-Cox power law transformation (λ = -.20). The resulting transformed variable was more normally distributed

(skew = -0.04, kurtosis = -0.47).

Interdependence among the repeated measures was accommodated using a generalized multilevel model framework (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Consistent with standard methods for separating between- and within-person associations, the predictor variables were split into person-level, time-invariant variables that were calculated as the within-person means across the repeated measures, and occasion-specific, time-varying variables that were calculated for each occasion as the deviation in empathy (cognitive or affective) from the person-specific mean. Age and gender were grand-mean centered. The time-invariant (person mean) and time-varying

(occasion-specific deviation) variables were then used within the generalized multilevel modeling framework to test hypothesized associations between cognitive and affective empathy and the two self-conscious emotions (shame and pride). Specifically, the repeated measures of each social emotion at each interaction i for individual j (Emotionij) were modeled at the within- person level as 10 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

Emotionij = β0j + β1j(MomentaryCognitiveEmpathyij) + β2j(MomentaryAffectiveEmpathyij) +

eij (1) with the person-specific intercepts and slopes modeled at the between-person level as

β0j = γ00 + γ01(UsualCognitiveEmpathyj) + γ02(UsualAffectiveEmpathyj) + γ03(Agej) +

γ04(Genderj) + u0j (2)

β1j = γ10 + u1j (3)

β2j = γ20 + u2j (4) where γ00 is the expected level of an emotion for the average person in the sample, γ01 and γ02 indicate the between-person association between usual level of that emotion and usual level of cognitive empathy and affective empathy, respectively. Coefficients γ03 and γ04 indicate associations of individuals’ usual level of the emotion with age and gender, respectively.

Coefficients γ10 and γ20 indicate the average within-person association between momentary empathy and emotion. The coefficients u0j, u1j, and, u2j are residual unexplained between-person differences that are assumed normally distributed with mean of zero and unstructured variance- covariance structure, and the eij are occasion-specific residuals that are assumed normally

2 distributed with mean of zero and variance  e. All models were estimated in R using the lme4 package (Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015).

Results

Participants reported low levels of shame (untransformed: M = 6.5 on the 0 to 100 scale; transformed: M = 1.2) and moderate levels of pride (M = 54.1) following each interaction.

Participants reported moderate to high levels of cognitive empathy (M = 65.7) and moderate levels of affective empathy (M = 43.7). Intraclass correlation estimates indicating the proportion 11 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS of between-person variance in the social emotions and empathy are presented in Table 1. For descriptive purposes, Table 1 also presents within- and between-person correlations.

Associations between Social Emotions and Empathy: Multilevel Models

Separate multilevel models were estimated for shame and pride to test between- and within-person associations with cognitive and affective empathy. The left column of Table 2 presents coefficients from the shame model (with transformed shame scores). At the within- person level, participants experienced less intense momentary shame following interactions when they had more cognitive empathy than usual (γ10 = -0.002, p < .001), as hypothesized, and contrary to hypotheses, more momentary shame when they had more affective empathy than usual (γ20 = 0.001, p < .001). Consistent with our hypotheses, participants with higher overall level of cognitive empathy had lower overall level of shame (γ01 = -0.01, p = .003). Contrary to our hypotheses, however, higher overall affective empathy was associated with higher overall shame (γ02 = 0.007, p = .003). Neither age nor gender was associated with individuals’ overall level of shame.

The right column of Table 2 presents coefficients from the pride model. At the within- person level, participants reported more momentary pride following interactions when they had greater cognitive empathy than usual (γ10 = 0.11, p < .001) and when they had greater affective empathy than usual (γ20 = 0.07, p < .001) both of which ran counter to our hypotheses. At the between-person level, participants with higher overall cognitive empathy had higher overall levels of pride (γ01 = 0.31, p = .04) which did not support our hypotheses. Overall levels of affective empathy were not related to overall levels of pride. Neither age nor gender were significantly associated with the average intensity of pride.

Discussion 12 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

The aim of this study was to evaluate associations between empathy and pride and shame. Results partially supported the hypothesis that empathy would be associated with dampened responses for both shame and pride at the between- and within-person levels of analysis. As hypothesized, cognitive empathy was associated with dampened shame at both the between- and within-person levels. Shame is a painful self-conscious emotion that is focused on the flaws of the self (Lewis, 1971). Awareness of and sensitivity to the needs of others may blunt shame by changing attentional deployment and distracting the individual from their own perceived shortcomings (Tangney, 1991). Roche et al. (2016) previously found that greater empathy impairment was associated with greater negative emotional responses but this study provides the first evidence linking empathy with shame specifically. Drawing on Gross’ (1998) model of emotion regulation, this finding may represent changes in attentional deployment that shift the focus from the self to the other, thus decreasing the likelihood that the conditions for the emergence of shame would be satisfied (i.e., attention directed towards the self).

In contrast, greater cognitive empathy amplified the intensity of pride at both the between- and within-person level. This finding ran counter to our hypothesis that empathy would shift attention from the self to the target and therefore interfere with the conditions necessary for the generation of pride and shame. Rather, a greater understanding of how the target of the social interaction was feeling was associated with greater self-reported pride during the interaction. In sum, cognitive empathy was associated with greater pride and less shame. Hedonistic principles may be at play for determining how cognitive empathy is associated with emotional responding.

This would suggest that although individuals understand what another is feeling, they may be unwilling to share in that emotion, depending on the valance of the given emotion. The personal distress that accompanies negative emotions like shame may lead people to avoid empathizing 13 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS with others experiencing this emotion whereas people may be more likely to share experiences of pleasant emotions like pride (Rimé, 2009). Taken together, these findings provide support for a motivated account of cognitive empathy but only partial support for the attentional account. This would suggest that while the attentional account may explain some of these findings, it is an insufficient explanation. Thus, the emotional consequences of cognitive empathy appear to differ based on the valence or action tendency of the emotion experienced.

Contrary to expectations, affective empathy was associated with greater shame at the between- and within-person levels. This positive association aligned with past research that reported within- and between-person associations between empathy and incidental affect. Nezlek et al. (2001) found that on days when empathy was greater than usual, participants reported greater positive and negative affect. Nezlek et al. (2001) did not differentiate between cognitive and affective empathy and the present results suggest that the affective dimension of empathy is closely associated with increased emotional responding. Although this finding was contrary to our hypothesis, it is consistent with emotional contagion accounts of empathy (Eisenberg &

Strayer, 1987; Hatfield et al., 1994). It may also support a motivated account of empathy if the individual’s goal was to feel ashamed or to simply share in the emotions of their interaction partner (Zaki, 2014; Tamir, 2016).

Affective empathy was associated with increased pride at the momentary level but not at the between-person level. Consistent with previous research, the magnitude of the associations observed was stronger for pride relative to shame (Duan, 2000; Tangney, 1991). These findings aligned with a motivated account of empathy that people are motivated to share in the pleasant emotions of others (Anderson & Keltner, 2002; Zaki, 2014). That affective empathy was positively associated with both the intensity of pride and shame may indicate an attentional 14 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS phenomenon whereby affective empathy brings awareness to how one is feeling such that the experience of all emotions is amplified, regardless of valence, which provides support for the emotional contagion argument.

Between-person associations do not always generalize to within-person associations in studies using ecological momentary assessment methods (Brose et al., 2015; Curran & Bauer,

2011). However, in the current study, findings were consistent across the between and within- person levels of analysis, with the exception of the association between affective empathy and pride at the between-person level which was not significant. Despite these consistencies, it would be premature to assume that the associations are based on a common underlying process. For example, it is possible that the between-person association is based on features of the individual such as pro-sociality whereas the within-person mechanism may be due to differences in momentary attentional deployment or emotional contagion (Gross, 1998; Hatfield et al., 1994).

These mechanisms should be investigated directly in future research.

Limitations

The intensive longitudinal study design was a strength of this study. It provided a nuanced understanding of how individuals’ empathy and emotions vary on a moment-to-moment level. However, several limitations also should be acknowledged. First, the sample was not a population-representative sample, so caution should be taken when generalizing the results. As well, the non-experimental design of the study precludes inference about causal ordering of empathy and emotion. We approached the analysis from the perspective that empathy influenced individuals’ experience of pride and shame. The opposite is also possible, that the experience of pride and shame impacts individuals’ empathic processing. Future work should attempt to disentangle the temporal sequencing of these associations. In addition, the measures utilized in 15 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS the study were all self-report from a single person’s perspective and information about the emotions that the interaction partner was actually experiencing was not captured. It is possible that some of the emotional responses were responses with the interaction partner and other times they were in responses to the interaction partner (Anderson & Keltner, 2002).

Conclusion

Empathy is a social phenomenon concerned with understanding and sharing another’s affective state. Despite the centrality of empathy in emotion processes, little research has explored associations with emotions experienced in interpersonal contexts in everyday life. This study examined associations between cognitive and affective empathy with experiences of pride and shame after social interactions. The divergent pattern of relations between cognitive and affective empathy supports the notion that empathy is multidimensional with respect to both between-person differences and within-person changes. Generally, empathy was associated with the intensity of emotion experiences and was associated with both pride and shame. Increased cognitive empathy may be one way in which individuals can amplify positive and dampen negative social emotions. Conversely, affective empathy amplifies experience of social emotions regardless of valence. Our working conclusion is that empathy may represent a viable strategy for regulating self-conscious emotions within social contexts. 16 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

References

Anderson, C., & Keltner, D. (2002). The role of empathy in the formation and maintenance of

social bonds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 21–22.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02230010

Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using

Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.

Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. Y. (2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and

relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3, 141-177.

Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively

distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of

Personality, 55, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x

Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy

through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Cognition,

14, 698–718.

Brose, A., Voelkle, M. C., Lövdén, M., Lindenberger, U., & Schmiedek, F. (2015). Differences

in the between‐‐ person and within person structures of affect are a matter of

degree. European Journal of Personality, 29, 55-71.

Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and

the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 103-123.

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary

foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334–347. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004 17 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2014). Empathy: A Review of the

Concept. Emotion Review, 1754073914558466.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466

Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person

effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583-619.

Duan, C. (2000). Being Empathic: The role of motivation to empathize and the nature of target

emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24(1), 29–49.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005587525609

Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical issues in the study of empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J.

Strayer (Eds.), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. Empathy and its

development (pp. 3-13). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Else-Quest, N. M., Higgins, A., Allison, C., & Morton, L. C. (2012). Gender differences in self-

conscious emotional experience: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 947–981.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027930

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent

consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74, 224–237.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2002). Wise emotion regulation. In L. F. Barrett & P. Salovey (Eds.),

The wisdom in feeling: Psychological processes in emotional intelligence (pp. 297–319).

New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D.

K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and 18 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (pp. 13–35). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional Contagion. Cambridge

University Press.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy

Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589-611.

Keltner, D., & Buswell, B. N. (1997). Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement

functions. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.122.3.250

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.

American Psychologist, 46, 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819

Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and Guilt in Neurosis. New York (International Universities Press)

1971. Retrieved from

https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-Fromm/frontdoor/index/index/docId/28180

Nezlek, J. B., Feist, G. J., Wilson, F. C., & Plesko, R. M. (2001). Day-to-day variability in

empathy as a function of daily events and mood. Journal of Research in Personality, 35,

401-423.

Preston, S. D., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–20; discussion 20-71.

Rimé, B. (2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical review.

Emotion Review, 1, 60–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908097189

Roche, M. J., Jacobson, N. C., & Pincus, A. L. (2016). Using repeated daily assessments to

uncover oscillating patterns and temporally-dynamic triggers in structures of 19 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

psychopathology: Applications to the DSM–5 alternative model of personality

disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125, 1090-1102.

Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A. (1998). Strategies for analyzing ecological momentary

assessment data. Health Psychology, 17, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.17.1.6

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel

modeling. London: Sage.

Tamir, M. (2016). Why do people regulate their emotions? A Taxonomy of motives in emotion

regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 199–222.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315586325

Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 61(4), 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.598

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical

model. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103–125.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1502_01

Vachon, D. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2016). Fixing the problem with empathy development and

validation of the Affective and Cognitive Measure of Empathy. Assessment, 23, 135-149.

1073191114567941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114567941

Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The Emotions as Social Information

(EASI) Model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x

Zaki, J. (2014). Empathy: A motivated account. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1608–1647. https://

doi.org/10.1037/a0037679 20 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

Zaki, J., & Williams, W. C. (2013). Interpersonal emotion regulation. Emotion, 13, 803–810.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033839 21 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

Table 1

Correlations between Study Variables Variable ICC 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Shame .36 -- -.03 -.20 .09 .09 .01 -.10 2. Pride .63 (-.49, .59 -- .27 .16 .04 .06 ) -.05 .17 3. Cognitive empathy .30 (-.31, .22 (-.64, .54 -- .43 .16 -.04 ) ) .01 .14 .52 4. Affective empathy .45 (-.32, .44 (-.68, .57 (-.22, .84 -- .25 -.27 ) ) ) 5. Age ------.02

6. Gender ------Note. ICC = intraclass correlations. Correlations below the diagonal (lower portion of matrix) are based on momentary-level data (N = 64,111). The average within-person correlation is presented with the corresponding minimum/maximum values of within-person correlations. Correlations above the diagonal (upper portion of matrix) are based on person-level data (N = 150), specifically the person-level means. Transformed shame scores were used to estimate correlations in this table. 22 Running head: EMPATHY AND SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

Table 2

Results from Multilevel Models Examining Associations between Empathy and Self-Conscious Emotions in Social Contexts Shame (transformed) Pride

Estimate SE p Estimate SE p

Intercept, 00 1.43 0.21 <.001 25.74 9.46 .007 Momentary Cognitive Empathy, -0.002 0.00 <.001 0.11 0.01 <.001 10 Momentary Affective Empathy, 0.001 0.00 .014 0.07 0.01 <.001 20

Usual Cognitive Empathy, 01 -0.01 0.003 .003 0.31 0.14 .035

Usual Affective Empathy, 02 0.007 0.002 .003 0.12 0.10 .207

Age, 03 0.002 0.002 .275 -0.09 0.09 .317

Gender, 04 0.03 0.08 .642 6.24 3.34 .064

Random Effects

2 Variance Intercept,  u0 0.20 0.02 <.001 402.81 46.92 <.001

2 Residual Variance,  e 0.26 .001 <.001 247.62 1.39 <.001

2 Variance Cognitive Empathy,  u1j 0.00 0.00 <.001 0.02 0.003 <.001

2 Variance Affective Empathy,  u2j 0.00 0.00 <.001 0.02 0.002 <.001

Covariance, u1u0 -0.00 0.00 .190 -0.35 0.28 .204

Covariance, u2u0 0.00 0.00 .026 -0.39 0.23 .095

Covariance, u2u1 0.00 0.00 <.001 -0.01 0.00 .001

Note. N = 64,111 observations nested within 150 persons. SE = standard error.