The ethology of empathy: a taxonomy of real-world targets of need and their effect on observers

Empathy is inherently interpersonal, but the majority of research has only examined observers. Targets of need have been largely held constant through hypothetical and fictionalized depictions of sympathetic distress and need. In the real world, people's response to life stressors varies widely—from stoicism to resilience to complete breakdown—variations that should profoundly influence the prosocial exchange. The current study examined naturally-varying affect in real hospital patients with serious chronic or terminal illness during videotaped interviews about quality of life. Participants viewed each video while psychophysiological data were recorded and then rated each patient's and their own emotion. Patients displayed three major emotion factors (disturbed, softhearted, and amused) that were used to classify them into five basic types (distraught, resilient, sanguine, reticent, wistful). These types elicited four major emotions in observers [personal distress (PD), empathic concern (EC), horror, pleasure], two of which were never discovered previously with fictionalized targets. Across studies and measures, distraught targets usually received the greatest aid, but approximately as many observers preferred the positive and likeable resilient patients or the quietly sad wistful targets, with multiple observers even giving their greatest aid to sanguine or reticent targets who did not display distress or need. Trait empathy motivated aid toward more emotive targets while perspective taking (PT) motivated aid for those who did not overtly display distress. A second study replicated key results without even providing the content of patients' speech. Through an ecological examination of real need we discovered variation and commonality in the emotional response to need that interacts strongly with the preferences of observers. Social interactions need to be studied in ethological contexts that retain the complex interplay between senders and receivers.

[1]  Mark H. Davis The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach , 1983 .

[2]  J. H. Ward Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

[3]  D. Matsumoto Cultural similarities and differences in display rules , 1990 .

[4]  Evelyn Y. Ho,et al.  “They treated me like a leper” , 2003, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[5]  Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. , 1988 .

[6]  L. Brody Gender and emotion: The socialization of gender differences in emotional expression: Display rules, infant temperament, and differentiation , 2000 .

[7]  N. Eisenberg,et al.  The relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and situational empathy-related responding. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Crystal L. Park,et al.  Making sense of the meaning literature: an integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  J. Garber,et al.  Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain: it depends on who is watching. , 1996, Child development.

[10]  J. Dovidio,et al.  Reducing Prejudice , 1999 .

[11]  R. Trivers The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism , 1971, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[12]  Ernst Fehr,et al.  Human altruism: economic, neural, and evolutionary perspectives , 2004, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[13]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[14]  B. Latané,et al.  Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  G. A. Kleef,et al.  How Emotions Regulate Social Life , 2009 .

[16]  S. Preston,et al.  The origins of altruism in offspring care. , 2013, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  N. Eisenberg,et al.  Personality and socialization correlates of vicarious emotional responding. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  C. Daniel Batson,et al.  Is Empathy-Induced Helping Due to Self–Other Merging? , 1997 .

[19]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  A measure of emotional empathy. , 1972, Journal of personality.

[20]  P. Ekman Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. , 1972 .

[21]  Sarah F. Brosnan,et al.  A proximate perspective on reciprocal altruism , 2002, Human nature.

[22]  O. John,et al.  Revealing feelings: facets of emotional expressivity in self-reports, peer ratings, and behavior. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  Paul Griffiths,et al.  Emotions in the wild: The situated perspective on emotion , 2005 .

[24]  Thomas J. Nasca,et al.  The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Development and Preliminary Psychometric Data , 2001 .

[25]  S. Preston,et al.  Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[26]  C. Daniel Batson,et al.  Altruism in Humans , 2011 .

[27]  R. Boyd,et al.  Explaining altruistic behavior in humans , 2003 .

[28]  Louis A. Penner,et al.  The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior , 2006 .

[29]  N. Eisenberg,et al.  Empathy and its development , 1987 .

[30]  C. Batson,et al.  Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  Robert M. Seyfarth,et al.  Grooming, alliances and reciprocal altruism in vervet monkeys , 1984, Nature.

[32]  Karen O'Quin,et al.  Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. , 1983 .

[33]  J. Andreoni IMPURE ALTRUISM AND DONATIONS TO PUBLIC GOODS: A THEORY OF WARM-GLOW GIVING* , 1990 .

[34]  Richard A. Fabes,et al.  Emotion, regulation, and the development of social competence. , 1992 .

[35]  E. Hatfield,et al.  Emotional Contagion , 1995 .

[36]  J. Piliavin,et al.  Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory and Research , 1990 .

[37]  R. R. Reno,et al.  Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: a multimethod study. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[38]  A. Fischer Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives , 2000 .

[39]  Jamil Zaki,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article It Takes Two The Interpersonal Nature of Empathic Accuracy , 2022 .

[40]  N. Eisenberg,et al.  The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. , 1987, Psychological bulletin.

[41]  Bibb Latané,et al.  A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention ☆ , 1969 .

[42]  S. Preston,et al.  The Many Faces of Empathy: Parsing Empathic Phenomena through a Proximate, Dynamic-Systems View of Representing the Other in the Self , 2012 .

[43]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms , 2002, Human nature.

[44]  E. Fehr,et al.  Neuroeconomic Foundations of Trust and Social Preferences: Initial Evidence. , 2005, The American economic review.

[45]  Nancy Eisenberg,et al.  The Role of Emotionality and Regulation in Empathy-Related Responding. , 1998 .

[46]  P. Hammerstein,et al.  Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating , 1994, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.