Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It has been suggested that empathy leads to altruistic rather than egoistic mo-
tivation 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 termsyou 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, University 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 variablethe cost of escaping from
altruistic to the degree that he or she helps the need situation without helpingshould
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
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 in-
cluded 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 conditions 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 hadas 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 ob-
server 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 ex-
perimenter 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 con-
dition] I need you to observe Elaine's remaining trials.
After you've done that and answered a few questions
2
about your impression of Elaine, you'll be free to go.). 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
according to the empathy-altruism hypoth- attractiveness and likability. But these cor-
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 lik-
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 pat-
taking the remaining shocks themselves was tern of helping responses remained highly
less costly than sitting and watching Elaine significant (all Fs ;> 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 dis- 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 pro-
portion 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 explanation
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 similarity
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, subjects were assigned to the former study
contrast, subjects induced to attribute their the effect of Millentana on short-term memoryand
personal distress to the placebo should at- Elaine was assigned to the second studytask 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 neces-
sary before the second memory task could be adminis-
Method tered, subjects were to serve as the observer for the aver-
sive 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 of 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 reading 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 twenty-
pected in an experiment using a placebo manipulation. five minutes, when the drug is totally absorbed.
Fortunately, there was no evidence of reliable differ-
ences 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 shocks. 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
emotional response manipulation, it also served to re-
ber of adjectives circled, the most appropri-
mind 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
3
with the opportunity to help. Paralleling the procedure 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 produceempathy 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 cor-
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 re- sponse 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 and 5.08 for 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 re- ported 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 emo- 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 on 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. As 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, x 2 0) = 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-
X 2 (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 evi-
dence. 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 sym-
of human motivation, especially when they pathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental
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 laboratoryours. 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 de-
sign (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, em-
pathy, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1970, 14, 141-148. Received March 17, 1980