Empathy
Davis (1994) multidimensional approach:
 Perspective taking (PT): adopt the viewpoint of others (“I sometimes
attempt to understand my friends by imagining how things look from
their perspective”)
 Emotional concern (EC): experience compassion for unfortunate
others (“I have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate
than me”)
 Personal distress (PD): experience distress in response to distress
in others (“Being in a tense emotional situation scares me”)
 Fantasy (F): imaginatively transpose oneself into fictional situations
(“When reading an interesting story, I imagine how I would feel if the
events were happening to me”)
Empathy and Values
 (Perspective taking): +UN (BEN), - POW, SEC
(Riska, 2003,Finnish adults (Red Cross volunteers), SVS,
IRI; the same for both sexes)
 (Emotional:)+ BEN (UN), - POW, (ACH), (SEC), HED, SD
(above sample; Myyry & Helkama, Educ. Psychol. 2001,
SVS, QMEE (university students); Kallionpää (13-16-yearolds): strong for men, weak for fem.)
Guilt , Shame and Values
 Guilt: negative evaluation of specific behaviour +
tendency to take reparative actions
 Shame: negative evaluation of global self + desire to
escape or hide
 Tangney TOSCA (1992): scenarios, e.g. ”You make a big
mistake on an important project at work. People were
depending on you and your boss criticizes you” Rate the
likelihood of reacting with:
 -”I
-
want to hide” (shame)
”I should have done a better job” (guilt)
guilt, shame and values (cntd)
 TOSCA guilt : consistently correlated with perspective
taking and empathic concern (Tangney & Dearing, 2002;
Silfver, submitted, Finnish university and high school
students)
 TOSCA shame: + personal distress, - other oriented
empathy
 TOSCA guilt and values: + BEN, UN, CONF, - POW (???)
(Silfver, submitted, Finnish high school students, PVQ,
adolescent TOSCA)
 Problem with TOSCA guilt: most scenarios involve
consequences for human beings. How about norm
violations without such (immediate) consequences?
Norm-related guilt
 Add scenarios with actions having no immediate
consequences to others (crossing against red, not paying
TV licence)
Hypotheses
 Perspective-taking is related: + UN (BEN), - others
 Empathic concern is related: + BEN (UN), - others
 TOSCA guilt is related: + UN, BEN, CONF, - others
 Norm guilt is related: + CONF, TRAD, SEC, - ST, HED
 Connections are weaker in countries where conformity is
more important (high hierarchy, power distance)
Cross-cultural variation
 Countries: Finland, Bulgaria, Portugal
 Schwartz Hierarchy:

High: Bulgaria (2.7), Low: Finland (1.8),
Portugal
(2.1) (M= 2.3)
 Hofstede Power Distance:

High: Bulgaria (70), Portugal (63), Low:
Finland (33)
METHOD
 Samples
Social science/psychology students, women
Helsinki, n=131, Sofia, n=111, Coimbra n= 176
 Measures
Schwartz PVQ
Davis IRI
Tangney TOSCA
-plus norm guilt:
Means and standard deviations in values
Finland
Bulgaria
Portugal
p-value
Universalism
1.24 (0.19) 1.
1.04 (0.14) 6.
1.13 (0.14) 3.
<.001
Benevolence
1.21 (0.14) 2.
1.08 (0.16) 4.
1.17 (0.13) 1.
<.001
Self-direction
1.20 (0.18) 3.
1.18 (0.17) 1.
1.16 (0.16) 2.
ns.
Hedonism
1.08 (0.24) 4.
1.11 (0.27) 3.
1.07 (0.23) 4.
ns.
Security
1.01 (0.18) 5.
1.01 (0.17) 7.
1.02 (0.14) 5.
ns.
Stimulation
0.97 (0.22) 6.
1.08 (0.29) 5.
0.98 (0.24) 6.
<.01
Achievement
0.95 (0.22) 7.
1.14 (0.21) 2.
0.98 (0.20) 7.
<.001
Conformity
0.89 (0.20) 8.
0.86 (0.17) 9.
0.89 (0.18) 8.
ns.
Power
0.72 (0.20) 9.
0.88 (0.26) 8.
0.70 (0.20) 10.
<.001
Tradition
0.71 (0.19) 10.
0.69 (0.23) 10.
0.80 (0.19) 9.
<.001
Means and standard deviations in guilt, shame
and empathy
Finland
Bulgaria
Portugal
p-value
TOSCA-guilt
4.31 (0.40)
4.29 (0.46)
4.16 (0.43)
<.01
TOSCA-shame
2.86 (0.71)
2.92 (0.66)
2.75 (0.50)
ns.
Norm-related guilt
3.18 (0.68)
3.18 (0.81)
3.32 (0.61)
ns.
Empathic concern
2.88 (0.54)
2.88 (0.58)
3.10 (0.49)
<.001
Perspective-taking
2.56 (0.56)
2.43 (0.64)
2.64 (0.55)
<.05
Personal distress
1.83 (0.60)
2.28 (0.74)
2.34 (0.72)
<.001
Fantasy
2.80 (0.61)
2.44 (0.82)
2.66 (0.74)
<.01
Correlations between TOSCA-guilt and values
TOSCA-guilt
Finland
Bulgaria
Portugal
Universalism
.11
.21*
.04
Benevolence
.13
.30**
.05
Tradition
.04
.10
-.14
Conformity
.12
.16
-.01
Security
.03
.18
-.07
Power
-.19*
-.30**
.06
Achievement
-.15
-.07
.04
Hedonism
-.05
-.34***
.06
Stimulation
-.06
-.24*
.02
Self-direction
-.09
-.15
.01
Correlations between norm-related guilt and
values
Norm-related guilt
Finland
Bulgaria
Portugal
Universalism
.01
.06
-.02
Benevolence
.06
.28**
.00
Tradition
.12
.35***
.08
Conformity
.29**
.36***
.21**
Security
.06
.22*
-.01
Power
-.08
-.30**
-.02
Achievement
-.11
-.14
-.03
Hedonism
-.29**
-.46***
-.15*
Stimulation
-.29**
-.35***
-.20**
Self-direction
-.12
-.30**
-.21**
Correlations between shame and values
Tosca-shame
Finland
Bulgaria
Portugal
Universalism
-.02
.08
.08
Benevolence
-.09
.04
.15
Tradition
.29**
.13
-.08
Conformity
.20*
.12
-.02
Security
.05
.07
.00
Power
-.19*
.02
.01
Achievement
-.02
.06
.13
Hedonism
-.01
-.31**
-.04
Stimulation
-.08
-.16
-.02
Self-direction
-.20*
-.15
-.15*
Correlations between empathic concern and
values
Empathic
concern
Finland
Bulgaria
Portugal
Universalism
.26**
.13
.09
Benevolence
.24**
.46***
.23**
Tradition
.10
.21*
.13
Conformity
.02
.18
.12
Security
.09
.19*
.03
Power
-.20*
-.39***
-.11
Achievement
-.30**
-.32**
-.20**
Hedonism
-.06
-.13
-.05
Stimulation
-.01
-.18
-.02
Self-direction
-.16
-.19*
-.23**
Correlations between perspective-taking and
values
Perspectivetaking
Finland
Bulgaria
Portugal
Universalism
.14
.37***
.20**
Benevolence
.22*
.31**
.25**
Tradition
-.01
.10
-.01
Conformity
.09
.07
.12
Security
.23**
.14
-.13
Power
-.28**
-.39***
-.19*
Achievement
-.23**
-.33***
-.10
Hedonism
-.15
-.20*
-.11
Stimulation
-.01
-.05
-.05
Self-direction
-.14
-.06
-.03
Correlations between personal distress and
values
Personal distress
Finland
Bulgaria
Portugal
Universalism
-.06
.01
-.10
Benevolence
-.10
.11
-.07
Tradition
.26**
.41***
.21**
Conformity
.09
.40***
.06
Security
.07
.29**
.12
Power
-.22*
-.25**
.00
Achievement
.04
-.22*
.07
Hedonism
.07
-.23*
.03
Stimulation
-.08
-.41***
-.17*
Self-direction
-.21*
-.32**
-.30***
Conclusions
 Support for two motivational systems:
 (1) UN, BEN associated with empathy (perspectivetaking & empathic concern), However, not so clearly with
guilt (empathy-based guilt in particular; problems with
measure)
 (2) CONF, TRAD associated with guilt over norm
violations, and also with shame (in Finland only)
 Unexpected: TRAD predicted personal distress (TRAD as
a means of coping with distress?)
Conclusions continued
 Contrary to hypotheses, associations stronger in a high
hierarchy country (Bulgaria) and weaker in low hierarchy
countries (Finland, Portugal). However, the 3 countries
showed no differences on conformity. Possible
(speculative) explanations: Bulgaria the most
”individualistic” sample (high ACH), where UN & BEN
non-normative); Portugal highest scoring on Hofstede’s
uncertainty avoidance -> traditional gender roles, not
value priorities, regulate reports on empathy and guilt