Cork Journal of Applied Psychology (2015) 14-26
ISSN Pending
Cork Journal of Applied
Psychology
Journal homepage:
www.ucc.ie/en/apsych/uccpsychjournal
The developmental course of the empathy-altruism
hypothesis: the relationship between the development of
children’s empathic concern and altruistic behaviours
Brian Harrington, Jessica Bramham, Michael O’Connell
___________________________
Keywords
Adult ADHD
Self-Report
Parent-Report
Accuracy
ABSTRACT
_______________________________________________________________________
The primary aim of the present study was to determine whether there
was a relationship between empathy and altruism in nine to twelve-yearold school children. In addition the present study had three related
objectives: to determine whether this association was stronger for
affective or cognitive empathy; to determine if there was gender
differences in relation to empathy and altruism in children and to
determine if levels of empathy and altruism in children increased with
age. A sample of 300 children completed measures of affective empathy,
cognitive empathy, and altruism. The Bryant Index (Bryant, 1982) is a
self-report measure which was used to measure levels of affective
empathy. The, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test Child Version (BaronCohen, Wheelwright, Spong, Scahill & Lawson, 2001) is a test which
assesses a child’s ability to read someone’s mental state through
observing the eye area of the face. The Swank Behavior Inventory (Swank,
2008) is a self-report measure of altruism in children. Data were analysed
using Pearson Product Moment Correlations, independent t-tests and
multiple linear regression. Significant positive correlations were reported
in relation to affective empathy and altruism. There was no gender effect
in relation to levels of cognitive empathy and altruism. However there was
a significant gender effect in relation to affective empathy, with females
scoring higher on the measure of affective empathy than males. Significant
positive correlations were also reported in relation to affective empathy
and age as well as cognitive empathy and age. An exploratory regression
model was significant with age and affective empathy emerging as
significant predictors of altruism in this model. Results are discussed in
the context of the empathy-altruism hypothesis and child development.
Recommendations for future research include the use of a multi-method
approach combining self-report measures with physiological measures.
©University College Cork. All rights reserved
14
1. Introduction
Encouraging the development of
empathy in children has been the aim of
various
educators
and
educational
programmes (Bryant, 1982; Stetson, Hurley &
Miller, 2003; Schonert-Reichl, Smith,
Zaidman-Zait & Hartzman, 2012; Thompson
& Gullone, 2003). In a similar way
understanding the developmental roots of
human altruism has been the aim of numerous
researchers (Ahammer & Murray, 1979;
Warneken & Tomasello, 2009). Nevertheless
charting the developmental trajectory of
altruistic behaviour in children has proven to
be a contentious and challenging area of
research (Cialdini & Kenrick, 1976; Kenrick,
Baumann & Cialdini, 1979). The empathyaltruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) is one
possible predictor of altruistic behaviour.
Empathy can be divided into various
components. Affective empathy focuses on the
emotional response of the observer to the
affective state of another individual (BaronCohen & Wheelwright, 2004). The cognitive
component of empathy has been described as
“theory of mind” (Astington, Harris & Olson,
1988 as cited in Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright,
2004) or “mind-reading” (Baron-Cohen,
1995). On comparing the affective and
cognitive components of empathy it can be
concluded that empathy contains these two
components (Davis, 1994) both as distinct
entities and merging categories (Baron-Cohen
& Wheelwright, 2004). Lamm, Batson &
Decety (2007) divide empathy into three
components: affective response, cognitive
capacity, and monitoring mechanisms. The
purpose of these monitoring mechanisms is to
discern if the focus is on the “self” or on the
“other”.
Batson (1991) asks the question: Is our
ultimate goal, when assisting another human
being, to benefit them only? Batson’s (1991)
empathy-altruism hypothesis proposes that the
motivation, to help others, emerges from an
empathic concern for others and thus is
principally other orientated. This form of
altruism, “true altruism” which is other
orientated, can be distinguished from more
egoistic motives to help based on assisting
someone in difficulty to relieve one’s own
personal distress.
Over 30 experiments have been carried
out to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis
against
egoistic
alternatives.
These
experiments mainly took place in a university
setting with undergraduate students as
experimental subjects. These experiments used
deception to assess if participants would help
an individual in distress under various
conditions. The primary aim of these
experiments was to test the empathy-altruism
hypothesis against alternative theories.
The first alternative tested was
aversive arousal reduction, which suggests
that empathy for those suffering distress is an
unpleasant feeling and therefore helping
reduces this feeling (Batson, Ahmad &
Lishner, 2009). Consistent with the
predictions
of
the
empathy-altruism
hypothesis, individuals high in empathy
offered to help regardless if escape from
helping was easy or difficult (Batson, Duncan,
Ackerman, Buckley & Birch, 1981; Toi &
Batson, 1982).
A second alternative to the empathyaltruism hypothesis is empathy-specific
punishments. Empathy-specific punishments
involve an individual engaging in helping
behaviour to avoid material and social
punishments, as well as to avoid punishing
themselves. According to this theory,
individuals engage more in helping behaviour
when they feel empathic concern because they
believe that punishments in the form of guilt
and self-criticism are a consequence of failing
to help another individual for whom they feel
empathy. The conclusion based on findings
from three studies that tested this hypothesis
was, empathic concern does not create a form
of motivation focussed on the ultimate goal of
eluding negative social evaluations and
negative self-evaluations. This evidence
discounted empathy-specific punishments in
the form of self-censure or social disapproval
as an alternative explanation for the empathyaltruism hypothesis (Batson, 2011).
15
A final egoistic alternative to the
empathy-altruism hypothesis is empathy
specific reward. This has been termed the
negative state relief explanation of altruism
(Cialdini et al., 1987). This alternative
explanation proposes that helping behaviours
bring mood enhancing self-rewards. Results
from experiments testing this explanation
suggested
that
an
empathy-helping
relationship was created even when it was
possible to get negative state relief through
manipulating anticipated mood enhancement
with the participants (Batson et al., 1989). The
implication of these findings is that the link
between empathic concern and altruistic
motivation is robust and is not diminished by
the possibility of receiving mood-enhancing
self-rewards.
A crucial facet of Batson’s (1991)
definition of empathy is that it is an, “other
oriented emotional response” (Batson et al.,
2009, p. 418). This implies that the
perspective of the other is taken and the focus
is not on the self. A number of experiments
have tested this hypothesis. One of these
experiments found that participants imagining
how the other felt produced empathy while
participants imagining how they themselves
would feel produced empathy and personal
distress (Batson et al., 1997). As has been
already discussed, personal distress has been
suggested to be a source of egoistic motivation
to help. Other experiments which have
examined this self-other distinction have
reported similar findings (Batson et al., 2003).
Therefore perspective taking plays a central
role in the relationship between empathy and
altruism.
These studies have the strength of recreating, real-life situations and therefore
measuring altruism from a situational
perspective as opposed to a dispositional
perspective (Batson et al., 2009). However,
the use of techniques to manipulate empathy
may not replicate real-life conditions. This
methodology has been carried out in a
university environment and for ethical reasons
these experimental paradigms would not be
suitable for children: due to the use of
deception in relation to the perception of
another individual in distress. Therefore
empirical research with children regarding
empathy and prosocial behaviour has often
involved different experimental paradigms.
1.1 The relationship between empathy and
prosocial behaviour in children
In a review of studies into the
relationship between empathy and prosocial
behaviour in adults and children, Eisenberg
and Miller point out that “because one
frequently cannot determine people’s motives
for their prosocial actions, it often is
impossible to distinguish altruistic behaviour
from non-altruistic prosocial behaviours”
(1987, p.92). For this reason in their review
the authors use prosocial behaviour to refer to
both altruistic and non-altruistic prosocial
behaviours.
Correlational studies have been used to
measure the relationship between empathy and
prosocial behaviour in children. Barnett and
Thompson (1985) took a sample of 116
children aged 9 to 11 years and measured their
levels of empathy using the Bryant Index
(1982). Prosocial behaviour was measured
through teacher ratings of the helpfulness of a
child both when a peer was obviously in need
of help and when a peer had a subtle need. A
low significant correlation was found between
empathy and a peer having a subtle need.
Eisenberg, Pasternak and Lennon
(1984, as cited in Eisenberg & Miller, 1987)
used the Bryant Index (Bryant, 1982) and two
experimental conditions (assisting an adult to
pick up toys and donating money to children
in need) across two groups. The first group
comprised 14 girls and boys aged 7-8 years
while the second group comprised 34 girls
aged 9-10 years. A low positive correlation
was found between empathy and helping an
adult pick up toys in both groups, with the
correlation being slightly higher for older
children. In terms of donating money to
children in need, a moderate correlation
between empathy was found in the younger
group, whereas a low correlation was found in
the older group (Eisenberg et al, 1984, as cited
in Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). Recent research
suggests that altruism is not a homogenous
trait, therefore while a child may be highly
altruistic in relation to sharing information, the
16
child’s altruism in relation to sharing goods
such as money may be low (Warneken &
Tomasello, 2009). The findings of this study
also challenge the suggestion that there is a
positive linear development of altruism in
children (Underwood & Moore, 1982).
Studies validating measures of
empathy for children have found a positive
linear developmental trajectory. Reading the
Mind in the Eyes Child Version is used to
assess children’s ability to read the mental
state of others by looking at the eye area of the
face (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Spong, et
al., 2001). The authors administered this test
to a sample of children with an age range of 6
- 12 years. There was an age effect with the 6 8 year olds getting significantly lower scores
on the Eyes Test than the 8 - 10 year olds and
10 - 12 year olds. These two older groups of
children did not differ significantly from each
other in terms of scores. Therefore the
research evidence suggests that, as children
develop, their capacity to read the mental state
of others also develops. No effect for gender
was found in relation to this test (BaronCohen, Wheelwright, Spong, et al., 2001).
Bryant’s (1982) Empathy Index for
Children and Adolescents was explicitly
intended as a measure of affective empathy
with the central aim of developing a greater
understanding of the affective arousal
component of empathy. In a sample with an
age range of 6 - 13 years, 12 and 13 year olds
had higher levels of affective empathy than the
children aged between 6 and 10 years. A
gender effect was found in this sample, with
females scoring higher on this measure of
empathy than males (Bryant, 1982).
Recent research points to how the
affective component of empathy could disrupt
the altruistic process of helping others. Some
researchers have noted that if infants or adults
could only perceive others as like themselves
this merging of self and other could cause
personal distress rather than pro-social helping
behaviour (Decety & Lamm, 2009, as cited in
Decety & Meltzoff, 2011; Lamm et al, 2007).
Empirical studies that have used neuroimaging
have investigated the abovementioned issue in
both adults and children. As previously
mentioned; evidence suggests that imagining
how one would feel instead of imagining how
the other would feel increases both empathic
concern and personal distress (Batson et al.,
1997).
Lamm et al. (2007) tested this theory
through an experimental paradigm which
involved participants observing video clips of
patients in pain. Participants were instructed to
use cognitive appraisal in the form of
“imagine other” (imagine you are the patient
in pain) and “imagine self” (imagine you are
experiencing the pain) when viewing these
video clips. Participants in the “imagine self”
condition
had
stronger
hemodynamic
responses in the left and right amygdala than
participants in the “imagine other” condition.
The amygdala has been associated with fear
responses (Carlson, 2010) therefore this
neuroscientific evidence suggests a higher
level of personal distress in individuals who
adopt a self-perspective in relation to empathy.
Decety, Michalska and Akitsuki (2008) used
fMRI machine to scan 17 typically developing
children with an age range of 7-12 years who
watched a short video clip showing painful
and
non-painful
situations.
Increased
hemodynamic activity was found in neural
circuits such as the insula and the anterior
midcingulate cortex in children who observed
another individual in pain. These neural
circuits are also involved in processing pain
first-hand. Therefore children who watch
another person in pain experience shared
representations with the person in pain at a
neural level and this has important
implications for the development of empathy
in children. However while experiencing pain
first hand and observing another person in
pain share common neural circuitry, the
qualitative experience of these two states
differs (Decety & Grezes, 2006).
Nevertheless the affective experience
of a shared neural representation of pain in the
form of affective empathy may not facilitate
altruism as it may cause empathic overarousal. Some researchers have argued that the
regulation of emotions through the use of
cognitive appraisal will prevent empathic
over-arousal and cause the individual to create
a detached observer position (Lamm et al.,
2007). This evidence highlights the need for a
17
cognitive component of empathy to exert
executive control over the affective
component of empathy in order to fully
facilitate altruism.
Decety and Lamm (2006) have
concluded that empathy involves both topdown and bottom-up information processing.
From this perspective, it could be argued that
the cognitive component of empathy acts as a
control mechanism over the affective
component of empathy, facilitating altruistic
behaviour by minimising the personal distress
of the child observing the other child in need.
Previous studies with children have primarily
used one measure of affective empathy and
attempted to find relationships between
empathy and altruism. This study aims to take
recent research in social psychology and
cognitive neuroscience into account which
highlights the role of cognitive appraisal in
regulating the affective component of empathy
in order to fully facilitate altruism. Therefore
two distinct measures of empathy will be used
in this study: a measure of affective empathy
and a measure of cognitive empathy. In
addition a self-report measure of altruism will
be used.
On the basis of this literature review
one overarching aim and three related
objectives have been derived. The present
study primarily aims to determine whether
there is a relationship between empathy and
altruism in 9 to 12-year-old school age
children. In addition the present study has
three related objectives: to determine whether
this association is stronger for affective or
cognitive empathy; to determine if there is
gender differences in relation to empathy and
altruism in children, and to determine if levels
of empathy and altruism in children increase
with age.
2.1 Participants
The sample consisted of 300 male and
female 9 - 12 year old children from three
primary schools in the Dublin area (M = 10.82
years, SD = .918). The sample was 69%
female (M = 10.88 years, SD = .778) and 31%
male (M = 10.79 years, SD = .975).
2.2 Measures
Child version of “Reading the Mind in
the Eyes” test (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright,
Spong, et al., 2001) hereinafter referred to as
the Eyes Test.
The
Eyes
Test
(Baron-Cohen,
Wheelwright, Spong, et al., 2001) is used to
assess children’s ability to read the mental
state of others by looking at the eye area of the
face. The authors based this test on a previous
test of the same name designed for adults
(Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, &
Plumb., 2001). Children choose one word out
of a possible four words to describe the mental
state of the actor in a photograph: participants
receive a score of 1 for circling the word
which corresponds with the mental state of the
actor in the photograph. Children then get a
score of 0 for circling any other word. All the
scores of 1 are summed to get a total score.
“Index of Empathy for Children and
Adolescents” (Bryant, 1982) hereinafter
referred to as the Bryant Index
The Bryant Index (Bryant, 1982) was
intended as a measure of affective empathy
with the central aim of developing a greater
understanding of the affective arousal
component of empathy. Cronbach’s alpha of
0.68 for 9 - 10 year olds and 0.79 for 12 - 13
year olds were obtained when this index was
originally developed, therefore this index has
good internal reliability. Participants must tick
a box indicating yes or no in response to 22
statements in relation to empathy. For
example item 1 states: It makes me sad to see
a girl who can’t find anyone to play with, to
which the respondents must put a tick in a box
labelled ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to indicate their
response. Children complete this index
individually by reading each item and writing
their response in the appropriate box. The
empathic response is coded as 1 and the nonempathic response is coded as 0. All the items
2. Method
This study was a cross-sectional
correlational study that investigated the
relationship between empathy and altruism in
9 - 12 year old schoolchildren. The dependent
variables being measured were affective
empathy, cognitive empathy and altruism.
18
with 1 as the answer are then summed to get a
total score of empathy.
“Swank Behavior Inventory-Upper
Elementary and Middle School Level”
(Swank, 2008) hereinafter referred to as the
SBI-MS.
The SBI-MS (Swank, 2008) is an
unpublished measure of altruism in children
currently undergoing instrument testing for
psychometric properties. A reliability analysis
based on the data obtained in the present study
was carried out and a Cronbach’s alpha of
.876 was obtained, thus indicating good
internal reliability. The measure is a 30 item
index in which a child must choose one out of
three possible behaviours which are rated in
terms of altruistic behaviour. For example
children read a scenario which relates to a
classmate sitting alone at a table eating lunch.
The children must then circle one of three
statements relating to how they would respond
to this situation. In relation to the
abovementioned example children must
choose between walking over to the child or
telling the teacher and ignoring the child
sitting alone. Children complete this inventory
individually by reading each item and circling
the statement which equates to their response.
Scores range from 3 for high altruistic
behaviour to 1 for a behaviour that deviates
from altruism. All scores are summed to
obtain a total score for altruistic behaviour.
study. After assent had been obtained the
children were given the three tasks to
complete. Tasks were anonymous, children
were only required to write their age and their
gender on the front cover of the booklet
containing the three tasks. The tasks were
administered in the following order: The Eyes
Test (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Spong, et
al., 2001); the Bryant Index (Bryant, 1982);
and the SBI-MS (Swank, 2008). The Eyes
Test contains a practice item, therefore the
researcher asked the children to complete this
first. The researcher then read the instructions
for the other two tasks. The participants were
then given the opportunity to ask any
questions about the task procedure. Tasks took
approximately 30 minutes to complete. There
was a brief question and answer session when
the tasks had been completed.
3. Results
The data analysed for this study were
scores for each participant on three different
measures. The measures were the Eyes Test
(Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Spong, et al.,
2001), a measure of cognitive empathy; the
Bryant Index (Bryant, 1982), a measure of
affective empathy; and the SBI-MS (Swank,
2008), a measure of altruism. Data were
analysed using Pearson Product Moment
correlations, t-tests and multiple linear
regression. The Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) (IBM Inc., 2011) was
used to analyse these data.
Table 1 below details the mean scores
for cognitive empathy, affective empathy and
altruism. The highest possible score for
cognitive empathy was 28, therefore the mean
score indicates there were no ceiling effects.
The highest possible score for affective
empathy was 22, therefore the mean score
once more indicates that there were no ceiling
effects. The highest possible score for altruism
was 90. The mean score in this instance
indicates the possibility of ceiling effects in
relation
to
this
variable.
2.3Procedure
A number of primary schools in the
Dublin area were contacted between
September and December 2012. Three of these
schools agreed to take part in this study. The
school principals were sent a letter detailing
the purpose of the study and a copy of the test
booklet which contained the three measures.
Letters explaining the purpose of the study
and
consent
forms
were
sent
to
parents/guardians in January and February
2013.
Children, whose parents/guardians
gave their consent, were given an information
sheet and an assent form on the day the tasks
were administered. The researcher read the
information sheet for the children and
obtained their written assent to take part in the
19
Table 1 Mean scores for cognitive empathy, affective empathy and altruism;
Dependent
variable
Cognitive
empathy
Affective
empathy
Altruism
Scale
Gender
N
M
SD
The Eyes Test (Baron-Cohen
et al., 2001a)
male
92
19.85
2.64
female
203
19.61
2.65
total
295
19.68
2.65
male
92
14.41
2.74
female
205
16.65
2.71
total
297
15.96
2.90
male
90
80.73
8.51
female
203
81.49
7.09
total
293
81.26
7.55
The Bryant Index (Bryant,
1982)
SBI-MS (Swank, 2008)
females in this sample. The magnitude of the
differences in the means (mean difference = 2.24, 95% CI: -2.90 to -1.56) was small (eta
squared = 0.127).
Table 1 also indicates the gender
differences in terms of scores of cognitive
empathy, affective empathy and altruism. A
significant difference was found between
males and females in relation to scores on the
measure of affective empathy (t(295) = -6.54;
p < .05). Inspection of the mean scores
indicates a higher level of affective empathy in
females than in males, thus indicating a higher
level of self-reported affective empathy in the
No significant difference was found
between males and females in relation to
scores on the measure of cognitive empathy
(t(293) = .697; p > .05). No significant
difference was found between males and
females in relation to scores on the measure of
altruism (t(291) = -.798; p > .05).
Table 2 Correlations coefficients between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, altruism and age
Cognitive
Affective empathy
Altruism
Age
.166**
.56
.127*
.160**
.132*
empathy
1.Cognitive
empathy
2. Affective
empathy
-.111
3. Altruism
**p<.01 * p<.05
20
reported (r = .132; p < .05). Using Cohen’s
(1988) guidelines for assessing effect size this
correlation can be described as low. Based on
these results it is reasonable to infer that as
children get older the affective aspect of their
empathic tendencies also increases. A positive
significant correlation between cognitive
empathy and age was reported (r = .127; p <
.05). Using Cohen’s (1988) guidelines for
assessing effect size this correlation can be
described as low. Based on these results it is
reasonable to infer that as children get older
the cognitive aspect of their empathic
tendencies also increases.
Two tailed Pearson Product Moment
Correlations were conducted to assess the
strength and direction of the relationship
between the following variables: cognitive
empathy, affective empathy, altruism and age.
A positive significant relationship
between cognitive and affective empathy was
reported (r = .166; p < .01). Using Cohen’s
(1988) guidelines for assessing effect size this
correlation can be described as low. It is
possible to infer that the cognitive and
affective components of empathy are interrelated based on these results. A positive
significant correlation between affective
empathy and altruism was reported (r = .160;
p < .01). Using Cohen’s (1988) guidelines for
assessing effect size this correlation can be
described as low. It is possible to infer that
children high in affective empathy are more
altruistic based on these results.
The following independent variables
were entered into a multiple linear regression:
age, affective empathy and cognitive empathy.
The dependent variable was altruism. This
exploratory regression model was significant
(F(3, 282) = 4.886; p < .003; Adjusted R² =
.39).
A positive significant correlation
between affective empathy and age was
Table 3 Regression coefficients predicting altruism
Variable
Age
β
-.154
t
-2.606
p
.01
Affective empathy
.172
2.914
.004
Cognitive empathy
.056
.944
.346
4. Discussion
As can be seen in Table 3 above, age
and affective empathy emerged as significant
predictors of altruism in this model, while
cognitive empathy was not a significant
predictor. Affective empathy was positively
related to altruism after controlling for
cognitive empathy and age. Based on these
results it can be concluded that as children’s
levels of affective empathy increase so do
their levels of altruism. Age is negatively
related to altruism after controlling for
affective and cognitive empathy. Based on
these results it can be concluded that as
children grow older their levels of altruism
decrease.
4.1 Main findings and implications
The primary aim of the present study
was to determine whether there was a
relationship between empathy and altruism in
9 to 12 year-old school children. In addition
the present study had three related objectives:
to determine whether this association was
stronger for affective or cognitive empathy; to
determine if there was gender differences in
relation to empathy and altruism in children,
and to determine if levels of empathy and
altruism in children increased with age.
Affective empathy was found to be
positively correlated with altruism. Cognitive
empathy and affective empathy were also
21
found to be correlated with each other.
Cognitive empathy and affective empathy
were found to be positively correlated with
age. The correlation was found to be
marginally higher between affective empathy
and age than between cognitive empathy and
age. Gender differences between males and
females in terms of levels of affective empathy
were reported. An exploratory regression was
significant with affective empathy and age
emerging as significant predictors of altruism.
The correlation between affective empathy
and altruism provides a degree of support for
the empathy-altruism hypothesis in that
Batson (1991) proposes that the motivation
behind human altruism is an empathic concern
for others. Nevertheless the lack of a
correlation between cognitive empathy and
altruism makes interpretation of this evidence
problematic. Research evidence suggests that
an empathic response based on affective
empathy alone may not facilitate altruistic
behaviour in children as the personal distress
involved, in a purely affective response, may
cause a merging of self and other (Decety &
Lamm, 2009 as cited in Decety & Meltzoff,
2011; Lamm, et al., 2007). Therefore the
cognitive component of empathy which
facilitates focussing on the other is a central
facet of the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
The correlation with affective empathy and
cognitive empathy is consistent with the
theory that while empathy consists of these
two components they can be viewed as
merging categories (Baron-Cohen &
Wheelwright, 2004). The correlation between
cognitive empathy and age is consistent with
previous research using the Eyes Test which
found that scores on this measure increased
with age in a sample with an age range of 6 12 years (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Spong,
et al., 2001). The correlation between affective
empathy and age is consistent with previous
research which reported higher scores on the
Bryant Index (Bryant, 1982) for 12 year-olds
than for 9 year-olds (Bryant, 1982).
Finally the negative relationship
between altruism and age merits attention.
Age emerged as a significant predictor of
altruism in the regression analysis, while
controlling for affective and cognitive
empathy. Warneken and Tomasello make the
point that “only humans appear to reshape
their natural altruistic tendencies according to
the norms of their social group” (2009, p.
401). The researchers also make the point that
children must practice their natural altruism
initially before the mechanisms that bring
about the development of human altruism as
“an evolutionary stable behaviour” (Warneken
& Tomasello, 2009, p. 401) fully manifest
themselves. They list these mechanisms as
reciprocity, reputation and social norms.
Warneken and Tomasello (2009) point out
that, recent cross-species studies of altruism
indicate that it is not a single homogenous
trait. Organisms can exhibit higher or lower
levels of altruism depending on the activities
they are engaged in. They state that the three
new domains most frequently researched are
(a) assisting others to fulfil their goals, (b)
sharing items that are valued, such as food,
with others, and (c) giving others necessary or
requested information. The negative
relationship between altruism and age could
be explained by a change in social norms
between the children ranging in age from 9 to
12 years.
Further evidence from researchers in
the field of economics indicates that the
contributions of older children tend to decline
in linear public goods experiments testing
altruism (Harbaugh & Krause, 2000). Public
goods can be defined as commodities which
can be used by one individual without
excluding other individuals from using this
commodity. Roads, parks, and police services
are all examples of public goods.
Experimental economists explore the
conditions under which the likelihood of
individuals contributing to the delivery of
public goods in their environment is increased.
In these experiments participants are given
tokens and are given the choice between
paying this “income” into a private account for
self-benefit or a public account which benefits
all the members of the group (Zelmer, 2003).
Harbaugh and Krause (2000) concluded that
altruistic behaviour in children is similar to
that of adults. Nevertheless they note that
repetition of games which test for altruism had
a different effect on younger children than it
22
did on older children. Repetition generally
increased the altruistic behaviour of younger
children, whereas, repetition had the opposite
effect on older children causing altruistic
behaviour to decline. While research in this
area is limited, this evidence suggests that
social interactions and exchanges may have a
different effect on the altruistic tendencies of
children at different ages. The authors note the
possibility that older children may have been
less confused by the protocol, while younger
children continued donating as they did not
understand the game. However Warneken and
Tomasello’s (2009) evidence suggests that
younger children have an innate altruistic
tendency. An alternative explanation is that
older children could be more competitive and
may be more attuned to the advantages and
disadvantages of altruism.
lack of research evidence into the mechanisms
underlying the interaction between
socialisation and human altruism. Each of
these issues will now be addressed.
According to Baron-Cohen and
Wheelwright (2004) the concept of empathy is
difficult to define. The researchers therefore
divide empathy into the categories of affective
empathy and cognitive empathy. In addition
affective empathy is further subdivided into
three subcomponents. Lamm et al., (2007)
acknowledge the cognitive and affective
components of empathy while adding a third
component. According to the authors this third
component consists of monitoring
mechanisms which attempt to discern if an
individual’s affective experience has a self, or
other, origin. This difficulty in relation to
definitions is equally relevant in relation to
human altruism. While Batson’s (1991)
definition of altruism focusses on an
individual’s motivational state, other
researchers focus on altruism in terms of costs,
benefits and contexts (Warneken &
Tomasello, 2009).
In relation to altruism and
socialisation, Kenrick et al. (1979) propose
that rewarding altruistic acts within
educational systems further strengthens the
egoistic motivation to be altruistic. Other
researchers cite the role of group identification
and the role of reciprocity as being important
mediators of altruistic behaviour (Harbaugh &
Krause, 2000; Warneken & Tomasello, 2009).
4.2 Limitations
Unlike previous studies this sample
was not balanced for gender. Given the
evidence of a gender effect in relation to
affective empathy (Bryant,1982) the larger
amount of female participants may have
confounded the results of this study. However
this would only have applied to affective
empathy where a significant difference
between males and females was reported.
In addition the measure of altruism used in
this study, the SBI-MS (Swank, 2008) is an
unpublished measure still undergoing
validation. A large number of high scores on
this measure in the present study indicate
possible ceiling effects. In addition although
this measure proposes to be a measure of
altruism, some items cover topics such as
emptying a rubbish bin. This item appears to
be measuring a general pro-social disposition
rather than human altruism. This fact brings
the face validity of this measure into question.
4.4 Practical implications
Nevertheless, despite theoretical
difficulties regarding the empathy-altruism
hypothesis researching this hypothesis in a
developmental context has various practical
implications. Programmes that encourage the
development of empathy in young children
could have the effect of encouraging more
prosocial behaviour in children. Therefore
developing empathy in children could serve as
a protective factor against anti-social
behaviour. Some researchers have suggested
that low levels of empathy could predict antisocial behaviour (Decety et al., 2008).
Through researching the empathy-altruism
hypothesis with typically developing children,
4.3 Theoretical issues
There are two main theoretical
difficulties in the study of the empathyaltruism hypothesis from a developmental
perspective. Firstly there is no consensus on a
single definition of “empathy” and “altruism”
in the same manner as a construct such as selfefficacy (Bandura, 1997). Secondly, there is a
23
developmental norms of altruistic behaviour
could be developed against which individuals
could be measured.
Future research in this area needs to
combine correlational data, data from
experimental studies and data from
longitudinal studies to assess the dominant
mechanisms of altruism in child development
(Eisenberg et al., 1999). This technique of
triangulation could provide converging
evidence in relation to altruistic traits. In
relation to measuring the empathy-altruism
hypothesis, a multi-method approach
combining physiological measures such as
heart-rate, facial measures and self-report
could control for the potential confounding
factor of social desirability bias (Eisenberg et
al., 1989).
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An
essay on autism and theory of mind.
Boston: MIT Press/ Bradford Books.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004).
The
Empathy
Quotient:
An
investigation of adults with Asperger
Syndrome or high functioning autism,
and normal sex differences. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders,
34(2), 163-175.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J.,
Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The
“Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test
Revised Version: A study with normal
adults, and adults with Asperger
Syndrome or high-functioning autism.
Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 42(2), 241-251.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Spong, A.,
Scahill, V., & Lawson, J. (2001) Are
intuitive
physics
and
intuitive
psychology independent? A test with
children with Asperger Syndrome.
Journal of Developmental and
Learning Disorders, 5(1), 47-78.
Barnett, M. A., & Thompson, S. (1985). The
role of affective perspective taking and
empathy
in
childrens
Machiavellianism, prosocial behavior,
and motive for helping. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 146(3), 295-305.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The Altruism Question.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in Humans.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C.D., Ahmad, N. & Lishner, D.A.
(2009). Empathy and Altruism. In C.R.
Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.) Oxford
Handbook of Positive Psychology
Second Edition (pps. 417-426).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Griffitt, C. A.,
Barrientos, S., Brandt, J. R.,
Sprengelmeyer, P., & Bayly, M. J.
(1989). Negative-state relief and the
empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,
56(6), 922-933.
Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P.,
Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is
empathic emotion a source of altruistic
4.5 Conclusion
While this study found some evidence
to support the empathy-altruism hypothesis in
children, difficulties regarding face validity
and ceiling effects in relation to one of the
measures used may have confounded these
results. The increasing complexity of human
interactions throughout development and how
they influence altruistic behaviours appears to
disrupt a clear understanding of the
mechanism behind the empathy-altruism
hypothesis in the context of child
development. Nevertheless, recent findings in
neuroscience regarding the neural mechanisms
underlying the relationship between empathy
and altruism point to exciting new
developments in this field of research.
References
Ahammer, I. M., & Murray, J. P. (1979).
Kindness in the kindergarten: The
relative influence of role-playing and
pro-social television in facilitating
altruism. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 2(2), 133157.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The
exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
24
motivation? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 40(2), 290-302.
Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R.,
Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L.,
McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C.
(1988). Five studies testing two new
egoistic alternatives to the empathyaltruism hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
55(1), 52-77.
Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., Carpenter, A.,
Dulin, L., Harjusola-Webb, S., Stocks,
E. L., … & Sampat, B. (2003). “…As
you would have them do unto you”:
Does imagining yourself in the other’s
place
stimulate
moral
action?
Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29(9), 1190-1201.
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M.,
Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997).
Is empathy-induced helping due to
self-other merging? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
73(3), 495-509.
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An Index of Empathy
for Children and Adolescents. Child
Development, 53(2), 413-425.
Carlson, N. R. (2010). Physiology of Behavior
(10th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (1976).
Altruism as hedonism: A social
development perspective on the
relationship of negative mood state and
helping. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 34(5), 907-914.
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan D.,
Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L.
(1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it
selflessly or selfishly motivated?
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(4), 749-758.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences. New
York: Academic Press.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A Social
Psychological Approach. Colorado:
Westview Press.
Decety, J., & Grezes, J. (2006). The power of
simulation: Imagining one’s own and
other’s behavior. Brain Research,
1079(1), 4-14.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human
empathy through the lens of social
neuroscience. The Scientific World
Journal, 6, 1146-1163
Decety, J., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2011).
Empathy, imitation, and the social
Brain. In A. Coplan & P. Goldie
(Eds.). Empathy: Philosophical and
Psychological Perspectives (pp. 5881). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Decety, J., Michalska, K. J., & Akitsuki, Y.
(2008). Who caused the pain? An
fMRI investigation of empathy and
intentionality
in
children.
Neuropsychologia, 46(11), 2607-2614
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A.,
Fultz, J., Shell, R., Mathy, R. M. &
Reno, R. R. (1989). Relation of
sympathy and personal distress to
prosocial behavior: A multimethod
study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57(1), 55-66.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C.,
Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A. &
Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and
development of prosocial dispositions:
a
longitudinal
study.
Child
Development, 70(6), 1360-1372.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The
relation of empathy to prosocial and
related
behaviors.
Psychological
Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119.
Harbaugh, W. T., & Krause, K. (2000).
Children’s altruism in public good and
dictator experiments. Economic
Inquiry, 38(1), 95-109.
Kenrick, D. T., Baumann, D. J. & Cialdini, R.
B. (1979). A step in the socialization
of altruism as hedonism: Effects of
negative mood on children’s
generosity under public and private
conditions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 37(5), 747-755.
Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007).
The neural substrate of human
empathy: Effects of perspective-taking
and cognitive appraisal. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(1), 42-58.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Smith, V., ZaidmanZait, A., & Hertzman, C. (2012).
25
Promoting children’s prosocial
behaviours in school: Impact of the
“Roots of Empathy” programme on the
social and emotional competence of
school-aged children. School Mental
Health, 4(1), 1-21.
Stetson, E. A., Hurley, A. M., & Miller, G. E.
(2003). Can universal affective
education programs be used to
promote empathy in elementary aged
children? A review of five curricula.
Journal of Research in Character
Education, 1(12), 129-147.
Swank, J.M. (2008). Swank Behavior
Inventory-Upper Elementary and
Middle School Level: a measure of
altruism in children (SBI-MS).
Unpublished instrument.
Thompson, K. L., & Gullone, E. (2003).
Promotion of empathy and prosocial
behaviour in children through humane
education. Australian Psychologist, 38
(3), 175-182.
Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More
evidence that empathy is a source of
altruistic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
43(2), 281-292.
Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982).
Perspective-taking and altruism.
Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 143173.
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009).
Varieties of altruism in children and
chimpanzees. Trends in Cognitive
Science, 13(9), 397-402.
Zelmer, J. (2003). Linear public goods
experiments: a meta-analysis.
Experimental Economics, 6(3), 299310.
26