Psychological Dynamics of Empathy Final Exam

Cumulative flashcards taken from KN's sets.

empathy is a

multi-dimensional construct

Behavioral mimicry

Einfuhlung

automatic and not deliberate

an instinctual force driving us towards inner imitation

behavioral (and emotional) contagion

behavior is contagious

cognitive perspective-taking

the ability to make inferences about others' thoughts and beliefs

Piaget perspective-taking task: draw what another child can see (makes the kid imagine what it's like to be the other person)

Mirror neurons

no solid evidence for their existance

merely watching the behavior of the other person would automatically activate relevant areas in the brain in YOU

If true, this idea would be enormously imporant

two types of limits to your empathy

ability and motivation

limit to empathy: ability constraints

in some cases, the "other" is just too different. their world perspective is just so different, that it would be hard to empathize even if you wanted to

limit to empathy: motivation constraints

there are cases in which you might be able to empathize with someone but you don't want to

empathy doesn't exist in a vacuum

its bounded by our pre-existing likes and dislikes

different but potentially overlapping facets of empathy

mimicry

cognitive perspective skills

behavioral/emotional contagion

Einfuhlung

understanding a persons experiences

sympathy

Historical view: is selfishness necessarily bad?

thomas hobbes

adam smith

thomas hobbes: YES, it is bad. people are inherently selfish

adam smith:

NOT NECESSARILY, it can benefit people

ayn rand's famous book: the virtue of selfishness

its okay to be selfish but it depends on how you go about doing it

whats the opposite of empathy

selfishness

how does evolution account for empathy?

kin selection

reciprocal altruism

social reward perspective

personal distress motive

Kin selection

everything else being equal, we assist people who are similar to us

more likely to help IN-GROUP MEMBER

do they look like me, are they similar to me?

strong evidence for kin selection

reciprocal altruism

if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

we can help others under the assumption that others will help us in the future

social reward perspective

people like to be seen as heroes

we want other people to think we're amazing people

personal distress motive

the idea of not calling 911 when you see an accident is so bad that you call 911 to avoid that feeling

empathic concern

someones in trouble and you express concern for their welfare

bystander effect

why?

the more people around witnessing something, the less likely that any given person would help

conformity effect--no one else is doing anything so Ill do the same

maybe nothings actually wrong

maybe everyone knows something I don't

bystander intervention research: Kitty Genovese case

waitress in NYC walking home at 2am

attacked by a man and killed

next day discovered 37 witnessed and did nothing

Latane and Darley big claim

although people sometimes DO help, the % of people who DONT help is surprisingly high

latane and darley's famous model-- 3 steps

Some sort of emergency happens.

1) notice the event

2) interpret the event as an emergency

3) assume responsibility

good samaritan speech study

participants gave speech about being a good samaritan-- had to walk across campus

plenty of time: 63%

moderate hurry: 45%

high hurry: 10%

why?

people in hurry less likely to notice event

smoke filled room study

alone in the room: 75% told someone

group of three: 10% told someone

why do people not take responsibility in emergencies

the more people you THINK know about the event, the less likely you are to help. surely someone else has called the police

the seizure study --> diffusion of responsibility effect (DESCRIPTION OF STUDY)

you're in a booth

can hear people in other booths through headphones

you start talking to a "partner" who at some point sounds like they're having a seizure

you can't see them but you can hear it

how long does it take to tell someone?

the seizure study --> diffusion of responsibility effect (RESULTS)

0 other people witnessing it: 85% help in 52 seconds

1 other person witnesses it: 62% help in 93 seconds

4 people witness it: 31% help in 166 seconds

Conclusion: the more people in the room, the less likely you are to help. and if you do help, it takes you longer

Individual differences in empathy

CONSISTENCY-->empathic in all: home, work, public, private

STABILITY-->empathic in all: ages 30, 40, 50, etc.

construct validity

does the questionnaire measure what you THINK its measuring

predictive validity

do scores on your measure PREDICT BEHAVIOR?

big 5 model

Openness

Conscientiousness

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Neuroticism

openness

imagination, feelings, actions, ideas

LOW: practical, conventional, likes routines

HIGH: curious, range of interests, independent

conscientiousness

thoughtfulness, self-discipline, goal-driven

LOW: impulsive, careless, disorganized

HIGH: hardworking, dependable, organized

extraversion

sociability, assertiveness, emotional expression

LOW: quiet, reserved, withdrawn

HIGH: outgoing, warm, seeks adventure

agreeableness

cooperative, trustworthy, good-nature

LOW: critical, uncooperative, suspicious

HIGH: helpful, trusting, empathetic

neuroticism

unstable emotions

LOW: calm, even-tempered, secure

HIGH: anxious, unhappy, prone to negative emotions

Support for the big 5 model

generalizes across culture (all except openness)

generalizes across age

good predictive validity (predicts what its supposed to predict)

criticisms for the big 5 model

there aren't only 5

you can (and do) measure subfacets of each of them -- just measuring those 5 is too broad

when they tried to measure empathy of young children

focused on BEHAVIORS, not responses to surveys

"draw the mountain from Sally's perspective" --they're bad at that

referential communication (telling another person how to build a tower without seeing what they're doing)

measuring empathy in adults-- how do they usually do it and what was an example study

reliant on questionnaires

focused on accuracy

after interaction with another person, asked to guess how the OTHER person rated THEM

RESULTS: people who are empathic are in tune with what the other person is thinking. good at placing themselves in another persons shoes and are accurate with what they thought about you

Hogan's empathy (EM) scale

step 1: psychologists asked to imagine what type of qualities a "highly empathic man" would have

step 2: actual subjects take global personality test. if their scores match what the psychologists said is the "empathy template" then they are scored as empathic

TERRIBLE DESIGN--whos to say the psychologists are right?

questionnaire measure of emotional empathy (QMEE) Mehrabian and epstein

on a scale of 1-100 you answer how much questions apply to your life

conclusion about people trying to measure empathy

all had major validity problems but weren't completely without merit

Mark Davis and the IRI (interpersonal reactivity task)

which two subcomponents are related

four distinct subcomponents:

EMPATHIC CONCERN

"when I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel sort of protective of them"

PERSPECTIVE TAKING

"I believe there's two sides to every issue and I try to look at both"

PERSONAL DISTRESS

"I sometimes feel helpless in a really emotional situation"

FANTASY

if you get really into science fiction you're high on empathy--good at removing themselves from their current situation and imagining themselves as different creature

EMPATHIC CONCERN AND PERSPECTIVE TAKING -- if you score high on one, you're probably high in the other

^if you're high on these two, you're high on openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and really high on agreeableness

Domain-specific measure of self-reported open-mindedness (example items)

I have no patience for (political/religious) arguments I disagree with

I often "tune out" (political/religious) messages I disagree with

I believe that it is a waste of time to pay attention to certain (political/religious) ideas

Newer scale: compassion (Goetz, Keltner)

example items

similar to empathic concern, but with a stronger emphasis on HELPING OTHERS IN NEED

"it's important to take care of people who are vulnerable"

"taking care of others gives me a warm feeling inside"

"I am a very compassionate person"

NPI (narcissism personality inventory)

4 main groups of items

EXPLOITATIVE: I can make anybody believe anything I want them to. I find it easy to manipulate people.

AUTHORITY/LEADERSHIP: I would prefer to be a leader. I like to have authority over people.

SUPERIORITY/ARROGANCE: I am an extraordinary person. I know that I am good because everyone keeps telling me so.

SELF ABSORPTION: I like to be the center of attention. I am apt to show off if I get the chance

the biggest problem in longitudinal studies

AGE effects are difficult to disentangle from CULTURAL effects

the biggest problem in cross sectional studies

perfectly confounds age with generational effects (people in each of these groups grew up in different eras)

time-lag studies

challenges

Study college sophomores over the years but you're always studying college sophomores

see how the ones in 1950 differ from 2000

challenges: interpretation of WHY you find changes can be difficult (what is it about 1980 that makes students more narcissistic than in 1990

difference between self-esteem and narcissism

self-esteem = confidence

narcissism = overconfidence

have narcissism levels gone up or down over time

problems:

up

we don't know why exactly that happened

study of american college students: what happened to empathic concern and perspective taking over time

goes down

makes sense since narcissism went up

two different classification approaches to emotions

categorical approach

dimensional approach

classifying emotions: categorical approach

the "big 6" is now 7

fear, contempt, sadness, happiness, surprise, anger, disgust

paul ekman

cross-culturally recognized

classifying emotions: dimensional approach

russell's circumplex model of emotions

X-axis goes from unpleasant to pleasant

Y-axis goes from high arousal to low arousal

looked at in terms of quadrants

ex: high arousal and pleasant = excited, amused, happy

notable theoretical perspectives on emotion: the "nature" perspective

emphasizes genetic basic for emotional experience/expression

emotions framed as "universal" properties of a given species

notable theoretical perspectives on emotion: the "nurture" perspective

emphasized the "social construction" of emotion

assumes different cultures have different emotional experiences

notable theoretical perspectives on emotion: cognitive perspective

emphasizes the role of goal/cognition in triggering different emotions

pathway from negative outcome to feeling compassion

negative outcome

who's the victim?

does the other persons suffering satisfy goals for the self?

is the other person deserving of your help?

do you have the resources to help?

compassion.

high levels of anger are associated with... (health issues)

but without anger there would be no...

chronic disease and cardiovascular disease

social protests

benefits of anger

sense or perception of social injustice is a main trigger for anger

we need anger just like we need fear and pain

feeling: fear

fill in the rest

feeling: fear

information: danger

need: safety

goal: avoidance

feeling: anger

fill in the rest

feeling: anger

information: justice violation

need: restore justice, punish wrongdoers, reparations to victims

goal: approach--see that justice can be done

anger is the only negative emotion that...

is part of the approach system

Aristotle's view on anger

anger is justified when its felt towards people who are not justified in slighting us

anyone can become angry, but to be angry with the right person, in the right way is not in everyone's power and is not easy

ANGER IS FINE WHEN ITS FELT TOWARDS PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T JUSTIFIED IN WHAT THEY DID

ANYONE CAN BECOME ANGRY BUT BEING ANGRY AT THE RIGHT PERSON IN THE RIGHT WAY IS NOT EASY

darwin and evolution: advantages of anger

mammals express anger toward intruders and send signal to others telling them to stay away

they do this to protect resources from others trying to take it

freeloaders anger people

you need to contribute to the group if you want to receive its benefits

boundary conditions

anger towards "norm violators" is likely when certain boundary conditions are met

1. action needs to be INTENTIONAL

2. action has clear and foreseeable CONSEQUENCES

3. action is performed by someone of their own FREE WILL

4. action is performed by someone of an otherwise SOUND MIND

empathic anger

person 1 (perp) does unjust act to person 2 (victim)

person 3 (observer) feels anger TOWARDS perp and feels anger WITH victim

fear vs anger-- neuroscience

BIS (behavioral inhibition system)--dampening down activation in the brain. negative emotions associated with higher BIS

BAS (behavioral activation system)--anger is the only negative emotion part of activation system

Justice: lack of equilibrium

how to restore equilibrium

offender wins, victim loses

retribution

restorative

retributive justice

imposition of pain = get punished

sends message to community to not do it

crime is an individual act with individual responsibility

victims aren't central to the process

restorative justice

individual and social dimensions of responsibility

victims central to process of resolving a crime

focus on problem-solving, liabilities/obligations, focus ont he future

restitution as a means of restoring both parties; goal of reconciliation

empathy plays central role

helper's high

empathic acts make the helper feel good

part of motivation to be empathic is selfishness

common view of liberals, by conservatives

"bleeding heart liberals"

perceived excess of compassion

shalom schwartz-- circle diagram of liberals vs conservatives (personality wise)

where do the arrows go

top (liberals): openness to change, self-transcendence

bottom (conservatives): self-enhancement, conservation

liberal (top) broadly relates to how most people think of empathy

conservative (bottom) opposite of what most people think of empathy

measuring ideology: right wing authoritarianism (RWA)

what our country really needs is a strong leader who will crush evil and take us back to our true path

relation to religiosity

some relation to empathy but not that strong

measuring ideology: social dominance orientation (SDO)

STRONGLY NEGATIVELY RELATED TO EMPATHY

some groups are just inferior to others

we should not push for group equality

people who score high in SDO

general preferences for hierarchical society

strongly believe in "belief in a just world"--they're poor its their fault, they're rich its because of them

differences in liberal and conservative beliefs and thought processes

liberals: think more expansively. more concerned about broad general poverty. more broad in defining their ingroup

conservatives: care most about their ingroup. more tribal

empathy burnout

if you're a therapist, by the 12th client in one day you could burn out

have to be aware of your own limits

Bloom- book called against empathy

parochial empathy

people direct their empathy in different directions

empathy is LIMITED resource

doesn't exist in a vacuum--guided by pre-existing world views

*you'll be more empathic to people in your ingroup*

not against empathy, just the aspects of empathy that polarize people

empathy is picking and choosing

spotlight effect

bloom- spotlight effect

life is overwhelming, you can't focus on everything so you pick certain things at specific times

bloom is against empathy because of this effect-- it leads people to not help when they should

are people more concerned when one person is being harmed or 8

1-- because you can only focus on 1

guy lost in the woods experiment

half approached outside in 10 degree weather, half in library

given test on reading comprehension

manipulated whether guy lost is liberal or conservative

2x2x2 (outside vs library) (guy lost liberal/conservative) (participant liberal/conservative)

if you're outside, you resonate with coldness IF THE PERSON SHARES YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS

everyone felt pain for the other person, but more if they are ingroup

guy lost in woods experiment 2

same thing but experimentally induced thirst

super salty snacks and no water vs water

hiker rated more thirsty if participant was in thirsty condition and shared political views

do you feel my pain? racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses study

DV= nonverbal measure of empathy (fMRI)

if you see someone in pain, that pain part of your brain gets more activated

(ANTERIOR CINGULATE CORTEX)

white vs chinese participants

48 short videos, depicting faces receiving either painful (needle stimulation) or non-painful (Q-tip) stimulation

faces in videos were also either white or chinese

** RESULTS: participants showed greater neurological reactions to perceived pain of ingroup vs outgroup members **

impact of race on defendant empathy in court study

manipulated if defendant was white or black, and high vs low vs control motivational speech

3x2 design

instructions to be empathetic worked, but did not erase ingroup-outgroup effect

all participants were white, so main effect: overall people were more empathetic towards white defendant than black defendant

Piaget's stages of child development

most important stage

what task do they get good at?

2 to 6 years old: PREOPERATIONAL STAGE

egocentrism -- excessive intrest in yourself

using intuitive rather than logical reasoning

kids get good at mountain task (try to draw the scene from my perspective)

theory of mind (ToM)

the understanding that others have perspectives, beliefs, desire, and intentions that are different from one's own

can i place myself in the shoes of (perspective of) another person

when does ToM come up in atypical developmental trajectories? (who doesn't have ToM)

Autism

Narcissism

Psychopathy

Contagion of empathy

does it require ToM?

If a baby hears another baby crying, they will cry too

NO doesn't require ToM

Attributive empathy

does it require ToM?

we can feel connected to another person's emotion even though you're not feeling that emotion

the ability to see the world from that other person's perspective

yes big connection to ToM

Are emotional and attributive empathy mutually exclusive?

no you can have both (neurotypical human adults)

or you can have neither (simple animals, plants, inanimate objects)

or you can have emotional contagion empathy WITHOUT attributive empathy (many animals, baby humans)

or you can have attributive empathy WITHOUT emotional contagion empathy (certain disorders)

Autism/autism spectrum disorders

Cognitive empathy

(two most important points of evidence)

problems seeing the world as another person might see it (central to ToM)

adults on the spectrum have similar deficits as neurotypical 2-3 year olds

sally/anne experiment--> autistic children fail

if you ask an autistic kid "where am i looking" they can name the object that you're looking at --> they're not just inattentive to other people

Autism/autism spectrum disorders

Motor empathy

ability to recognize, copy, or imitate motor responses

less clear if adults have this deficit

2-3 year old children DONT have this deficit

Autism/autism spectrum disorders

Emotional empathy

ability to emotionally respond when presented with or told about emotional experiences of others

can be measured with behavioral measures, self report, or brain activity

people on the spectrum SOMETIMES have deficits here

antisocial personality disorder

a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, since age 15, as indicated by 3 or more of the following:

- failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors

- deceitfulness, repeated lying/conning for pleasure or personal profit

- impulsivity/failure to plan

- irritability/aggressiveness

-reckless disregard for safety of self or others

- consistent irresponsibility

- lack of remorse, being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person

- must be at least 18 years old

Psychopathy

Cognitive empathy (ToM)

no ToM impairments