Exploring the links between personality and empathic response style

Per.wn.

individ.

01%

Vol.

17, No. 3. pp. 303-311,

0191-8869(94)EOOS3-T

EXPLORING

THE LINKS BETWEEN EMPATHIC RESPONSE

NADINE R. RICHENDOLLER

Department

of Communication,

and

AL 36849-521

I

0

PERSONALITY STYLE

JAMES B. WEAVER

6030 Haley Center,

1994

ElsevierScienceLtd Pmted in GreatBritain.All rights reserved 0191.8869/94 $7.00 + 0.00 Copyright

Auburn

1994

AND

III*

University,

Auburn,

U.S.A.

(Received 8, January 1994) Summary-Linkages between psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism and three empathic response styles-empathetic responsiveness, perspective taking and sympathetic responsiveness-were examined. Data from an extensive survey reveal that those scoring high on P are neither sympathetic nor empathetic thus suggesting a certain callous nature within such individuals. Those scoring high on E, however, have a tendency to be sympathetic but not empathetic with regard to another in an aversive situation. Conversely, high N scorers are very empathetic but do not have a tendency to feel concern or pity for others in need, which is possibly due to painful feelings of distress that such concern may cause. Taken together, these findings provide a strong foundation for further research into the links between personality and empathic response styles.

INTRODUCTION

Empathy, it has long been argued, is a fundamental personality trait (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978) that encompasses “one of the basic human attributes supportive of social life” (Hoffman, 1977, p. 169). Despite its apparent significance, however, “the notion of empathy is, and always has been, a broad, somewhat slippery concept-ne that has provoked considerable speculation, excitement and confusion” (Eisenberg and Strayer, 1987, p. 3). Perhaps because of the conceptually dynamic nature of empathy, only limited empirical attention has been focused on delineating the role of empathic responsiveness in contemporary personality theory. This investigation attempts to fill this void. Historically, empathy refers to a person’s physiological and/or affective responses to witnessing or learning about another’s emotion or situation. For Lipps (1907), generally credited for introducing the concept of Einfihlung or “feeling into” early this century (Bavelas, Black, Lemery & Mullett, 1987; Wisp& 1987), the expression of empathy involved the empathizer’s body consciously or unconsciously displaying motoric imitations of the other’s physical expressions. Tichenor (1909, 1915) further developed the concept arguing that we “are told of a shocking accident, and we gasp and shrink and feel nauseated as we imagine it; we are told of some new delightful fruit, and our mouth waters as if we are about to taste it. This tendency to feel oneself into a situation is called EMPATHY” (p. 198, emphasis by author). Alternatively, emphasis on the cognitive aspects of empathy emerged from the works of Piaget (1932), Mead (1934) and others. Mead, for example, viewed empathy as role- or perspective-taking noting that “the exercise of what is often called ‘social intelligence’ depends on the given individual’s ability to take the role of, or ‘put himself in the place of ‘, the other individuals implicated with him in a social situation” (Mead, 1934, p. 218). Building on these ideas, contemporary theorists project empathy as a multidimensional concept involving both affective and cognitive components (Deutsch & Madle, 1975; Edelmann & McCusker, 1986; Hoffman, 1977; Davis, 1980; Johnson, Cheek & Smither, 1983; Stiff, Dillard, Somera, Kim & Sleight, 1988; Zillmann, 1991). And, although there is some disagreement about the exact number of constructs underlying the concept of empathy, three predominant empathic response styles-empathetic responsiveness, sympathetic responsiveness, and perspective taking-have emerged. Some researchers recognize personal distress as a fourth empathic response style (Davis, 1980, 1983a, 1983b; Stotland, 1969). It is conceptualized as the experiencing of distressing feelings in emotionally charged situations (Davis, 1983a). This concept often focuses on abstract situations which do not necessarily involve others. It could, therefore, just be measuring general emotionality. Empathetic responsiveness is the construct of empathy most related to the original conceptualiza*To whom all correspondence

should be addressed. 303

304

NADINE

R. RICHENDOLLER

and

JAMES B. WEAVER

III

tion of Einfiihlung or “feeling into” (Lipps, 1907; Tichenor, 1909). Various labels have been used to describe this empathic response style. For some, it is simply “empathy”per se (Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987). Others have termed it either “emotional empathy” (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) or “emotional contagion” (Stiff eta/., 1988; Tamborini & Mettler, 1990). Common among these differing viewpoints is the idea that this is “an explicitly affective aspect of empathy, which occurs when one person experiences an emotional response parallel to, and as a result of, observing another person’s actual or anticipated display of emotion” (Stiff et al., 1988, p. 199). In other words, empathetic responsiveness is defined as a congruent affective response to overt or covert cues of another’s affective state. Perspective taking is, both conceptually and semantically, the most widely agreed upon empathic response style. For example, Mead’s description of someone putting “himself in the place of the other individuals implicated with him in a social situation” (1934, p. 2 18) is, over 50 years later, similarly defined as “the ability of an individual to adopt the viewpoint of another” (Stiff et al., 1988, p. 199). Researchers recognize perspective taking as imagining oneself in the place of another and experiencing affect congruent with that of the other (e.g. Davis, 1980, 1983a, 1983b; Dymond, 1949; Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987; Mead, 1934; Stiff er al., 1988, Tamborini & Mettler, 1990; Zillmann, 1991). Sympurhetic re.sponsiveness, on the other hand, is the newest and least clearly developed empathic response style. It comprises feelings of sorrow, compassion, or concern for another resulting from cognitive consideration of their plight (Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987; Wisp& 1986). This construct emerges from “a blurring of distinctions” between the concepts (Olinck, 1984), originally derived from German, of Einfiihlung-feeling into someone-and Mi@hlung-feeling with or for someone (Strayer, 1987). The intermingling of these concepts yielded a hybrid construct referred to as “emotional concern” by some (Davis, 1980, 1983a, 1983b; Stiff et al., 1988) and simply “sympathy” by others (Batson, Fultz & Schoenrade, 1987; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990; Hoffman, 1977, 1990). The essence of the construct is this: when you feel sympathy for another with a problem, you do not actually experience emotions parallel to their’s; instead, you experience different emotions that are associated with concern or sorrow for another. Sympathetic responsiveness, in other words, is uniquely different from other constructs of empathy because the individual’s affective response is projected as incongruent with the target of attention. Further, it is generally argued that variations in the quality and quantity of empathic response styles result from dispositional differences among individuals (Batson ef al., 1987). Specifically, individual differences in empathetic responsiveness, perspective taking and sympathetic responsiveness are conceptualized as contingent upon both biological (Hoffman, 1977) and developmental (Feshbach, 1987) factors. Thus, like many other primary personality traits, we should expect these constructs of empathy to be associated with more general personality characteristics. One approach to exploration of the links between personality characteristics and empathic response styles is suggested by the psychobiological model of personality developed by Eysenck (1947, 1990; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Specifically, Eysenck and Eysenck (1985), relying on a tremendous volume of data, have identified three predominant personality types-psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism-that emerge across gender, age, research methodologies, and cultures. Equally important, other recent research (e.g., Zuckerman, Kuhlman & Camac, 1988) has provided considerable validation of this model and further refined the definition of each of the three personality types. Specifically, psychoticism accesses an individual’s tendencies toward egocentricity, sensationseeking, and a lack of concern for others. The individual scoring high on psychoticism displays elevated social deviance, impulsivity and “a lack of restraint, responsibility, need for cognitive structure, and willingness to live by society’s rules and mores (socialization)” (Zuckerman eta/., 1988, p. 104). Extraversion is conceptualized as tapping an individual’s level of sociability and/or social adaptability, affiliation, participation, activity and positive self-esteem. Neuroticism, on the other hand, involves an individual’s level of anxiety, emotionality and social isolation. The fact that psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism have been repeatedly shown to provide “predictive and explanatory power across a heterogeneous collection of real life situations” (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985, p. 342) is a particularly unique advantage of this model of personality in the exploration of links between personality characteristics and empathic response styles. Specifically, it seems reasonable to expect that an individual’s empathic response tendencies should correspond,

Personality

and empathic

response style

305

at least to some degree, with their predominant personality characteristics. Thus, it should be expected that the empathic response styles of psychotics should reflect their tendencies toward egocentricity, social deviance, and lack of concern for others. Extraverts might evidence empathic response styles that are consistent with their desire to be seen as sociable, outgoing and affiliated with others. The empathic response styles of neurotics, on the other hand, should correspond with their high levels of anxiety, emotionality and social isolation. Although limited, the available research findings are consistent with these expectations. Eysenck and Eysenck (1980; also see Rawlings, 1984), for instance, observed a weak but significant positive relationship between empathetic responsiveness and neuroticism. Later studies also uncovered this link as well as a significant negative relationship between empathetic responsiveness and psychoticism (Corulla, 1987; Eysenck, Pearson, Easting & Allsopp, 1985b; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1980; Eysenck & McGurk, 1980). Other evidence suggests a positive association between extraversion and perspective taking. Specifically, Dymond (1950) found that those individuals who more easily engaged in “the imaginative transposing of oneself into the thinking, feeling and acting of another” (p. 343) tended to be more sociable and outgoing individuals. Similar observations were reported by Davis (1983a) who noted a link between perspective taking, high self-esteem and emotional security. Considerable evidence also points to a link between sympathetic responsiveness and extraversion. Hogan (1969) and others (Davis, 1983a; Grief & Hogan, 1973; Johnson et al., 1983), for instance, have found sympathetic responsiveness strongest among individuals who describe themselves as highly social, outgoing, sensitive and caring. Taken together, the evidence at hand highlights potential linkages between personality characteristics and empathic response styles. However, the diversity of definitions employed to operationalize both constructs limits our interpretation and use of these findings. In light of these considerations, this investigation was designed to examine the associations between psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism and empathetic responsiveness, perspective taking, and sympathetic responsiveness.

METHOD

Respondents Respondents were students enrolled in an introductory-level professional communication course at a large university in the Southeastern United States. This course is a core requirement for the majority of undergraduate majors at the university and draws students from a variety of interests and disciplines. A total of 2469 individuals (1368 males and 1101 females) participated in this study resulting in 2466 usable questionnaires.

Questionnaire The questionnaire was part of a broad communication inventory which was administered during the first week of each academic quarter. Respondents voluntarily completed the inventory during normal class hours. Although the respondents did not receive extra credit for assisting in this study, completing the inventory made them eligible to participate in other credit awarding research. Data for this study was gathered during the 15 month period from April 1992 to July 1993. Personality

measures

Respondents completed a short form version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire [EPQ-R (Eysenck, Eysenck & Barrett, 1985a)] that was adapted for this study. Specifically, the wording of some EPQ-R items was modified to enhance the meaning for American respondents and to permit responses on a scale ranging from “not at all” (0) to “always” (4). Across all respondents (n = 2466), as outlined by Eysenck et al. (1985a), the items from the EPQ-R were organized and summed to form three personality measures labeled psychoticism (P; M = 12.96; SD = 4.84; x = 0.67), extraversion (E; M= 30.89; SD = 7.41; x = 0.91) and neuroticism (N; M = 20.63; SD = 7.02; r = 0.85). Examination of the intercorrelations between P, E and N revealed some weak links. Specifically,

NADINER. RICHENDOLLER and JAMESB. WEAVER III

306 Table

I.

Emoathetic

resoonsiveness:

statements.

means and standard

M

SD

is

2.55

0.85

people

2.03

0.93

me seem

I .69

0.88

influence

2.49

0.94

2.44

0.91

2.42

0.94

I .03

0.77

Statement ER

I

I don’t

get upset Just because

acting ER 2

a friend

upset

I cannot around

ER 3

deviations

continue

to feel OK

if

me are depressed

I become

nervous

if others

around

nervous ER 4

The

people

around

me have a great

on my moods ER 5

I am able to remain around

ER 6

When

I see someone

remain ER I

calm

When

even though

those

me worry get hurt,

I tend to

calm I see someone

an emergency,

who

badly

needs help in

I go to pieces

P was significantly correlated with E (r = - 0.09; P < 0.0001) and correlation between E and N was also significant (r = - 0.17; P < however, that the statistical significance of these intercorrelations sample size and caution is required in interpretation of these trends Empathic

response

N (r = - 0.07; P < 0.0005). The 0.0001). It should be recognized, is partially due to the very large (Katzer, Cook & Crouch, 1991).

measures

A 34 item inventory was developed to measure empathic response styles. These items were adapted from several inventories including the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980), the Questionnaire Method of Emotional Empathy (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) and those used by Stiff et al. (1988) and Tamborini and Mettler (1990). With several items included as fillers, only the 20 statements that conformed to the rigid definitions of empathetic responsiveness (ER), perspective taking (PT) and sympathetic responsiveness (SR) articulated earlier were included in the study. Specifically, seven items were used to operationalize empathetic responsiveness (see Table 1). These included, for example, “I don’t get upset just because a friend is acting upset” (ERl) and other statements that tapped (both positively and negatively) the respondent’s tendency to affectively experience an emotion congruent with another’s emotion. Perspective taking was operationalized by the five items in Table 2-including “Before criticizing someone, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place” (PTl)-that assessed the tendency to imagine oneself in the place of another. And, sympathetic responsiveness, defined as the feeling of pity, sorrow or concern for another, was operationalized using the eight items detailed in Table 3. “I am the type of person who is concerned when others are unhappy” (SRl) is an example. The 34 items were presented in a random order. Respondents were asked to rate the applicability of each statement to themselves on a scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (0) to “strongly agree” (4). RESULTS

Stepwise regression analyses were used to explore the links between the three personality indices (P, E and N) and the 20 empathic response measures. Specifically, for each personality Table

2.

Perspective

taking:

statements,

means

and standard

Statement PT

1

Before how

PT 2

criticizing

I would

I sometimes people

I try to imagine I werein their place

someone,

feel if

try to understand

feel by looking

how

at things

other

from

deviations

M

SD

2.44

0.92

2.77

0.76

I.61

I .02

2.79

0.75

2.06

0.92

their

perspective PT 3

I sometimes from

Ff

4

I try to look disagreement

PT 5

find it difficult

the other

When

I’m

“put myself while

person’s

at everybody’s before

to see things

point

I make

upset at someone

of view side of a a decision I usually

in his or her shoes” for a

try to

type type

Personality Table

3. Sympathetic

and empathic

response

responsiveness: statements, deviations

style means

Statement SR

I

SR 2

SR 3 SR4 SR 5 SR 6 SR 7 SR 8

I am the type of person who is concerned when others are unhappy When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don’t feel very much pity for them I sometimes don’t feel very sorry for people when they are having problems When someone else is upset, I almost always try to console them Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal I tend to get emotionally involved with a friend’s problems I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me Hearing about someone else’s misfortune makes me feel sad

307 and

standard

M

SD

3.04

0.75

I .02

0.80

I .59

0.99

2.85

0.79

I .50

0.89

2.31

1.00

2.87

0.83

2.61

0.80

the eight empathetic responsiveness (ERl-8), five perspective taking (PTl-5) and seven sympathetic responsiveness (SRl-7) items and respondent gender were entered individually into a linear regression equation in a stepwise manner. Given the exploratory nature of this study, a conservative level (P < 0.025) of assessment of each variable’s contribution to the model was used prior to their entry into the equation. The same criterion was also used for variable retention. For ease of explication, the results pertaining to each of the three personality dimensions are presented separately.

Psychoticism The results for psychoticism can be seen in Table 4. The regression model for P yielded 10 regressor variables which explained just over a quarter of the variance [R2 = 0.26; F( 10, 2466) = 87.13; P < 0.0001; C@) = 16.151. As expected, high P scorers displayed a considerable lack of empathy with significant negative relationships apparent for items from both the SR and ER inventories. With regard to sympathetic responsiveness, all but one of the seven SR regressor variables were negatively related to high P scores. An example to illustrate this trend is the strong negative relationship with item SRl, “I am the type of person who is concerned when others are unhappy,” which accounts for 12% of the variance within P (/I = - 0.93). The only exception to this trend towards a lack of sympathetic responsiveness for high P scorers was item SR6, “I tend to get emotionally involved with a friend’s problems” which displayed a positive relationship (/I = 0.41). Two empathetic responsiveness regressor variables entered the model suggesting a lack of this quality for those reporting high P scores. For example, results show a negative relationship with item ER4, “The people around me have a great influence on my moods” (/I = - 0.31). No perspective taking variables entered this model.

Table 4. Psychoticism

Item SR I Gender SR 2 ER 5 SR4 SR 7 SR 3 SR 6 ER 4 SR 5 Intercept

and empathic response: linear equation following stepwise regression

Parameter estimate

Standard error

- 0.93 - 0.80 0.59 0.59 - 0.70 - 0.45 0.42 0.4 I - 0.32 0.34 15.66

0.14 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.74

Model R’ 0. I2 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26

F 44.18* 7 I .86” 24.28** 34.90** 30.04** I3.23* 17.99** 16.18** I I .37* 8.43* 446.73**

Nofe. All variables are presented in the order they entered each model *P < 0.025: **p < 0.0001,

308

NADINER. RICHENDOLLER and JAMESB. WEAVER 111 Table 5. Extraversion

Item

SR I SR 4 ER 3 Fr2 ER 7 Gender ER5 ER 2 SR 8 Intercept

and rmpathx response: linear equatmn stepwise regression

Parameter estimate

Standard error

Model

1.33 1.29 ~ 0.76 1.12 - 1.00 0.56 0.54 - 0.52 0.55 20.72

0.22 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.20 I.01

0.07 0.09 0.1 I 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15

R’

following

F

35.99** 39.19** 19.31** 32.25** 24.91** 13.02* lO.l6* 10.31* 7.34’ 267.X6**

Now. All variables are presented in the order they entered each model. *I’< 0.025: **P < 0.0001.

A significant gender effect (/J = - 0.80) (M = 14.42) scored higher on this personality

was also evident revealing that male respondents type measure than did females (M = 11.12).

Extraversion The regression model for extraversion, presented in Table 5, involved nine predictor variables which explained 15% of the variance [Rz = 0.15; F(9,2466) = 46.98; P < 0.0001; C(p) = 17.241. In contrast with P, the associations between the extraversion index and empathic response measures tended to focus primarily on sympathetic responsiveness. Specifically, a positive trend was found for all SR variables that entered the equation. “I am the type of person who is concerned when others are unhappy” (SRI), for example, yielded a positive ([j = 1.33), relationship. In contrast to the sympathetic responsiveness items, all four of the empathetic responsiveness regressor variables indicated a negative relationship with E. For example, “I cannot continue to feel OK if people around me are depressed’ (ER2) yielded a negative relationship (/I = - 0.53). One relationship with a perspective taking item was included in the model. This indicated a positive relationship with “I sometimes try to understand how people feel by looking at things from their perspective” (PT2; p = 1.11). The significant gender effect (p = 0.56) revealed that females (M = 32.05) scored higher on this personality type measure than did males (M = 29.95). Neuroticism The regression model for the neuroticism personality type (see Table 6) showed that nine variables explained almost 35% of the variance [R’ = 0.34; F(9, 2466) = 87.13; P < 0.0001; C(p) = 19.011. In contrast to both P and E, high N scores were strongly related with empathetic responsiveness. All five ER regressor variables that entered the equation indicated a positive relationship with N. A particularly illustrative example is the strong negative relationship with “I am able to remain calm even though those around me worry” (ER5) which accounted for 16% of the variance (/I = - 1.9 1; R’ = 0.16). In contrast to ER, SR variables tended towards displaying a negative relationship with N. For example, negatively phrased “I sometimes don’t feel very sorry for people who are having problems” (SR3) yielded a positive (fi = 0.60) relationship. An exception to this trend was, like in the case of P, “I tend to get emotionally involved with a friend’s problems” (SR6; p = 0.99). Similar to the case of E, one relationship with a PT item was included in the model. This was a negative relationship (/I = - 0.61) with item PT4, “I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision.” In contrast to P and E, no gender effects were evident for N.

DISCUSSION

The findings at hand, as expected, highlight distinct empathic response styles within each of the three personality types. Consistent with previous research (Corulla, 1987; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1980;

309

Personality and empathic response style Table 6. Neuroticism

Item ER 5 ER 4 ER 3 ER 7 SR 6 SR 3 ER 2 pT4 SR I Intercept

and empathic response: linear equation following stepwise regression

Parameter estimate

Standard error

Model R2

- 1.93 I ..53 I .27 1.01 0.99 0.60 0.70 - 0.60 - 0.47 16.76

0.14 0.13 0. I5 0. I7 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.9 I

0.16 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.34

F 182.65** I29.98** 74.16** 36.36** 53.86** 21.81** 25.61** 14.46** 6.82* 339.86**

Note. All variables are presented in the order they entered each model. *P < 0.025; **P < 0.0001.

& McGurk, 1980; Eysenck etal., 1985b), the results for the psychoticism personality measure indicate that high P scorers are indeed characterized by a distinct lack of both empathetic and sympathetic responsiveness. Returning to the original description of the subtraits underlying P, which included unempathic, cold and impersonal (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985), these results are no surprise. Most of the variance for P was accounted for by its negative relationship with sympathetic responsiveness which confirms that high P scorers lack concern or pity for unfortunate others. Perhaps this callousness is due to the egocentric, unsociable nature of such individuals. In other words, the “lack of restraint, responsibility, need for cognitive structure and willingness to live by society’s rules and mores” (Zuckerman er al., 1988, p. 104) typical of the high P scorers is reflected in their failure to exhibit any emotional bond with other people in general. The data at hand do suggest, however, one clarification of this proposition; high P scorers may experience considerable concern for individuals who are particularly close or intimate with them (SR6). In complete contrast to P, the results for the extraversion personality measure revealed a strong relationship with sympathetic responsiveness. Consistent with earlier research (Davis, 1983a; Grief & Hogan, 1973; Hogan, 1969; Johnson er al., 1983), this finding shows that the highly sociable Es are likely to express concern for the welfare of others. This may be partially due to the fact that individuals scoring highly on E are better equipped with interpersonal communication skills which aid sympathetic helping and thus are more likely to be concerned about others (Bandura, 1986). Further, the weak but significant association between E and the empathic response style item “I sometimes try to understand how other people feel by looking at things from their perspective” (PT2) suggests that perspective taking may be linked with social functioning (Davis, 1983a; Dymond, 1950; Hogan, 1969). At the same time, however, the findings indicate that high E scorers are not likely to be empathetically responsive. That is to say, those individuals scoring high on extraversion exhibit considerable concern for the plight of others, without experiencing congruent emotions. Perhaps, given that E is the most socially-oriented personality type, high E scorers manage to somehow override certain affective reactions so as to keep control of the situation and be ready to offer assistance. Clearly, further research exploring possible factors behind this unique pattern of empathic response styles is warranted. The results for the neuroticism personality measure indicate that empathic response style accounts for an impressive 34% of the variance within N. In agreement with prior research (Corulla, 1987; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978,198O; Eysenck & McGurk, 1980; Eysenck et&., 1985b; Rawlings, 1984) N’s significant relationship with empathetic responsiveness tends to suggest that high N scorers are not only characterized by anxiety, shyness and low self-esteem but also by empathetic responsiveness, or the tendency to affectively experience an emotion that is similar with another’s emotion or situation. High N scorers’ inability to remain calm when others worry (ER5) is a particularly strong example of this tendency and suggests that “emotional instability” is a particularly substantial component of the neuroticism personality type (Zuckerman er al., 1988; Royce & Powell, 1983). Similarly to P, the N personality measure yielded a primarily negative link with sympathetic responsiveness. It is unlikely, however, that this link originates from the same social callousness

Eysenck

3 IO

NADINE

R. RICHENDOLLEKand JAMES B. WE.AV~R III

exhibited by the P. Instead, it seems possible that the negative link results, at least in part, from the high N scorers being so wrapped up in their own worries that they have little energies for or interest in considering the plight of others. There is an exception. When an intimate friend is faced with a problem (SR6) the high N scorers do report feeling sympathetic. This pattern of associations appears consistent with an idea advanced by Bandura (1986) who points out that some individuals may actually avoid involvement with distressed others for fear of their own negative affective reactions. This proposition is clearly suggested by the data at hand and appears worthy of further investigation. While the findings of this study highlight the distinct empathic response styles of P, E and N some limitations must be considered. Building from earlier research, for example, our operationalization of empathetic responsiveness was limited to responses towards another’s negative experience. It would be quite informative to explore the linkages between the three personality types and empathic response styles resulting from exposure to another’s joy and happiness. Another limitation that suggests future research concerns our sample. Although the three personality types P, E and N have shown considerable intercultural applicability, the same may not be true for empathic response styles. Indeed, substantial intercultural differences in the nature and appropriateness of empathic expressions may exist. Consequently, it would seem necessary to undertake replication of this investigation in cultures outside the United States. Further, one aspect of empathic response style not examined in this study is fictional involvement. Recognizing the enormous viability of the mass media to convey and/or influence emotions, several researchers have studied fictional involvement (Davis, 1980, 1983a; Stiff et al., 1988; Tamborini & Mettler, 1990; Zillmann, 199 1) which, in a broad sense, can be viewed as a form of perspective taking in fictional settings (Tamborini & Mettler, 1990). What are the links between fictional involvement and the three personality types? More specifically. do individuals scoring high on psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism experience similar empathic responses for the “good guys and bad guys” of fiction? In summary, the results of this investigation highlight the different empathic response styles typical of the personality types psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism. Specifically, the data at hand show that those scoring high on P are neither sympathetic nor empathetic thus suggesting a certain callous nature within such individuals. Those scoring high on E, however, have a tendency to be sympathetic but not empathetic with regard to another in an aversive situation. Conversely, high N scorers are very empathetic but do not have a tendency to feel concern or pity for others in need, which is possibly due to painful feelings of distress that such concern may cause. Taken together, these findings provide a strong foundation for further research into the links between personality and empathic response styles. Aclinowlrdgemenrs-This article is based on the first author’s Master’s thesis completed under the guidance of the second author at Auburn University. The authors thank Larry L. Barker and Margaret Fitch-Hauser for their helpful comments.

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (I 986). Sociulfoundurions ofthought and ncrion: A social cognitive theoy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Batson. C. D.. Fultz, J. & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Adults’ emotional reactions to the distress of others. In Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (Eds), Empathy and its developmenr (pp. 163-184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R. & Mullett, J. (1987). Motor mimicry as primitive empathy. In Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (Eds), Empathy und ifs development (pp. 3 17-338). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corulla, W. J. (1987). A psychometric investigation into the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (revised) and its relationship to the 1.7 Impulsiveness Questionnaire. Personal@ and Individual Differences, 8, 65 l-658. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to the study of empathy. JSAS Crrrulog ofSelected Documents In Psychology, 10, 85. Davis, M. H. (1983a). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Jouninl of Personality and Sock1 Psychology, 44, I 13-236. Davis, M. H. (I 983b). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Perxmulir~, 51, 167-l 85. Deutsch, F. & Madle, R. (I 975). Empathy: Historic and current conceptualizations, measurement. and a cognitive theoretical perspective. Human Development, IR. 267-287. Dymond. R. F. (I 949). A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. Journul of Consulting P.s~c!wlo~,v. IS. l27- 133. Dymond. R. F (1950). Personality and empathy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 14, 343-350. Edelmann, R. J. & McCusker, G. (I 986). Introversion, neuroticism and embarassibility. Per.voncdiry crnd Individuul Differences, 7, I33- 140.

Personality

and empathic

response

style

311

Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 13 I-149. Eisenberg, N & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical issues in the study of empathy. In Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (Eds), Empathy and its developmen? (pp. 3-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions ofpersonalify. New York: Preager. Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In Pervin, L. A. (Ed.), Handbook of persona&y and research. New York: The Guilford Press. Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, M.W. (1985). Persona& and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press. Eysenck, S. Cl. B. & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports, 43, 1247-l 255. Eysenck, S. G. B. & Eysenck, H. J. (1980). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness in children. Personality and Individual Differences, I, 73-78. Eysenck, S. G. B., Eysenck, H. J. &Barrett, P. (1985a). A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Personalityandbzdividual Differences, 6, 21-29. Eysenck, S. G. B. & McGurk, B. J. (1980). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness in adetention center population. Psychological Reports. 6, 2 l-29. Eysenck, S. G. B., Pearson, P. R., Easting, G. & Allsopp, J. F. (1985b). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in adults. Personality and Individual DifSerences, 6, 6 13-6 19. Feshbach, N. D. (1987). Parental empathy and child adjustment/maladjustment. In Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (Eds), Empathy and its developmenr (pp. 271-292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grief, E. B. & Hogan, R. (1973). The theory and measurement of empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20.280-284. Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Empathy its development and prosocial implications. In Keasey, C. B. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 25, pp 169-217). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hoffman, M. L. (1990). Empathy and justice motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 14, I5 1-l 7 I. Hogan, R. (I 969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consuhing and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307-3 16. Johnson, J. A., Cheek, J. M. & Smither R. (1983). The structure of empathy. Journal of Personalify and Social Psychology, 45, 1299-1312. Katzer, J., Cook, K. H. & Crouch, W. W. (1991). Evaluating information: A guide for users of social science research. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lipps, T. (1907). Das wissen von fremden Ichen. Psychologischen Untersuchungen, I, 694-722. Mead, G. II. (1934). Mind, selfand sociery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mehrabian, A. & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personaliry, 40, 525-543. Olinck, S. (1984). A critique of empathy and sympathy. In Lichtenberg, J., Bomstein, M. & Silver, D. (Eds), Empathy (pp. 137-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral development of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Rawlings, D. (I 984). The correlation of EPQ psychoticism with two behavioural measures of impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 591-594. Royce, J. R. & Powell, A. (1983). Theory of personality and individual differences: Factors, systems and processes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Stiff, J. B., Dillard, J. P., Somera, L., Kim, H. & Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy, communication and prosocial behavior. Communication Monographs, 55 (2). 198-2 13. Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimenral psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 271-314). New York: Academic Press. Strayer, J. (1987). Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (Eds), Empathy and its development (pp. 218-244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tamborini, R. & Mettler, J. A. (1990). Emotional reactions to jlm: A model of empathic processes. Paper presented at the Annual SCA Conference, Chicago. Tichenor, E. (1909). Experimenral psychology of the thought processes. New York: Macmillan, Tichenor, E. (1915). A beginner’s psychology. New York: Macmillan. Wisp& L. (1986). The distinction between empathy and sympathy: To call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 3 14-32 I. Wisp& L. (1987). History of the concept of empathy. In Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (Eds), Empathy and ifs developmenr (pp. 17-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zillmann, D. (1991). Empathy: Affect from bearing witness to the emotions of others. In Bryant, J. & Zillmann, D. (Eds) Responding to the screen: Receprion and reacrion processes (pp. 135-167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M. & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107.