Psych of Empathy Exam 1

face valid measure

what you see is what you get, it is a measure of compassion. Have to be CAREFUL about social desirability. CORRELATES .7 WITH EMPATHIC CONCERN.

Overview of the IRI

"does not describe me well" --> "describes well" (rate 1-7) Has FOUR SUBSCALES: 1) cognitive perspective taking (PT), 2) empathic concern (EC), 3) personal distress (PD), 4) fantasy (FS)

moral symmetry and anger

"good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people". PEOPLE DON'T FEEL AS STRONGLY about the BAD portion than the GOOD

IRI subscale item 3: Fantasy (FS)

"respondents' tendency to transpose themselves imaginatively into the feelings/actions of fictional characters". Watch a movie, FEEL like a character in the movie or book. Requires a degree of fantasy or imagination. "After seeing a play or movie, I felt like I was one of the characters". "I daydream and fantasize with some regularity about things that will happen to me (imagination)". People with high levels of imagination. Professional actors score high on this.

STEP 3: Do you take responsibility? AFTER you interpret as emergency

"something seems wrong", surely someone else will take care of it, leads to critical prediction: THE MORE PEOPLE YOU THINK KNOW ABOUT THE EVENT, the LESS LIKELY you will help. classic demonstration of diffusion of responsibility. THE SEIZURE STUDY. "we're going to pair you up with other undergrads to talk about adjustment to college life. don't want you to be distracted by appearance, talk through headphones. PARTNER suffers a seizure. THREE CONDITIONS: zero condition (only people in this room conversing are you and this other person, ZERO bystanders). one condition (there is you, this person, and ONE BYSTANDER). FOUR condition (there is you, this person, and FOUR bystanders). % of people who help: ZERO CONDITION--> 85%, average DELAY of 52 seconds to get up. ONE CONDITION--> 62%, average DELAY of 93 seconds to get up. FOUR CONDITION--> 31%, average delay of 166 seconds to get up. *CLASSIC DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY. MORE BYSTANDERS, MORE DIFFUSION* Even when people did help, they were uncertain because there is a DELAY. (even though 85% helped in 0 condition, still took 52 seconds to help).

Altruism

unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

Compassion measurement

(EXPANSION OF EC) Six item measure, similar to empathic concern, but with a STRONGER EMPHASIS on helping others in need. Model does a nice job of connecting with theories of emotion--> "i am a very compassionate person", "when I see someone hurt or in need, I feel a powerful urge to take care of them", "taking care of others gives me a warm feeling inside". SELF-REPORT BIAS and SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS. saying "no" is a bad look

Recent developments in measuring empathy: self-reported open-mindedness

(EXPANSION OF PT) MEASURE OF SELF-REPORTED OPEN MINDEDNESS* Taking PT and elaborating on it. Correlates pretty highly with PT index of the IRI, but allows flexibility to focus on the content area (politics, religion).

Do we need anger like we need fear and pain?

*ANGER IS A SIGNAL TO THE BRAIN THAT SOMETHING UNJUST HAS JUST HAPPENED*. Anger motivates us and alerts us to an injustice. Anger is the only negative emotion part of the approach system, quite literally PROPELS YOU FORWARD (compared to sadness, which makes you withdraw)

On the evolutionary importance of emotion

*WE NEED PAINS AND FEAR. NORMAL DEFENSES THAT WARN US OF DAMAGE* Pain is signal of damaged tissue, fear signals that a situation may be dangerous, loss or damage is likely, and that escape is desirable. Pain and fear are the sources of so much human suffering and the targets of much medical intervention, but they are NOT diseases/impairments, but NORMAL COMPONENTS OF THE BODY'S DEFENSE. NEED PAIN/FEAR FOR EVOLUTIONARY REASONS.

Evolutionary theory, altruism, and empathy

According to Darwin, natural selection favors genes that promote self-survival. BUT if self-survival is paramount, why would we EVER help others in the absence of self-gain. *WE HELP OTHERS AT GREAT RISK TO OURSELVES HOW DO WE RECONCILE WITH SELFISHNESS IMPLIED BY EVOLUTION?*

Reasons for non-helping: Latane and Darley's model STEPS

1. Notice the event 2. Interpret the event as an emergency 3. Assume responsibility 4. Know appropriate form of assistance 5. Implement decision (ONLY KNOW FIRST THREE STEPS-- notice, interpret, assume) (NIAKI!!)

Seneca and Anger

ANGER IS BAD! Anger is a hideous and wild emotion, one that is a short madness, raging with an inhuman lust for torture. Careless, greedy for revenge. Drags avenger to RUIN with itself. People commit many crimes when they are angry!! At least 33 diagnoses where anger is a symptom. Anger is thought of being BAD

Aristotle and Anger

CAUTIOUS SUPPORTER OF ANGER. Anger as an ADAPTIVE and SOCIALLY DESIRABLE emotion. We feel this emotion towards people that are not justified in slighting us. *need to use anger in the right way. it is easy to be angry, but to be angry with the right person to the right degree with the right purpose in the right way is NOT in everyone's power and is NOT easy. (e.g. publishing things that are not true in the news)

Cross validation

Do measures, like the davis measure and the big 5, intersect in ways we expect them to intersect? If this doesn't happen, something could be WRONG.

What is altruism connected to on the IRI?

EMPATHIC CONCERN, concerned with others' misfortunes.

Cialdini criticizing Batson

Evidence for Batson's theory is MUCH more likely when the person is similar to the subject. Because you are helping people that are similar, there is some element of SELFISHNESS. If it was really selfless, would be helping REGARDLESS of if they are similar.

STEP 2 of Latane and Darley: is the situation interpreted as an emergency (helping) situation?

Example: graduate student, professor abroad on sabbatical. heard noise outside, people screaming. thought it was none of his business, then escalated, still arguing, he's approaching her, she's backing up. Calls police and police arrests him. need to decide- DOES THIS CROSS THRESHOLDS? should I CALL POLICE? if think it is emergency, YES. Example: outdoor swimming pool, undergrads said who could glide along the pool the longest. Person DROWNED trying to get up to the top. If a room was filling up with smoke for real, I would get up and tell someone. 99% of people say yes. BUT PEOPLE DON'T. WHY. Diffusion of responsibility, conformity, bystander effect. people told to fill out form alone or in a group of three. IV: alone vs w/ confederates. Smoke starts pouring out door, DV: at what time does the participant alert the experimenter. SECOND CONDITION: most people don't do anything. FIRST: say something almost right away. ALONE: 75% of people got up and helped. Group of three: 10%. *GIGANTIC EFFECTS*

Reward-based models

External rewards and internal rewards (alleviation of negative mood). Cialdini says doing this mostly for the rewards, to feel BETTER about yourself (internal) and to get accolades from others (EXTERNAL).

First vs second experiment chimps

FIRST: yes chimps have TOM (gaze) SECOND: NO, it is a series of steps, probably not. the research does not clearly support. Thought there was TOM, but the parsimonious explanation is that the chimps have decision trees.

Evolutionary theory and anger: FREELOADING

FREELOADING. can cause anger, someone is reaping the benefits of your efforts and not putting in ANY. Didn't do a fair share, not right to take our resources if you're a SLACKER.

Evolutionary "self-sacrifice": Social rewards

Helping others can often yield EXTRINSIC REWARDS FOR THE SELF (HELP PEOPLE FOR SELF-GAIN/TO GET REWARDS)

Evidence for kin selection

Kin selection is a powerful theory and well-supported. This is ESPECIALLY true if you loosen kin to include "in-group" members. PAROCHIAL empathy predicts greater likelihood to help in-group vs out-group members, **but doesn't explain why non-related individuals would help each other.**

Why do people not help in bystander situations: initial theory

MORAL DECAY, Americans have become JADED. people in the other parts of the world are better than us! Gap is filled by two researchers

Relationship of Davis' IRI scale to the Big 5

NEUROTICISM (AND PD!): the higher you score on neuroticism, the higher you would score on personal distress (PD). Someone prone to negativity in their own lives would resonate with another person's negativity. EXTROVERSION (PT/EC?): less clear. people who are extroverted are people-oriented. Some relationship between PT and EC. OPENNESS (FS): Tendency to be imaginative, strong correlation to FANTASY. Ability to imagine non-real worlds. AGREEABLENESS (EC): *STRONGEST CORRELATION IN THE MATRIX* EMPATHIC CONCERN, A and EC have a .5 correlation. Score high on perspective taking. CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: not strongly correlated with everything, somewhat with PT and somewhat with EC

ANOTHER explanation: Reciprocal Altruism (Trivers)

Natural selection may create psychological mechanisms designed to deliver benefits even to non-relatives, provided that such actions lead to reciprocal beneficial actions in the future. (NON RELATIVES if can reciprocate in the future). EXAMPLE: a "cleaner bird". Bird eats bugs out of crocodile's mouth. Crocodile gets mouth cleaned, and bird gets to eat food. * MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL*. cooperate with others, get long-term future benefits.

COMPASSION diagram

Negative outcome (outcome is always negative in this diagram, but this leaves room for whether we are talking about the victim or the perpetrator). WHO IS THE VICTIM? self?= sadness, anger, shame. OTHER? --> does the target's suffering satisfy goals for the self? YES--> happiness, schadenfreude (sometimes, we're glad others have suffered), NO-->is the target deserving of your help? NO--> disdain, apathy. YES--> anger towards perpetrator (because target is deserving of help). --> do I have the resources to help the victim? YES --> COMPASSION!!! NO--> distress, anxiety, fear. *BUT sometimes feel a combination of distress/anxiety/fear AND compassion)

What type of things make you angry?

PEOPLE. for non-humans, don't have a sense of injustice.

empathy-altruism theory

Pure empathy theory by DANIEL BATSON. GENUINE gratification at helping others in the absence of rewards of ANY SORT. People helping others out of the goodness of their hearts! Want to be a good person! (NOT SELFISH, mere goodness of heart). Observe someone in need of help. DO you feel empathy for this person? YES--> you will help regardless of if it is in your self-interest to do so (even if costs> rewards). NO--> you will help if it is in your self interest to do so (rewards>costs). *has some support, but the studies that support are ambiguous. difficult to explain in laboratory studies*MORE LIKELY IF THE PERSON IS SIMILAR TO THEM, race, religion, etc. (but is this kin selection?) RELATED TO EC. *pure altruism under certain conditions, you will help others even at a significant personal cost. BENEFITS do not outweigh costs.

negative state relief model

Robert cialdini. People help because seeing others suffer often makes people feel bad (NEGATIVE STATE) and perceivers want to make themselves feel better (RELIEF). Model got more clear-cut support. *PEOPLE HELP TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN MOOD. *instrinsically "selfish" in motive*, but the outcome can certainly help others. Closely related to other models that make similar assumptions. RELATED TO PD. Always selfish, doing this because you want to feel better about yourself, for some personal benefit (SIMILAR TO AYN RAND)

How is the seizure study different from the smoke-filled room study?

SEIZURE: know there is an emergency. QUITE LITERALLY says, "I'm having a seizure". In smoke-filled room, no idea if it is an emergency or not. (KNOWLEDGE OF IF IT IS AN EMERGENCY)

Evolutionary theory and anger: INTRUDERS

See a person as an outsider, become angry and try to repel them. ANGER plays a role in protecting your resources. (male and female MATING/fighting. offspring is seen as a resource. see another species member trying to intrude, provokes anger).

IRI and intercorrelations

Seemed to have good validity with respect to the postulated four-factor structure. INTRAGROUP CORRELATIONS. Items scored as relevant to empathic concern correlate HIGHLY with each other, less so with other items. (If you score high on EC, might score high on FS but not a done deal. Not really correlating with other factors, just themselves, very INDEPENDENT)

Pure empathy

Subject of a long-running debate in social psych. "I would help another person even in the absence of any benefit for ME OR MY IN GROUP"

Anger at yourself vs anger towards others

Tendency to be more angry at yourself/hard on yourself. PERFECTIONISM. when depart from this, get angry. DEPARTURE FROM OUGHTNESS. SHOULD have done something, or other person SHOULD have done something. Is anger at yourself motivation to do better in the future? Judges are more lenient on a person if they make efforts of REPARATIONS (working in a soup kitchen, trying to develop a sense of justice). Clinical psych: people think they do something bad and inflict BODILY HARM on themselves as punishment.

Anger and justice

Things that are often in the EYES OF THE BEHOLDER. Anger is not always clear-cut, sometimes subjective perception. Humans RATIONALIZE after the fact/after violence. Example: one person saw the event as a clear act of injustice, the other "not so much" (e.g. WWII, 9/11, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bombings of Dresden (unnecessary American bombing), Vietnam war, Vaccine mandates).

Evolutionary theory and anger: WARNING SIGNAL

When humans are angry, it is easy to tell. Anger on a human's face is NOT subtle, it is a signal to the other person to stop what they are doing. (SIGNAL TO STOP!)

pure altruism

action intended solely to benefit another. Honest to goodness, completely selfless altruism. (previously suggested that all prosocial acts benefit the self/ingroup directly or indirectly.) *BATSON* --thinks we can help in the absence of any rewards. PURE ALTRUISM.

Latane and Darley step 1: notice the event

distracted, in a hurry, fail to notice-- NO INTERVENTION. The good samaritan study: researchers talk to seminary students, we'd like you to give a talk to other members of your community. half asked to talk about the jobs available to students, half asked to talk about the good samaritan parable. 1/3 of participants in the "no hurry" condition, had plenty of time to go to their room for the talk. Other students, have 15 minutes, must leave NOW. Final group, 5 minutes, HURRY. (relaxed, slight hurry, HURRY). IV IS TIME PRESSURE-- no hurry, moderate hurry, high hurry. DEPENDENT VARIABLE: % of seminary students in each condition who stopped to help the homeless man who was having trouble breathing. NO HURRY: 63% helped, 37% did not. MODERATE HURRY: 45% helped. HIGH HURRY: 10% helped. *changed based on whether or not they were in a hurry!* people might claim that they would notice a person in harm, but stereotypes/predictions of what people would notice are WRONG, people are goal-focused.

Personal distress motive

it hurts to see someone in distress, so we help to make ourselves feel better--alleviate OWN distress. (example, driving down wydown, see an accident, people are trapped inside. want to help them because feel bad, but also want to alleviate our own distress)

4 potential explanations of why people seem to help even if it doesn't directly benefit themselves (EVOLUTIONARY THEORY)

kin selection, personal distress motive, social rewards, reciprocal altruism.

One reconciliation to empathy + evolution problem: Kin selection

people do help others but are selective. we ONLY HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE RELATED TO US GENETICALLY. ensures survival of genetic code. BUT humans can't detect genetic overlap between you and another person--human beings rely on an imperfect heuristic. IF THEY LOOK LIKE ME, WE'RE PROBABLY RELATED. Don't have an innate ability to recognize kin.

Bystander effect: HS video

people lying on the ground, nobody asked what is wrong, walked right over the person! Tried to diffuse responsibility over to teacher. CONFORMITY EFFECTS as well, other people aren't doing anything, you feel like you don't have to. "this is probably a psych experiment", BUT this can be risky and have downsides -- someone could call 911, could cause anxiety for a bystander, if someone ACTUALLY collapsed, could think it was a psych experiment.

What is anger?

prototypical example is when someone INTENTIONALLY does something bad to you/another person. Foreseeable and intentionally bad, PREMEDIATED. *INTENTIONAL ACTS BY OTHERS, ALMOST ALWAYS HUMANS, THAT INFLICT PAIN AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES ON ANOTHER PERSON*

Helper's high

the feeling that occurs when we help other people. There's more joy in giving than receiving. Volunteering or other prosocial acts can trigger release of endorphins, the body's natural painkillers, which are comparable to morphine. HELPER'S HIGH.

bystander effect

the tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present.

diffusion of responsibility

the tendency for individuals to feel diminished responsibility for their actions when they are surrounded by others who are acting the same way

Anger as a motivator for prosocial behavior: its role in helping and empathy

when do feelings of anger play a role in motivating you to help someone? SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS (justice has been violated). two children playing in park, one child pushes another down. One is a POSITIVE emotion, one is a NEGATIVE. Compassion towards child, anger towards perpetrator (but which is driving force??)

NIH study on Helper's High

when people thought about giving money to a charity, this activated the areas of the brain that tend to also be activated when people think about food/sex. (HIGH WHEN HELPING)

Kitty Genovese

woman whose murder in front of witnesses led to research on bystander effect! It was 2am, she was walking home and attacked by a guy with a knife and murdered. over a period of 35 minutes, people heard her being attacked and DID NOTHING.

IRI subscale 1: Empathic Concern

"other oriented feelings of SYMPATHY OR CONCERN TOWARDS UNFORTUNATE OTHERS" - "I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me" *SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS, however. Don't want to admit to the experimenter. Not that problematic, the bias. "when I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them"

IRI subscale item 2: Perspective Taking (PT)

"tendency to adopt the psychological POV of others". "I try to look at everyone's side of a disagreement before I make a decision". "I believe there are two sides to every issue and I try to look at them both" . Social desirability to some extent. CONtrait item: "I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the other guy's point of view". (if all measures are in the PROTRAIT direction, the subject will just AGREE. so need to have CONTRAIT items too).

Spatial Perspective Taking

(❖ 3-Mountain Task ❖ What does the view look like from the doll's perspective?) "Me" and "Him", two subjects. ME can see tree, flower, and paper bag. HIM can see tree, flower, but no paper bag. ME knows HIM can't see paper bag. Ask ME "what can the other person see?". Have to do a visual transformation, think about looking at it from ANOTHER perspective.

Results of the simon baron-cohen experiments

*DO HAVE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN SELF AND OTHERS, just have trouble with more COMPLEX tasks.*Autistic kids have difficulties in social relationships because they don't understand that different people in a relationship can have different mental pictures of what is going on. Underlies communication problems.

Tea Party and Crayon TOM example

3 year olds can't put themselves in others' mental shoes. Not fully developed until 4 (CUTOFF FROM 3--> 4). Crayola box filled with candles. Snoopy has never seen this box. What will snoopy say when you ask him what is in the box? Crayon is correct, but kids will say CANDLES. 4-5 say CRAYONS because they understand how snoopy thinks. *understand that people have different beliefs, even mistaken beliefs. have a working understanding of the world and that it can be deceptive. Successful performance in the task= understand what world looks like from another perspective (Snoopy). *HAS DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO EMPATHY --> COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE-TAKING*

What are the general developmental outcomes with TOM research?

3-year olds and below usually fail the test. By age 4, usually pass and find it very easy. (STRICT CUTOFF) Children with DISABILITIES (e.g. autism) have a much harder time with this. What about non-human species?? Can understand a complex population better by looking at populations that have deficits (COMPARATIVE PSYCH-- look at other pops and compare)

Two types of limits on empathy

ABILITY-- hard to empathize with the other, even if you wanted to. UNABLE to empathize. UNDERSTANDING--want to, but DON'T UNDERSTAND.

behavioral mimicry & its relation to empathy

Babies LOVE to mimic--how does that relate to empathy? If a child was completely uninterested, they would NEVER mimic. At a minimum, the child must attend to what the person is doing and start doing the same thing. there must be SOME level of interest. encoding and imitating.

Simon Baron-Cohen studies: second experiment

Can they appreciate what another person is SEEING? Telephone, toys around the room (frog, elephant), simon looks at toys, "which one am I looking at now?". *HIGH PROPORTION OF AUTISTIC CHILDREN HAVE SUCCESS AT PERCEPTUAL ROLE TAKING*. Can appreciate the perceptual perspective of another person.

Can you code for "sympathy?"

Code for sympathetic or empathic statements. What is the person feeling? Easier to study than Kohler's focus (EASIER THAN UNDERSTANDING).

Classic Sally-Anne TOM experiment

Dependent variable: ask the child "where will the other person look?". Sally has a ball that she likes and is going to put it in the basket. Anne is playing with Sally. Sally says "I have to go to the bathroom" and leaves. Anne takes the ball out of the basket and puts it in the green box. Sally comes back into the room. Where is sally going to look for the ball? 3 year old would say IN THE BOX (incorrect) egocentric view. Automatically assume that other people see the world the same way they do. 4+ would say in the basket (b/c that's where the ball last was) even though they know the ball is in the box. By 6, children have a THEORY OF MIND. (42 month old fails, 52 month old SUCCESS. *SEEING THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF OTHERS*. Typically mastered by the time children are 5 (give or take), younger than that have trouble.

False Belief Test (FBT)

Evaluate children's ability to understand that someone else believes something they know to be wrong. EXAMPLE: the child knows that the object has been moved or transposed from where it needs to be. Will the child be able to put themselves in the shoes of someone/something else that isn't "in" on the secret? EXAMPLE: Jane and Sally and the ball. There is a marble and two cups. Child and child. in clear view of both children, pick up cup A with marble underneath. one child leaves. move to cup B. Ask the child still in the room- "if the other child returns, where will she look for the marble?" if she says B, FAILS.

Two important types of empathy

Emotional contagion empathy and attributive empathy

Where is TOM important?

Empathy/perspective taking, comparative psychology (mice vs humans), philosophy, child development, clinical psych. (can be defined in many ways and not everyone agrees on this).

Emotional contagion empathy

Features of emotion: Contagion empathy. If one kid starts crying, the other kid will start to cry too. REFLEXIVE. (reflexes) does not require understanding of other minds. NOTHING TO DO WITH TOM.

Does Povinelli hypothesis concern TOM?

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TOM AT ALL, HAS TO DO WITH FOLLOWING RULES. *NOT EVIDENCE FOR TOM. PARTICIPANTS WERE REALLY GOOD AT FOLLOWING RULES*

George Herbert Mead

Highly influential sociologist associated with the so-called "Chicago school" of symbolic interactionism. Emphasized ROLE TAKING, with extensions to how and why this is important in social (group) settings. CEO of a company, the ability to take the perspective of your employees is useful (UNDERCOVER BOSS). Have to put yourself in the shoes of your employees and role play.

Historical views on empathy

Historical views usually reference this distinction--selfishness (egocentrism) vs empathy (other-oriented). TWO EXTREMES, seem like opposites. But a well known debate among philosophers is if selfishness is NECESSARILY bad

Motivational Constraints

I COULD empathize in theory, but I don't WANT to. Easy to think of extreme examples--HITLER (most people would not say "I feel sorry for him) and WHITE NATIONALISTS. More subtle examples too-- liberals vs conservatives.

Behavioral and emotional contagion

If you're around other happy people, you become happy too. EXAMPLE= YAWNING

When do normal people have difficulty taking the perspective of another person?

LITTLE KIDS are egocentric. (take a truck away from another kid). Morals or political beliefs (don't want to vote for Trump or are unable to)

OCEAN/big 5 definitions: Neuroticism

LOW SCORE: calm, even-tempered, secure HIGH SCORE: anxious, unhappy, prone to negative emotions

OCEAN/big 5 definitions: Agreeableness

LOW SCORE: critical, uncooperative, suspicious HIGH SCORE: helpful, trusting, empathic

What comes to mind when you think of psychopaths? Are they easy to study?

Manipulative, emotionless, lying, empathy, unfeeling, crazy, violent, calculating. Seem to deliberately not follow societal rules. Psychopaths who are really smart have not been caught yet, so HARD to study them. (personal anecdote of working in ice cream shop, asking for change, "would I do that?")

facets of personality traits: individual differences

More or Less. HOW DO YOU COMPARE TO OTHER PEOPLE'S SCORES? One person, how consistent is that person across DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

In order to sympathize with another person, is it literally necessary to "feel what they are feeling"

NO! If someone is undergoing a divorce, you might not have gone through it before. Physical injury/sports injury also.

Is openness related to empathy?

NO!! Is original and comes up with new ideas, is curious about many different things, is an ingenious, deep thinker, has an active imagination, is inventive, values artistic/aesthetic experiences.

Criticisms of the Big Five theory

Not the ONLY FIVE!! There are subtraits and classifications. Overly BROAD--Neuroticism has several facets with respect to emotions and personal relationships.

Antisocial Personality Disorder

PATTERN of disregard for and violation of the rights of others. People with ASPD may not conform to social norms, may repeatedly lie or deceive others, and may act impulsively. *PSYCHOPATHY IS RARE*

Previous attempts to measure individual differences in empathy: ADULTS: Chapin Social Insight

Reactions to hypothetical situations (e.g. noisy neighbors). Not clear how it relates to empathy. "You have noisy neighbors, how do you go about the situation?". SHUT THE HELL UP! Not empathic.

attributive empathy

Requires UNDERSTANDING of other minds. May allow for more complex and/or subtle empathic behaviors.

Who are the "others" that have deficits relative to most of us?

Spectrum (autism) psychopathy, children--examples of "others" that have deficits.

Previous attempts to measure individual differences in empathy: CHILDREN- affective role taking

Subjects are asked to infer the emotion of another person. Shown a video, asked what emotion the other person is feeling, and if they have empathic ability should be able to do it/cite the emotion. AMBIGUOUS b/c of individual differences in interpretation--reading another person's emotion is subjective.

Attributive and emotional contagion empathy combinations

THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. It is possible to have NEITHER (cognitively simple animals, plants, inanimate objects). It is possible to have BOTH (neurotypical human adults). It is possible for just have emotional contagion (BABIES, social animals) and it is possible to just have attributive (people with autism, psychopaths. E.g. person passing sally-anne task --> psychopath can infer what someone is thinking but not have emotional.

Ayn Rand's book

The Virtue of Selfishness. (Rand is a polarizing philosopher). Many love her work, others HATE it. *MAIN IDEA: EVERYONE IS SELFISH and will do what will give them pleasure. But the moral judgment is HOW they manifest their selfishness--not whether they do it, but how they do it. ROBBERY vs PRODUCTION.

What are partial deficits?

The other may have abilities for SOME, but not ALL types of empathy. (PARTIALLY DEFICIENT, only for SOME types of empathy).

Theory of Mind reasonable working definition

Theory of mind as a personal capability is the understanding that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.

Definition of empathy

There is NO definition. People have tried to define empathy. Not productive to get into debate, it is a BROAD category related to cognitive, emotional, and social neuroscience processes. An umbrella of a concept. Multifaceted concept connected to cool phenomena--mirror neurons, empathy among children, cross species.

Can you code for "understanding"?

Understanding is hard to code for. Accuracy of the understanding as a lot of guesswork. Also somewhat of a spectrum--deep vs shallow understanding

When someone says the word empathy, what kinds of personality traits come to mind?

Understanding, compassion, "bleeding heart" (someone who can't help but feel the pain of others), kindness

Previous attempts to measure individual differences in empathy: CHILDREN- the picture story/FASTE test

Very popular in its time, but only captures ONE facet of empathy. VERY NARROW. Subjects shown pictures/stories of another person's emotional experience. Coded as "empathic" if the subject starts feeling the same emotion. (PROBLEM: could have two people reading about the novel. could both appreciate the novel--one gets into character, the other in the state of not feeling it themselves. NOT NOT empathic, just different styles of reading novels)

Previous attempts to measure individual differences in empathy: CHILDREN- referential communication

You're in one person, the other person is in the other. there is a play tower in the other room and you have to tell the other person how to build the tower, sight-unseen. Have to get INSIDE OF THEIR HEAD to instruct them.--like trying to get someone to fix car, "can you see X, can you see Y"

Parochialism

a narrow view in which people see things solely through their own perspective. *PEOPLE TEND TO BE EMPATHIC TOWARDS IN-GROUP MEMBERS BUT NOT OUT-GROUP MEMBERS* (liberals read about liberals, "that's so horrible". liberals read about conservatives--they will turn empathy off)

Adult measures of empathy vs children

adult: more reliant on questionnaires (Can fill out surveys), more focus on SOCIAL vs perceptual role-taking (would find the mountain task ridiculous).

facets of personality traits: stability

age 30/40/50. Freshmen at Harvard's personality traits were measured freshman year and tracked until 90.

Do gorillas have TOM? comparative psych

cool to think gorillas have TOM, but need to be able to show.

Examples where they are similar and different (facets of empathy)

friend groups- mimicry and contagion. start speaking and acting similarly. Cognitive perspective skills is LITERALLY what things would look like from an alternative perspective versus emotional contagion

Measurements of individual empathy differences recap

none covered so far are useful for widespread use with adult populations. Most well-known is the THREE MOUNTAIN TASK. can be useful for young children, but beyond 3-4 it can't be used. Many scales are interesting, but methodological rigor is low (not well defined, conceptual murkiness, ability to connect w others what does that means)

comparative psychology

refers to the scientific study of the behavior and mental processes of non-human animals, especially as these relate to the phylogenetic history, adaptive significance, and development of behavior. *usually primates*. Do chimps have empathy in the way we are describing it? Are dynamics of empathy (and related constructs such as cooperation and TOM) uniquely human? Cool to think gorillas have TOM, but need to be able to show. Do animals empathize with their own species?

OCEAN/big 5 definitions: Extroversion

sociability, assertiveness, emotional expression. LOW SCORE: quiet, reserved, withdrawn. HIGH SCORE: outgoing, warm, seeks adventure. On a quest to ramp up activation, seek out more stimulation. Introverts looking to reduce activation (study in a quiet room) and move state down.

Previous attempts to measure individual differences in empathy: CHILDREN- behavioral

tend to be behavioral (not survey-based). can't ask children to fill out a survey, have to watch what they are doing versus a questionnaire. *PERCEPTUAL ROLE TAKING as an example*

Psychopathy: how do we define it?

terminology has changed a lot over the last 10 years. even clinicians admit it is confusing. sociopath is NO LONGER used. There are 10 different forms of personality disorders, including ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER--> includes psychopathy

Herbert Spencer vs McDougall on Empathy

*BOTH AGREED that empathy is necessary for group cooperation--interested in the psychology of group dynamics. BUT DIFFERED on NATURE vs NURTURE. SPENCER--> NURTURE. empathy is something to be learned and nurtured and it depends on your mentors. can be improved over time. MCDOUGALL --> NATURE. personality traits you are BORN with, empathy is something you are born with. There is little latitude to develop ^ vs lower empathy (fixed vs growth)

What age do people understand theory of mind?

*MOST PEOPLE OVER 3-4!!*

Subclassification of ASPD

*comes in all shapes and sizes*. 1. A persuasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, since age 15, as indicated by: a) failure to conform to social norms considering lawful behaviors (performing acts that are grounds for arrest) b) Deceitfulness, repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for pleasure or personal profit c) Impulsivity or failure to plan d) Irritability and aggressiveness e) Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others f) Constant irresponsibility, failure g) Lack of remorse 2) The individual is at LEAST 18 years old 3) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (PATTERN OF DISREGARD FOR AND VIOLATION OF OTHERS SINCE 15, AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD, AND NOT OCCURRING ONLY DURING SCHIZOPHRENIC/BIPOLAR EPISODES)

Children and TOM study-- actors and sadness

Adults, college students, 9 year olds, etc. Told participants: "you'll watch a video of someone pretending to be sad (an actor)." Then asked them "to what extent are they sad?" even though told that they were pretending. Adults say, "they're not sad, they're probably feeling a normal mood" 6 YEARS OLD AND YOUNGER SHOWED ERROR "they seem sad, I guess they're sad". THREE YEAR OLD: "they're sad", researcher says again that they are pretending but still says "sad". Around 2-3 years old, don't have a firm grasp on what it means to pretend. CHILDREN HAVE TROUBLE WITH TOM/ WHAT OTHERS ARE FEELING. (but really good acting--professional--can make adults have TOM failures.). BUT MOST PEOPLE OLDER THAN 3-4 HAVE A GOOD ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH FAKED EMOTIONS/UNDERTSAND TOM

Previous attempts to measure individual differences in empathy: ADULTS- accuracy measures

After interaction with another person, subject guesses how THAT person rates himself/herself. (marilyn and I are in an experiment. have a 10 minute conversation. experimenter asks, how do you think Marilyn would rate herself in that situation? Was she comfortable? Was she happy? Have to place yourself in the shoes of Marilyn.) VERY POPULAR IN ITS DAY, but MAJOR MEASURMENT PROBLEM--> AGREEMENT DOES NOT EQUAL ACCURACY! might be relying on stereotypes, and if two people agree on something, they could BOTH BE WRONG. not a measure of ACCURACY, just if the participants agree.

How did researchers test if it was the orientation of the researcher vs awareness of TOM that made the monkey reach?

Both faced away, but one had head TOWARDS chimp. *THE CHIMPS DID NOT PERFORM ABOVE CHANCE*

What are we talking about when we talk about "individual differences"?: facets of personality traits --> consistency

CONSISTENCY: if I score high in openness, do I show evidence of this in the... HOME, WORK, PUBLIC, PRIVATE? --> all has to be THE SAME across places.

Individual difference measures

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY AND PREDICTIVE VALIDITY. is your questionnaire measuring what you think it's measuring? (e.g., this is a scale measuring conscientiousness. is it actually? This is the issue of CONSTRUCT VALIDITY). Do scores on your measure predict behavior? (e.g., just because people say they score high on these measures doesn't necessarily mean that they will act that way). PREDICTIVE VALIDITY, does it actually play out?

Simon Baron-Cohen studies: third experiment

Can they appreciate what another person is THINKING? Sally and anne experiment-- false belief. "where should sally look?" points to where the marble REALLY is versus where sally thinks it is. Can't distinguish between their own beliefs and someone else's. CONCEPTUAL ROLE-TAKING, 75%-80% of autistic children FAILED. (non-autistic kids had no trouble at all and down's kids passed like normal kids--INDICATES that the source of the problem was not developmental delay, but being autistic).

Simon Baron-Cohen autism studies: First Experiment

Can they recognize themselves? Mirror self-recognition task. *MOST AUTISTIC CHILDREN DO HAVE A SENSE OF SELF* Recognize themselves in the mirror!! Was a theory that in autism you don't recognize yourself, but they recognized themselves in the mirror. (who do you see in the mirror? who do you see now (Simon))

An important aspect of theory of mind: do I understand what it means for the person NOT to be able to see me?

Children are remarkably good at this by the time they are TWO years old (and possibly as early as 12 months). GAZE FOLLOWING TASK: have a blindfolded person. Give a toy to someone else and the blindfolded person doesn't follow the toy/look at it. Ask the young child: why aren't they looking at it? (CHILD KNOWS)

Jean Piaget

Children's development of cognitive ability in role playing/perspective taking. "Draw the mountains how they would appear from the doll's view". Really young children would draw from THEIR perspective (9-10 months). Up until 1 or so, have trouble. THEN, all of a sudden, it becomes very easy.

Where we see TOM play out

Cognitive Perspective Taking (Dev Psych)-- typical development in children, mountain drawing task and "sally-anne" false beliefs test. Clinical Psych: atypical or other developmental trajectories. Autism, Psychopathy, and Narcissisim. Comparative psych: apes, monkeys, primates (compare to humans)

Psychopathy and empathy deficits: cognitive (attributive?) empathy and emotional empathy

Cognitive empathy: NO EVIDENCE OF TOM IMPAIRMENTS in individuals with psychopathy-- they are actually BETTER at TOM. Emotional empathy: psychopaths show REDUCED EMOTIONAL REACTIVITY TO EMOTIONS OF OTHERS, but this does not include ANGER. psychopaths are just as good as anyone else at recognizing and reacting to the anger of others. PSYCHOPATHY is all about EXPLOITING others. need to recognize if someone becomes angry when you are exploiting them.

What do researchers use as an operationalization of empathy?

Cognitive perspective taking skills. EASIER TO CODE, can code as correct or incorrect vs trying to code for presence of empathic motives.

OCEAN/big 5 definitions: Conscientiousness

Competence, self-discipline, thoughtfulness, goal-driven. LOW SCORE: impulsive, careless, disorganized. HIGH SCORE: hardworking, dependable, organized. (e.g. take this pill once in the morning and once at night)

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism *REWATCH LECTURE*

Conventional (common) way of thinking. Selfishness and selflessness--> two words, opposite meanings but sound alike. selflessness --> empathic motives --> other oriented --> selflessness (CIRCLE)--AYN RAND REJECTS THIS, everyone is selfish at SOME LEVEL, morally, we do things to make ourselves happy. Not so much whether people do things for self-gain, it's how they go about doing it. *interesting CAVEAT--> person who devotes all of their life to keeping their $ and building a castle is no better than someone who gives it to charity because they are both pursuing what makes them HAPPY in different ways.

Three Ability constraints

DHS! DIFFERENT --> the other is just too different (can you understand what it is like to be a starfish?). If your home base/your culture is different, there are challenges. HOW--> I would if I could, but I just don't know how. Empathy often requires the right tools (mental abilities) and in some cases, the perceiver doesn't have those tools and might not recognize what tools are needed--this is relevant to personality differences in the perceiver. Low empathy skills <--> high empathy differences. SITUATIONAL CONSTRAINTS--> the person is usually very empathic, but the person could have had a very long day and didn't have the cognitive energy to deal with it (quite literally, too sleepy). (medical school burnout)

Have you ever had the feeling that your pet could "tell what you were thinking?"

Dog does something bad and comes with its ears back. BEHAVIORIST (skinner) would say: in the past, dog ate sandwich, punished, associated that with punishment. Not related to empathy. LAW OF PARSIMONY EXPLANATION, has FEWER ASSUMPTIONS.

Law of Parsimony

Everything else being equal, if I am theorizing about specific results, you want to go with the more simple explanation. MORE SIMPLE IS BETTER. Non-parsimonious use many assumptions, so FEW ASSUMPTIONS are preferred. A lot of psychologists were swayed by Skinner for simplicity's sake.

Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE)

Examples: "it makes me sad to see a lonely stranger in a group", "some songs make me happy", "I become very involved when I watch a movie". A pretty good measure but with one major problem: the subscales are interesting but NOT WELL-DEFINED. Researchers give you a score on a smaller number of subscales: susceptibility to emotional contagion, tendency to be moved by others' positive emotional experiences, sympathetic tendency. WHAT DO THESE MEAN??

True or False? Psychopaths aren't capable of being empathic

FALSE. Can be empathic if it works to their advantage (e.g. cheating you for money). Human beings, they can turn it on/off

Empathy has no "downside"--it is always good to be empathic

FALSE. Therapists need emotional detachment from clients.

Povinelli hypothesis for chimp reaching

FRONTAL ASPECT> FACE> EYES. When one if frontal facing with eyes closed versus back facing with eyes open, most go for the front facing one. Eyes don't matter as much. STRONGEST RULE: *IF THE TRAINER'S FRONT BODY IS MOSTLY VISIBLE, REACH FOR HER* If neither trainer's front body is visible, chimps seem to use the "face" rule: reach for the trainer whose FACE is visible (regardless of if eyes are visible). IF NEITHER FRONT OR FACE IS VISIBLE, CHIMPS USE THE EYE RULE.

Wolfgang Kohler

Founder of gestalt movement in psychology. Understanding emotions is NOT the same as experientially sharing feelings (e.g. DIVORCE, can understand where they are coming from, but not internally understand feelings). *NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE FROM EINFUHLUNG* This is important for clinical psychologists.

Einfuhlung

German word meaning "to feel within" from which the word empathy is derived. Theodore Lipps, loosely translated as an instinctual force driving us towards INNER IMITATION. When we see another person do a movement, we show evidence of doing the same thing. Someone crying--you INCORPORATE THE FEELING OF SADNESS IN YOURSELF. Behavioral at a DEEPER level, really acknowledging and incorporating the idea. Someone leaning, you begin to lean too. *FEELING WHAT THEY ARE FEELING FROM WITHIN, INNER IMITATION*

Support for the big 5 model

Has excellent PREDICTIVE VALIDITY (predicts behavior well, hank is agreeable will act in agreeable way). People tend to be CONSISTENT (high on openness at 15, will be years later.) *WITH THE EXCEPTION OF OPENNESS*, these replicate well across cultures.

Previous attempts to measure individual differences in empathy: CHILDREN- De-centering tasks

Hold up a painting with three people in the painting. Tell children to tell THREE stories, each from the perspective of a different person in the picture. Scored by how coordinated the stories are with each other. (COGNITIVE + EMOTIONAL PERSPECTIVE TAKING). But scoring is an issue because SUBJECTIVE--how connected are these?

Facets of empathy: TOTAL

Mimicry (behavioral, baby mimicking parents), Cognitive perspective skills (viewing a mountain from a doll's perspective, ME vs HIM. Results can be CLEAR CUT because it is easy to study, can code as "correct" and incorrect".), Behavioral/emotional contagion (whatever another person is doing, you start doing too-- yawning, emotions). Theodore Lipps' Einfuhlung (you watch someone crying and you start crying too, LITERALLY, internal understanding. goes beyond mimicry because you EXPERIENCE INTERNALLY). UNDERSTANDING a person's experiences-- Wolfgang Kohler versus experiential sharing. In clinical psych, more important to UNDERSTAND. if patient is depressed, should you be depressed too? NO. SYMPATHY--often when the other person is experiencing misfortune, console them.

Where does empathy fit into the big 5?

NOT PART OF THE CLASSIFICATION.

The big FIVE

OCEAN/CANOE. Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism. Unfortunately, the "first" trait as part of this acronym is LEAST understood (openness)

Mark Davis and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index: BENEFITS OF IT

One of the most widely used/cited papers in psych. MCEPR! 1. Able to acknowledge the MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF EMPATHY (many facets) 2. Clear in its definitions (four subsets) 3. Easy to administer (takes 5 minutes to complete) 4. High in predictive validity (does what it is supposed to do, predicts future behavior) 5. Statistically reliable (items intercorrelated with each other, hang together)

OCEAN/big 5 definitions: Openness

Openness: imagination, feelings, actions, ideas. LOW SCORE: practical, conventional, and prefers routine. HIGH SCORE: curious, wide range of interests, independent.

Two different interpretations of successful performance on TOM tests (non-humans)

Optimistic interpretation: the participant has some sort of meaning/understanding of the mental state of the other More skeptical interpretation: No real TOM has been demonstrated. Learning simple and effective rules does not provide evidence of TOM *ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING PROVIDES A MORE PARSIMONIOUS ACCOUNT*

Study of emotional empathy and deficits in psychopaths

Participants were classified as low (L), medium (M), or high (H) evidence of psychopathy. Placed in an MRI scanner and asked to take a self-perspective or other-perspective while viewing visual stimuli depicting right hands and right feet of individuals in painful and non-painful situations (IMAGINE THEY HAPPEN TO YOU VS SOMEONE ELSE). Emotional empathy was measured by amygdala activation. when participants imagined it happened to them (self-perspective) their amygdala LIGHTS UP and becomes activated. When asked to imagine others, DOE S NOT LIGHT UP. Not the inability to imagine/register pain, because they can do it themselves, but the deficits emerge when they do it about others.

TOM experiment 1 with apes and movies

Primates watched a drama and their eye movement was tracked. Sipped juice from a straw that kept them still. A human shows an interest in a rock, the "ape" hides the rock under the box, and then the human leaves. After the human leaves, the ape hides the rock under the box to the right. WAS FIXATED ON THE ORIGINAL BOX (expecting the human to pick it up there). TOM or confused? might not be TOM because confused about it. *Non-Human Apes SEEM to understand* Trainer 2: observer. T1 dressed in black as an ape, puts rock under left box and T2 leaves room. T1 picks up rock and transfers to right box. T2 comes back, where will he look? Since we can't ask an orangutan, use EYE TRACKING. Since it looks at the left box, it indicates TOM SKILLS TO RESEARCHERS. SUPPOSEDLY ABLE TO PUT HIMSELF IN PERSPECTIVE OF T2.--but we can never ask for sure b/c can't ask chimps. small sample size also. also a confound if we used ASL chimps b/c of different levels of human interaction.

Previous attempts to measure individual differences in empathy: ADULTS- Hogan's empathy (EM) scale

SIMILAR perspective to Kohler (understanding). "The intellectual or imaginative apprehension of another's condition without ACTUALLY experiencing that person's feelings" Extremely popular for many years but major problems. STEP 1: "experts" (psychologists) are asked to imagine what personality/behavioral qualities a "highly empathic man" would have STEP 2: subjects take a "global personality test", if their scores match what is on the empathy template, then they are scored as EMPATHIC. (what traits would this person have, then take trial test, if match person is EMPATHIC) PROBLEMATIC: contingent on the fact that the psychologist has an understanding of what classifies as empathy

Do mirror neurons cause us to be empathic?

So called "mirror neurons"--real or bogus? Suppose you watch a video of another person doing an activity (e.g. eating an apple)--watching that activity activates that area in your brain. *WOULD THIS HOLD WITH CRYING/BEING HAPPY?* <-- important for empathy. if this is true, would be important, but many doubts. would tell us something really important about human behavior if true

Danny Povinelli's Research

Studies TOM in chimps. "There's no definitive answer to these paradigms". Basic idea: chimps (after minimal training with familiar experimenters) will spontaneously reach out for food, regardless of if the experimenter has food or not (dogs begging for food when you come home from work). Would the chimps still do this if the experimenter was clearly not able to see the chimp? One experimenter facing forwards, one backwards. Which experimenter will the chimp reach out to? (controlled for side bias, left vs right). did test trials prior to experiment, making sure chimp will reach out. coded "correct" if trainer that chimp should reach out to. some trials wearing blindfold, some with bucket over head. PERFORM BEST AT one with experimenter FACING BACKWARDS (reached towards the right one). Testing to see if the chimp can put itself in the perspective of the trainer. if the trainer is blindfolded, you shouldn't reach out to the trainer because SHE CAN'T SEE YOU. Performed AT CHANCE when trainer was facing forward, eyes closed, blindfolded.

Why do they call it a THEORY of mind?

We don't actually know for sure what they are thinking--it is hypothesized. Don't know if anne is in a good mood for SURE, have to guess based on what you see.

TOM tasks listed from easiest to most difficult

WTSFH!!! Understanding "wanting": realization that others have diverse DESIRES (potentially different than the self) and to get what they want, people act in different ways (PEOPLE HAVE DIFF DESIRES, Wanting lunch at the DUC, friend a vegetarian.) also the option to understand but not CARE. Understanding "thinking": understanding that others have diverse BELIEFS and that others' actions are based on what THEY think is going to happen (superstition, someone knocking on wood might think it leads them to a certain result). Understanding that "seeing leads to knowing": recognizing that others have different KNOWLEDGE ACCESS, and if they haven't seen something, they will need extra information to understand (e.g. poverty, don't really understand what it means to be impoverished unless you see it firsthand)--*CHILDREN DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS* Understanding false beliefs: becoming aware of the fact that others may have false beliefs that DIFFER FROM REALITY--well-known test of TOM, believe it is in one box even though it is in another. Understanding "hidden feelings": being aware that other people can hide their emotions, and can feel a DIFFERENT emotion from the one they display (I'm fine, body language doesn't say so) young children can be OVERLY LITERAL and not recognize these hidden feelings as well as people with autism.

Theory of Mind--what is it?

When we observe another person, we often make inferences about the other person's thought process-- what the world looks like from THEIR perspective. Making a best guess based on observable data, forming a THEORY (theory of mind), forming a working hypothesis on what the other person is experiencing-- "a best guess".

Thomas Hobbes

Yeah, people are selfish and THAT'S BAD. Don't expect another person to be nice to you unless there is something in it for them. Need government to step in to keep things civil. (GOVERNMENT NEEDED, PEOPLE SELFISH/BAD)

Adam Smith

Yeah, people are selfish, but that's NOT NECESSARILY BAD. A healthy economic system is one where people pursue their own self-interests, and usually things work out for the best without a need for government oversight. (NO NEED FOR GOVERNMENT INSIGHT, SELFISHNESS IS NATURAL)

Other species, aside from humans, aren't capable of being empathic-- T/F?

Yielded no clear answer, still an open question. Have to infer by the way that they act, chimps are about "chance"

What is it about facing backwards that is eliciting high rates of accuracy for the chimps?

if the trainer is facing away, they DON'T reach towards them. maybe the "front vs back" distinction is the one which primates are most familiar w in the real world. *THEY DO HAVE TOM FOR FRONT V BACK* Or maybe chimps have no real conception of seeing at all--maybe they were just responding to the general frontal orientation of the experimenter, something they do naturally. (NO TOM)

IRI subscale item 3: Personal distress (PD)

measures the "self-oriented feelings of personal anxiety and unease in interpersonal settings". YOU start to become sad yourself, taking on the emotions/resonating with other people. Scale is more interested in the negative. "In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill at ease". "I sometimes feel helpless when I'm in the middle of a very emotional situation". ISSUES: if you're a surgeon, can score LOW in personal distress. on the operating table, don't want doctor to be nervous. remove themselves from emotional experience. NOT NOT EMPATHIC! Just can set aside emotions.