Effect of emotional empathy on attribution of responsibility' David Aderman, Richard L. Archer, and Joe L Harris, Duke University
When an individual is judged responsible for an accident or crime, he may suddenly find himself deprived of fnends, freedom, and feelmgs of self-worth. Perhaps because the consequences of bemg blamed for a negative outcome can be so severe, considerable research attention has been focused on the vanables influencing attnbution of responsibihty. Though many of the pertinent studies have yielded contradictory and mconclusive results (cf Fishbem & A]zen, 1973), there is rehable evidence (e.g, Shaw & Sulzer, 1964, Sulzer & Burglass, 1968) that vanations m the situational context can alter the degree to which actors are held personally responsible for the occurrence of a vanety of outcomes, Buildmg on Heider's (1958) suggestion that personal responsibility attnbutions mcrease as attnbutions to the environment decrease, Shaw and Sulzer (1964) systematically vaned the relative contnbution of environmental and personal factors m five sets of short stones Each set was composed so as to correspond to a different one of Heider's five levels of developmental sophistication m responsibihty attnbution Thus, while the Level I stones merely associated the central characters with depicted effects, the higher level stories progressively mtroduced the additional considerations of commission (Level II), foreseeability (Level III), mtentionahty (Level IV), and justification (Level V) Shaw and Sulzer found, m support of Heider's focus on environmental influences, that adult subjects attnbuted mcreasmg responsibihty to the central characters at successive contextual Levels I-IV, and then reduced their attributions of personal responsibihty when, at Level V, the central characters confronted coercive environments Sulzer and Burglass (1968) suggested that patterns of re1 Thi5 research was supported by a grant from the Duke Umversity Research Council to the first author and was conducted while the second author was a National Science Foundation predoctoral fellow.
Empathy and attribution
157
sponsibihty attribution for negative outcomes are mfluenced not only by contextual levels but also by the attnbutor's abihty to empathize and by his willmgness to punish others for dieir misdeeds. They reasoned that whereas a highly empathic person would be able to put himself mto a given situation and "recognize the existence and importance of environmental determinants," a highly pumtive person would hkely "emphasize the end result, the imdesirable behavior itself, rather than the state of mmd or feelmgs of the actor " Consequently, they predicted that attributions of personal responsibihty to the central actors in 20 negative outcome short stories (four stones at each of five contextual levels) would vary inversely with scores on an empathy measure (the Kerr Diplomacy Test) and directly with scores on a measure of punitiveness (the Wang and Thurstone Attitude Toward the Punishment of Cnmmals Scale) Although a sample of college coeds failed to provide support for the expenmental predictions, data from a group of less homogeneous Air Force subjects did yield significant correlations The airmen's attribution of personal responsibility ratings were found to correlate negatively with their empathy scores (r = — 24) and positively with their punitiveness scores {r= 42). Because the empathy and pumtiveness scores were themselves strongly related (f = — 61), partial correlation coejfficients were calculated Although extractmg the effects of empathy did not significantly change the correlation between the pxmitiveness and attribution scores {r= 36), the correlation between the empathy and attnbution scores practically vanished (»"= — 03) when the effects of pumtiveness were removed To Sulzer and Burglass, the absence of a correlation between empathy and attnbution of responsibility when pumtiveness was removed mdicated either lack of vahdity m the Kerr Diplomacy Test or that "lmpunitiveness is the mam feature of empathy with regard to causal perception" They did not consider the possibihty that such weak results might be hmited to the particular definition of empathy which they had employed Whereas they had used empathy to denote an abihty to take another's point of view (cf. Dymond, 1950), others (Stotland, 1969, Aderman & Berkowitz, 1970, Clore & Jeffery, 1972) have defined empathy as a vicarious emotional response to the perceived or anticipated emotional expenence of another In hght of these diflFermg defi-
158
Aderman et al.
nitions, it could be the case that a measure tapping emotional empathy (rather than predictive accuracy) might prove to be strongly associated with attribution of responsibihty To check this possibihty, the present authors asked 40 male college students to complete a 24-item version of Mehrabian and Epstem's (1972) emotional empathy scale and to attribute responsibihty for negative outcomes to the central actors in 10 of the Sulzer and Burglass short stones (two stories at each of five contextual levels). The correlation between the subjects' scores on these two measures was found to be -+-27 (p < .10), indicatmg a rather weak but positive association between emotional empathy and attribution of responsibihty. Puzzled by this positive correlation, the present authors categonzed the emotional empathy items mto three subscales on the basis of whether they made reference to the subject bemg moved by another's (1) negative, (2) positive, or (3) unspecified emotional expenences,* and then calculated the correlation between the subjects' scores on each subscale and their scores on the attnbution of responsibility measure, removmg the effects of the other two subscales Whereas no significant partial correlation was found between scores on the attnbution of responsibihty measure and scores on either the positive (f = ".04) or imspecified (r = — 12) subscales, there was a significant partial correlation between the attnbution of responsibility and negative subscale scores (j" = +.33, p < . 0 5 ) . This positive association between placing emphasis on personal causality and bemg moved by others' negative emotional experiences suggested to the present authors that certam of the subjects (those who had indicated sympathy with others' suffenng) had reacted to the short stones from the pomt of view of the victims rather than the central actors It seemed plausible that these subjects had emphasized the central actors' responsibility because they had vicariously experienced the victims' suffenng. The present study was designed primarily to determine whether a heightened tendency to attribute personal responsibility for negative outcomes would be observed in subjects who had been induced to emotionally empathize with the plight of 2. A group of 15 undergraduates did the actual classifying, and they adiieved at least 75 percent agreement concracnmg the placemCTt of 22 of the 24 items I i two low-consensus items were not assigned to any subscale.
Empathy and attribution
159
innocent victims Emotional empathy was manipulated by means of variations in the role-playmg task subjects performed dunng a five-mmute wheelchair ride through the corridors of a xmiversity hospital^ Subjects who had been randomly assigned to the "nonvictim" condition role played that they were on dieir way to bemg discharged followmg a routme physical exammation, while the "innocent victim" subjects lmagmed that they had been paralyzed in an auto accident which had been caused by another driver nmnmg a red hght It was hypothesized that these "innocent victim" subjects subsequently would be more hkely than their "nonvictim" counterparts to hold the central actors personally responsible for the negative outcomes m the Sulzer and Burglass (1968) set of short stories The present experiment also sought to explore the attnbutional consequences of two additional role-playmg vanations on the auto accident theme. Thus, a third group of subjects role played a "responsible victim." While bemg wheeled through the hospital, they miagmed that they had caused the auto accident which had left them paralyzed In the fourth and final "responsible victim plus harmdoer" condition, subjects were asked to imagme that they not only had caused their own paralysis but also the death of a pedestrian No a pnon predictions were made concemmg the eflEect of either of these additional role-playmg experiences on the attnbution ratings. METHOD
Subjects The subjects were 48 male undergraduates from an mtroductory psychology pool Twelve subjects were randomly assigned to each of the four expenmental conditions All subjects were run individually Procedure Immediately after seating the subject m the expenmental room, the expenmenter asked him to fill out Wang and Thurstone's (1931) Attitude Toward the Punishment of Cnmmds Scale (College Form) Tbis measure of pumtiveness, which Sulzer and Burglass (1968) had found to be a good predictor of attnbution of responsibJity scores, was admimstered with the aim of reducmg the influence of error variance. 3 This proc^ure to manipulate emotiotuJ empathy was patterned after a method developed by Clore and Jeffeiy (197a).
160
Aderman et al
When the subject had finished filling out the Wang and Thurstone scale, the expenmenter made the following mtroductoiy remarks* I'm trying to make this expenment uniform for all subjects To keep my own mput at a minimum, I've prepared wntten mstructions for the next part of the expenment Please don't ask me any questions or make any cxjmments until we retum here This card will explain what we are about to do There were actually four different cards, each correspondmg to one of the role-playmg conditions of the study, and the expenmenter had randomly (and blmdly) selected the one which he gave to the subject From readmg the card, the subject leamed that he was gomg to be performing a role-playmg task while bemg pushed m a wheelchair In the nonvictim condition, the role-playmg instructions were to . imagme that you have been m the hospital for a routme physical exammation and are now on your way to be discharged Nothing was found to be wrong with you, but it is hospital pohcy to transport patients m wheelchairs untJ they leave the hospital In the innocent victim condition, the followmg role-playing instructions were given . . . imagme that you have been m a senous automobile acscident because another dnver ran a red light You swerved to avoid this other car as it illegally entered the mtersection and your car ran onto a sidewalk Your car smashed mto a telephone pole As a result of the lmpacrt, your spmal cord was partially severed, leaving the entire lower half of your body completely paralyzed It's important that you really try to imagme what it would be hke to be paralyzed while you are m the wheelchair In the responsible victim condition, the above mstruchons were utilized, but m altered form imagme that you have been involved m a senous automobile accident because you ran a red hght You swerved to avoid another car as it legally entered the mtereection and your car ran onto a sidewalk Your car smashed mto a telephone pole In tbe responsible victim plus harmdoer condition, tbere was a furtber alteration m tbe mstructions . . imagme tbat you bave been m a senous automobile accident because you ran a red bgbt. You swerved to avoid anotber car
Empathy and attribution
151
as it legally entered the mtersection and your car ran onto a sidewalk Your car first struck and killed a pedestrian and then smashed mto a telephone pole When the subject had finished readmg his instructions card, the experimenter silently escorted him to the nearby umversity hospital There, the subject was given a five-mmute prerouted wheelchair nde through some of the generally-busy corridors on the first fioor After returmng from the hospital, the subject was asked to fill out a modified version of the Nowhs (1965) Mood Adjective Check List (MACL) It was mtended that this mood measure, consistmg of four three-item factors, would tap the subject's affective reactions to his roleplaymg expenence The experimenter made certam that the subject understood that he was to rate his own feelings at the moment The written mstructions reiterated this pomt In respondmg to each item, the subject checked the extent to which the given adjective characterized his present mood on a 15-step scale rangmg from "defimtely apphes" to "defimtely does not apply " When the subject had finished fiUmg out the MACL, he was asked to make attnbution of responsibihty ratmgs m response to the Sulzer and Burglass (1968) set of 20 negative outcome short stones The experimenter's specific mstructions were to read each story and judge to what extent Person P is responsible for what happens in each mcident, and to what extent Others are responsible Others can refer to other people m the story, or to circumstances—anything other than Person P himself The stones, representing Heider's (1958) five levels, were repnnted m a random order Examples of stones at each level are given below P has a fnend who raped and severely beat a young girl. To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the girl bemg raped and beaten? (Level I) P was workmg on the air raid alarm system m a chemical plant He tned the switch and the horn emitted a loud blast A woman chemist who was worlang in the building was startled by the sudden noise and dropped a contamer of acid The acid splashed on her and she was hombly defaced To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the woman bemg defaced? (Level II) P was usmg dynamite to make a fishing pond on his farm next to a well-travelled highway After he placed the charge, he set
162
Aderman et al.
it off without lookmg to see if any cars were conung. A car contaimng a vacationmg family drove mto the demohtion area and they were all killed To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the family bemg kdled? (Level III) P was m the army and hated his superior oflBcer Once when the oflBcer ordered P to bring him coffee, P put poison m the cup The supenor officer died To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the officer bemg poisoned? (Level IV) When P stopped his car at a red hght, a stranger opened the nght door and climbed m, holdmg a gun on P The stranger ordered P to dnve to a certam place on an isolated street As an old man came out of a store and started to cross the street, the stranger raised his gun to Fs neck and ordered him to run over the old man P ran over the man and it killed him To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the old man bemg run over and killed? (Level V) After the subject had finished distnbutmg loo percentage pomts of total responsibihty between P and Others m each story, the experimenter asked several questions to detemune the subject's general reaction to the expenment Fmally, the experimenter mformed the subject of the purpose underlymg each step m the procedure and asked him not to reveal the nature of the procedure to anyone. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Affective Reactions The subjects' scores on each of the four MACL factors (fatigue, social affection, elation, sadness) were examined with respect to three planned comparisons (cf Hays, 1963) The first was between the nonvictim and innocent victim conditions, the second was between the innocent victun and responsible victim conditions; and the third pitted the two responsible victim conditions against each other. Only the first comparison revealed any significant differences. Specifically, it was found that the innocent victim subjects had rated the elation items (refreshed, lighthearted, pleased) less charactenstic of themselves (F = 5.i6, p < .03), and the sadness items (blue, sad, lonely) more characteristic of themselves ( F = 535, p < . o 3 ) than had the non-
Empathy and attribution
163
Victim subjects.* This tendency for subjects who empathize with undeserved sufiFermg to come to feel relatively unhappy has also been observed m other empathy experiments (cf. Aderman & Berkowitz, 1970, Aderman, 1972). Attribution of Responsibility Ratings Each subject's attribution of personal responsibility ratings were averaged so as to provide five contextual level scores as well as an overall score Each of the contextual level scores represented the mean percentage of responsibihty which the subj'ect attributed to the central actor across all 20 stories. Table 1 presents the unadjusted* experimental cell means for these scores. The means in table 1 were first analyzed in terms of the same planned comparisons performed on the mood data. The first comTable 1 Mean contextual level and overall scores on attnbution of responsibility measure for each role-playing condition. Contextual level condition
II
III
IV
V
Overall score
87 02 92 73 93 19
45 63 50 04 36 98
49 48 55 91 48 81
93 40
40 79
54.21
Nonvictim Innooant victim Responsible victim Responsible victim
746 4 48 8 25
31 98 41.29 29.58
77 25 9100 76 06
4-harmdoer
6 67
46 21
84 00
Note —Cell entries are mean percentages of total responsibility attributed to the central actors.
panson, pitting the nonvictim condition agamst the innocent victim condition, revealed that the innocent victim subjects had given significantly higher ratmgs of personal responsibility at Level III (F = 5.27, p < .03) and on the overall index (F = 4.01, P "^ -os)- These results provide support for the hypothesis that the experience of role pkymg an innocent victim would lead to more responsibihty being attnbuted to the central actors. It will be recalled that this hyjpothesis derived from the present author's 4 An additional comparison mdicated that the combmed subjects m the three paralysis conditions were, on the average, less elated (F = 620, p < 02) and more sad (F = 6.44, p < 02) than the subjects m the nonvictim condition 5 The covanance adjustmrait of the attnbution of responsibility ratmgs for the contribution of the pumtiven^s test scores did not result m any marked dianges in computed F values.
164
Aderman et al
efiForts to explam a positive correlation between scores on measures of emotional empathy and attnbution of responsibility. Though the present study did not specifically test whether sympathetically-oriented mdividuals tend to identify with the victuns m negative outcome short stones, the generally higher ratings of personal responsibihty m the innocent victim condition are certainly consistent with such a possibihty The second planned comparison, between the innocent victim and responsible victim conditions, revealed that the responsible victim subjects had given significantly lower ratmgs of personal responsibihty at Level III (F = 6.2i, p< 02), Level V (F = 4 48, p < .04), and on the overall index (F = 5.53, p < 03) It may be that the responsibihty variation led subjects to identify more strongly with the central actors, thus tempermg their personal responsibihty attributions The third planned comparison, between the two responsible victim conditions, revealed that the responsible victim subjects had also given somewhat lower ratings than their responsible victim plus harmdoer counterparts There was a significant difference at Level II (F = 4oi, p < 05) and an ahnost-significant difference on the overall index (F = 3 2o, p < 08) A possible mterpretation of these differences is that the harmdoer variation produced vicanous gmlt feehngs which, m tum, mtensified the subjects' attributions of responsibihty Whereas the planned comparisons mdicate that, m their respective role-playmg contexts, the responsibihty variations moderated and the harmdoer variation mtensified the ratings of personal responsibihty, the data m table 1 lend themselves to alternative interpretations of the effects of these mampulations As an inspection of the overall scores in the table reveals, the ratmgs m the responsible victim condition parallel those in the nonvictim condition, and the responsible victim plus harmdoer ratmgs closely correspond to those m the innocent victim condition. In order to examme these similanties between conditions more fully, a 4 (role-playmg condition) X 5 (contextual level) multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the attribution of responsibilty ratmgs. Not surpnsmgly, the strongest result was a sizable mam effect of contextual level (F = 460.19, p < .0001) The magmtude of this findmg, which Shaw and Sulzer (1964) and Sulzer and Burglass ( 1 ^ ) had previously obtained, was
Empathy and attribution
165
such that the ratmgs at each contextual level differed significantly from those at all other levels While the analysis did not reveal a significant mteraction, there was a borderline mam effect of role playmg condition (F = 2 54, p < 07) However, the only sigmficant differences between role playmg conditions were those which had been mdicated by the planned comparisons Moreover, when the role-playmg conditions were compared at each of the contextual levels, there were no sigmficant differences beyond those observed m conjunction with the planned comparisons The absence of any additional differences in attnbution ratmgs suggests, first of all, that the responsible victim condition might actually have been a second nonvictim condition It is conceivable that the responsible victim subjects perceived paralysis as a "just reward" (cf Lerner & Sunmons, 1966) for causing an auto accident and, thus, regarded the person they role played as a nonvictim Similarly, a case can also be made to the effect that the responsible victim plus harmdoer manipulation was a second innocent victim mampulation Smce the death of the pedestrian m the responsible victun plus harmdoer condition was an unanticipated consequence of an attempt to avoid harmmg others, the subjects m this condition may have considered the person they role-played to be an mnocent victim of an unforeseeable mishap. Of course, questions of how to adequately account for the effects of the responsibihty and harmdoer treatments and whether these two exploratory variations would produce similar effects if tested m the absence of background role-playmg circumstances can only be answered m future research Implications for Theory From a theoretical pomt of view, the present findings suggest that the vicarious expenence of a victim's phght (and perhaps the vicanous experience of harmdomg) tends to ovemde "just world" considerations. Whereas the just world hypothesis (Lerner & Simmons, 1966) predicts that observers vnH. downgrade an innocent victim (on account of their supposed need to beheve that people get what they deserve), the subjects m the innocent victim condition displayed compassion for the vmdeserved suffering m the short stories by attributmg a relatively high percentage of the responsibihty to the central actors.
166
Aderman et al.
It is interesting to note that results which reflect compassion for a nnsfortunate other have recently been obtained in two other expenments Aderman, Brehm and Katz (1974) foimd that observers who received empathy-inducing mstructions did not derogate an mnocent victim, and Chaikm and Darley (1973) reported that the victim of a severe accident was not derogated by subjects who anticipated becommg victims themselves In accordance with Shaver's (1970) defensive attribution hypothesis, Chaildn and Darley explamed that the subjects who were potential victims had refused to derogate the observed victim m order to avoid havmg to blame themselves should a similar fate befall them However, since Stotland and Dunn (1963) have demonstrated that perception of a common fate facilitates empathic responsiveness, a case can be made for mterpreting the Chaildn and Darley eflEect m terms of empathy, too On the other hand, a defensive attribution mterpretation of the present findi n g would not be very plausible. As Chaikm and Darley themselves admit, the threat-inducmg capability of stories about accidents that happened to other people is probably qmte low. Still, only additional research can definitively determme whether empathy or defensive attnbution affords the better explanation of a compassionate response to undeserved suffenng SUMMARY
Emotional empathy experiences were manipulated m an investigation of attnbutions of personal responsibihty Male college students were instructed to imagine themselves as nonvictims, innocent victims, responsible victims, or harmdoing responsible victims durmg a five-mmute wheelchair nde through the corridors of a hospital. After completing their role-playing assignment, the subjects were asked to rate each of 20 negative outcome short stories in terms of the central actor's personal responsibihty. As predicted, it was found tliat the subjects who had been induced to empathize with an iimocent victim's plight assigned more personal responsibility to the central actors than did their "nonvictim" counterparts While other planned comparisons indicated that, in their respective role-playmg contexts, the responsibility variation moderated and the harmdoer variation intensified personal attributions, additional analyses suggested alternative interpretations of the effects of these two treatments.
Empathy and attribution
167 RjEFERENCES
Adeiman, D Elation, depiession, and helping behavior Jourtud of Personaltty and Socitd Psychology, 1972, 24, 91-101 Adennan, D , & Berkowitz, L Observational set, empathy, and helpmg Joumal of Persorudity and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 141-148 Aderman, D , Brehm, S S, & Katz, L B Empathic observation of an mnocent victim The just world revisited. Joumal of Personahty and Social Psychology, 1974, «9J 342-347 Chaikin, A I , & Darley, J M Victrni or perpetrator? Defensive attnbution of responsibihty and the need for order and justice Joumal of Personaltty and Soctal Psychology, 1973, 25, 268-275 Clore, G L , & Jeffeiy, K M Emotional role playmg, attitude change, and attraction toward a disabled person Joumal of Personabty and Sociai Psychology, 1972, 23, 105-111 Dymond, R F Personahty and empathy Joumal of Consulting Psychology, 1950, 14, 343-350 Fishbem, M , & Ajzen, I Attnbubon of responsibihty A theorebcal note Joumal of ExpenmetOal Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 148-153 Hays, W. L. Statistics for psychologists New York Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963 Heider, F The psychology of mterpersonal relations New York Wiley, 1958 Lerner, M J , & Simmons, C Observer's reaction to the "mnocent vicbm" Compassion or rejection? Joumal of Personahty and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 203-210
Mehrabian, A , & Epstein, N A measure of emotional empathy Joumal of Personahty, 1972, 40, 525-543 Nowhs, V Research with the Mood Adjective Check List In S S Tompkms and C Izzard (Eds ), Affect, cognawn, and personality New York Sprmger, 1965 Shaver, K. C Defensive attnbution. EfFects of seventy and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an acadent Joumal of Personality and Soctal Psychology, 1970, 14, 101-113 Shaw, M E , & Sulzer, J L An empmcal test of Heider's levels of attnbution of responsibihty. Joumal of Abnormal and Socud Psychology, 1964, 69, 39-46. Stotland, E Exploratory investigations of empathy In L Berkowitz (Ed.), Atfvances in expenmental soctal psychology, 4. New York Academic Press, 1969 Stotland, E , & Dunn, R. E Empathy, self-esteem, and birth order Joumal of Abnormal and Soctal Psychology, 1963, 66, 532-544 Sulzer, J L , & Burglass, R. K Responsibihty attnbubon, empathy, and pumtiveness Journal of Personaltty, 1968, 36, 272-282 Wang, C. K. A , & Thurstone, L L The measurement of soctal attitudes Chicago Umversity of Chicago Press, 1931 Manuscript recewed April 22, 1974
When an individual is judged responsible for an accident or crime, he may suddenly find himself deprived of fnends, freedom, and feelmgs of self-worth. Perhaps because the consequences of bemg blamed for a negative outcome can be so severe, considerable research attention has been focused on the vanables influencing attnbution of responsibihty. Though many of the pertinent studies have yielded contradictory and mconclusive results (cf Fishbem & A]zen, 1973), there is rehable evidence (e.g, Shaw & Sulzer, 1964, Sulzer & Burglass, 1968) that vanations m the situational context can alter the degree to which actors are held personally responsible for the occurrence of a vanety of outcomes, Buildmg on Heider's (1958) suggestion that personal responsibility attnbutions mcrease as attnbutions to the environment decrease, Shaw and Sulzer (1964) systematically vaned the relative contnbution of environmental and personal factors m five sets of short stones Each set was composed so as to correspond to a different one of Heider's five levels of developmental sophistication m responsibihty attnbution Thus, while the Level I stones merely associated the central characters with depicted effects, the higher level stories progressively mtroduced the additional considerations of commission (Level II), foreseeability (Level III), mtentionahty (Level IV), and justification (Level V) Shaw and Sulzer found, m support of Heider's focus on environmental influences, that adult subjects attnbuted mcreasmg responsibihty to the central characters at successive contextual Levels I-IV, and then reduced their attributions of personal responsibihty when, at Level V, the central characters confronted coercive environments Sulzer and Burglass (1968) suggested that patterns of re1 Thi5 research was supported by a grant from the Duke Umversity Research Council to the first author and was conducted while the second author was a National Science Foundation predoctoral fellow.
Empathy and attribution
157
sponsibihty attribution for negative outcomes are mfluenced not only by contextual levels but also by the attnbutor's abihty to empathize and by his willmgness to punish others for dieir misdeeds. They reasoned that whereas a highly empathic person would be able to put himself mto a given situation and "recognize the existence and importance of environmental determinants," a highly pumtive person would hkely "emphasize the end result, the imdesirable behavior itself, rather than the state of mmd or feelmgs of the actor " Consequently, they predicted that attributions of personal responsibihty to the central actors in 20 negative outcome short stories (four stones at each of five contextual levels) would vary inversely with scores on an empathy measure (the Kerr Diplomacy Test) and directly with scores on a measure of punitiveness (the Wang and Thurstone Attitude Toward the Punishment of Cnmmals Scale) Although a sample of college coeds failed to provide support for the expenmental predictions, data from a group of less homogeneous Air Force subjects did yield significant correlations The airmen's attribution of personal responsibility ratings were found to correlate negatively with their empathy scores (r = — 24) and positively with their punitiveness scores {r= 42). Because the empathy and pumtiveness scores were themselves strongly related (f = — 61), partial correlation coejfficients were calculated Although extractmg the effects of empathy did not significantly change the correlation between the pxmitiveness and attribution scores {r= 36), the correlation between the empathy and attnbution scores practically vanished (»"= — 03) when the effects of pumtiveness were removed To Sulzer and Burglass, the absence of a correlation between empathy and attnbution of responsibility when pumtiveness was removed mdicated either lack of vahdity m the Kerr Diplomacy Test or that "lmpunitiveness is the mam feature of empathy with regard to causal perception" They did not consider the possibihty that such weak results might be hmited to the particular definition of empathy which they had employed Whereas they had used empathy to denote an abihty to take another's point of view (cf. Dymond, 1950), others (Stotland, 1969, Aderman & Berkowitz, 1970, Clore & Jeffery, 1972) have defined empathy as a vicarious emotional response to the perceived or anticipated emotional expenence of another In hght of these diflFermg defi-
158
Aderman et al.
nitions, it could be the case that a measure tapping emotional empathy (rather than predictive accuracy) might prove to be strongly associated with attribution of responsibihty To check this possibihty, the present authors asked 40 male college students to complete a 24-item version of Mehrabian and Epstem's (1972) emotional empathy scale and to attribute responsibihty for negative outcomes to the central actors in 10 of the Sulzer and Burglass short stones (two stories at each of five contextual levels). The correlation between the subjects' scores on these two measures was found to be -+-27 (p < .10), indicatmg a rather weak but positive association between emotional empathy and attribution of responsibihty. Puzzled by this positive correlation, the present authors categonzed the emotional empathy items mto three subscales on the basis of whether they made reference to the subject bemg moved by another's (1) negative, (2) positive, or (3) unspecified emotional expenences,* and then calculated the correlation between the subjects' scores on each subscale and their scores on the attnbution of responsibility measure, removmg the effects of the other two subscales Whereas no significant partial correlation was found between scores on the attnbution of responsibihty measure and scores on either the positive (f = ".04) or imspecified (r = — 12) subscales, there was a significant partial correlation between the attnbution of responsibility and negative subscale scores (j" = +.33, p < . 0 5 ) . This positive association between placing emphasis on personal causality and bemg moved by others' negative emotional experiences suggested to the present authors that certam of the subjects (those who had indicated sympathy with others' suffenng) had reacted to the short stones from the pomt of view of the victims rather than the central actors It seemed plausible that these subjects had emphasized the central actors' responsibility because they had vicariously experienced the victims' suffenng. The present study was designed primarily to determine whether a heightened tendency to attribute personal responsibility for negative outcomes would be observed in subjects who had been induced to emotionally empathize with the plight of 2. A group of 15 undergraduates did the actual classifying, and they adiieved at least 75 percent agreement concracnmg the placemCTt of 22 of the 24 items I i two low-consensus items were not assigned to any subscale.
Empathy and attribution
159
innocent victims Emotional empathy was manipulated by means of variations in the role-playmg task subjects performed dunng a five-mmute wheelchair ride through the corridors of a xmiversity hospital^ Subjects who had been randomly assigned to the "nonvictim" condition role played that they were on dieir way to bemg discharged followmg a routme physical exammation, while the "innocent victim" subjects lmagmed that they had been paralyzed in an auto accident which had been caused by another driver nmnmg a red hght It was hypothesized that these "innocent victim" subjects subsequently would be more hkely than their "nonvictim" counterparts to hold the central actors personally responsible for the negative outcomes m the Sulzer and Burglass (1968) set of short stories The present experiment also sought to explore the attnbutional consequences of two additional role-playmg vanations on the auto accident theme. Thus, a third group of subjects role played a "responsible victim." While bemg wheeled through the hospital, they miagmed that they had caused the auto accident which had left them paralyzed In the fourth and final "responsible victim plus harmdoer" condition, subjects were asked to imagme that they not only had caused their own paralysis but also the death of a pedestrian No a pnon predictions were made concemmg the eflEect of either of these additional role-playmg experiences on the attnbution ratings. METHOD
Subjects The subjects were 48 male undergraduates from an mtroductory psychology pool Twelve subjects were randomly assigned to each of the four expenmental conditions All subjects were run individually Procedure Immediately after seating the subject m the expenmental room, the expenmenter asked him to fill out Wang and Thurstone's (1931) Attitude Toward the Punishment of Cnmmds Scale (College Form) Tbis measure of pumtiveness, which Sulzer and Burglass (1968) had found to be a good predictor of attnbution of responsibJity scores, was admimstered with the aim of reducmg the influence of error variance. 3 This proc^ure to manipulate emotiotuJ empathy was patterned after a method developed by Clore and Jeffeiy (197a).
160
Aderman et al
When the subject had finished filling out the Wang and Thurstone scale, the expenmenter made the following mtroductoiy remarks* I'm trying to make this expenment uniform for all subjects To keep my own mput at a minimum, I've prepared wntten mstructions for the next part of the expenment Please don't ask me any questions or make any cxjmments until we retum here This card will explain what we are about to do There were actually four different cards, each correspondmg to one of the role-playmg conditions of the study, and the expenmenter had randomly (and blmdly) selected the one which he gave to the subject From readmg the card, the subject leamed that he was gomg to be performing a role-playmg task while bemg pushed m a wheelchair In the nonvictim condition, the role-playmg instructions were to . imagme that you have been m the hospital for a routme physical exammation and are now on your way to be discharged Nothing was found to be wrong with you, but it is hospital pohcy to transport patients m wheelchairs untJ they leave the hospital In the innocent victim condition, the followmg role-playing instructions were given . . . imagme that you have been m a senous automobile acscident because another dnver ran a red light You swerved to avoid this other car as it illegally entered the mtersection and your car ran onto a sidewalk Your car smashed mto a telephone pole As a result of the lmpacrt, your spmal cord was partially severed, leaving the entire lower half of your body completely paralyzed It's important that you really try to imagme what it would be hke to be paralyzed while you are m the wheelchair In the responsible victim condition, the above mstruchons were utilized, but m altered form imagme that you have been involved m a senous automobile accident because you ran a red hght You swerved to avoid another car as it legally entered the mtereection and your car ran onto a sidewalk Your car smashed mto a telephone pole In tbe responsible victim plus harmdoer condition, tbere was a furtber alteration m tbe mstructions . . imagme tbat you bave been m a senous automobile accident because you ran a red bgbt. You swerved to avoid anotber car
Empathy and attribution
151
as it legally entered the mtersection and your car ran onto a sidewalk Your car first struck and killed a pedestrian and then smashed mto a telephone pole When the subject had finished readmg his instructions card, the experimenter silently escorted him to the nearby umversity hospital There, the subject was given a five-mmute prerouted wheelchair nde through some of the generally-busy corridors on the first fioor After returmng from the hospital, the subject was asked to fill out a modified version of the Nowhs (1965) Mood Adjective Check List (MACL) It was mtended that this mood measure, consistmg of four three-item factors, would tap the subject's affective reactions to his roleplaymg expenence The experimenter made certam that the subject understood that he was to rate his own feelings at the moment The written mstructions reiterated this pomt In respondmg to each item, the subject checked the extent to which the given adjective characterized his present mood on a 15-step scale rangmg from "defimtely apphes" to "defimtely does not apply " When the subject had finished fiUmg out the MACL, he was asked to make attnbution of responsibihty ratmgs m response to the Sulzer and Burglass (1968) set of 20 negative outcome short stones The experimenter's specific mstructions were to read each story and judge to what extent Person P is responsible for what happens in each mcident, and to what extent Others are responsible Others can refer to other people m the story, or to circumstances—anything other than Person P himself The stones, representing Heider's (1958) five levels, were repnnted m a random order Examples of stones at each level are given below P has a fnend who raped and severely beat a young girl. To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the girl bemg raped and beaten? (Level I) P was workmg on the air raid alarm system m a chemical plant He tned the switch and the horn emitted a loud blast A woman chemist who was worlang in the building was startled by the sudden noise and dropped a contamer of acid The acid splashed on her and she was hombly defaced To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the woman bemg defaced? (Level II) P was usmg dynamite to make a fishing pond on his farm next to a well-travelled highway After he placed the charge, he set
162
Aderman et al.
it off without lookmg to see if any cars were conung. A car contaimng a vacationmg family drove mto the demohtion area and they were all killed To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the family bemg kdled? (Level III) P was m the army and hated his superior oflBcer Once when the oflBcer ordered P to bring him coffee, P put poison m the cup The supenor officer died To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the officer bemg poisoned? (Level IV) When P stopped his car at a red hght, a stranger opened the nght door and climbed m, holdmg a gun on P The stranger ordered P to dnve to a certam place on an isolated street As an old man came out of a store and started to cross the street, the stranger raised his gun to Fs neck and ordered him to run over the old man P ran over the man and it killed him To what extent are P and Others each responsible for the old man bemg run over and killed? (Level V) After the subject had finished distnbutmg loo percentage pomts of total responsibihty between P and Others m each story, the experimenter asked several questions to detemune the subject's general reaction to the expenment Fmally, the experimenter mformed the subject of the purpose underlymg each step m the procedure and asked him not to reveal the nature of the procedure to anyone. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Affective Reactions The subjects' scores on each of the four MACL factors (fatigue, social affection, elation, sadness) were examined with respect to three planned comparisons (cf Hays, 1963) The first was between the nonvictim and innocent victim conditions, the second was between the innocent victun and responsible victim conditions; and the third pitted the two responsible victim conditions against each other. Only the first comparison revealed any significant differences. Specifically, it was found that the innocent victim subjects had rated the elation items (refreshed, lighthearted, pleased) less charactenstic of themselves (F = 5.i6, p < .03), and the sadness items (blue, sad, lonely) more characteristic of themselves ( F = 535, p < . o 3 ) than had the non-
Empathy and attribution
163
Victim subjects.* This tendency for subjects who empathize with undeserved sufiFermg to come to feel relatively unhappy has also been observed m other empathy experiments (cf. Aderman & Berkowitz, 1970, Aderman, 1972). Attribution of Responsibility Ratings Each subject's attribution of personal responsibility ratings were averaged so as to provide five contextual level scores as well as an overall score Each of the contextual level scores represented the mean percentage of responsibihty which the subj'ect attributed to the central actor across all 20 stories. Table 1 presents the unadjusted* experimental cell means for these scores. The means in table 1 were first analyzed in terms of the same planned comparisons performed on the mood data. The first comTable 1 Mean contextual level and overall scores on attnbution of responsibility measure for each role-playing condition. Contextual level condition
II
III
IV
V
Overall score
87 02 92 73 93 19
45 63 50 04 36 98
49 48 55 91 48 81
93 40
40 79
54.21
Nonvictim Innooant victim Responsible victim Responsible victim
746 4 48 8 25
31 98 41.29 29.58
77 25 9100 76 06
4-harmdoer
6 67
46 21
84 00
Note —Cell entries are mean percentages of total responsibility attributed to the central actors.
panson, pitting the nonvictim condition agamst the innocent victim condition, revealed that the innocent victim subjects had given significantly higher ratmgs of personal responsibility at Level III (F = 5.27, p < .03) and on the overall index (F = 4.01, P "^ -os)- These results provide support for the hypothesis that the experience of role pkymg an innocent victim would lead to more responsibihty being attnbuted to the central actors. It will be recalled that this hyjpothesis derived from the present author's 4 An additional comparison mdicated that the combmed subjects m the three paralysis conditions were, on the average, less elated (F = 620, p < 02) and more sad (F = 6.44, p < 02) than the subjects m the nonvictim condition 5 The covanance adjustmrait of the attnbution of responsibility ratmgs for the contribution of the pumtiven^s test scores did not result m any marked dianges in computed F values.
164
Aderman et al
efiForts to explam a positive correlation between scores on measures of emotional empathy and attnbution of responsibility. Though the present study did not specifically test whether sympathetically-oriented mdividuals tend to identify with the victuns m negative outcome short stones, the generally higher ratings of personal responsibihty m the innocent victim condition are certainly consistent with such a possibihty The second planned comparison, between the innocent victim and responsible victim conditions, revealed that the responsible victim subjects had given significantly lower ratmgs of personal responsibihty at Level III (F = 6.2i, p< 02), Level V (F = 4 48, p < .04), and on the overall index (F = 5.53, p < 03) It may be that the responsibihty variation led subjects to identify more strongly with the central actors, thus tempermg their personal responsibihty attributions The third planned comparison, between the two responsible victim conditions, revealed that the responsible victim subjects had also given somewhat lower ratings than their responsible victim plus harmdoer counterparts There was a significant difference at Level II (F = 4oi, p < 05) and an ahnost-significant difference on the overall index (F = 3 2o, p < 08) A possible mterpretation of these differences is that the harmdoer variation produced vicanous gmlt feehngs which, m tum, mtensified the subjects' attributions of responsibihty Whereas the planned comparisons mdicate that, m their respective role-playmg contexts, the responsibihty variations moderated and the harmdoer variation mtensified the ratings of personal responsibihty, the data m table 1 lend themselves to alternative interpretations of the effects of these mampulations As an inspection of the overall scores in the table reveals, the ratmgs m the responsible victim condition parallel those in the nonvictim condition, and the responsible victim plus harmdoer ratmgs closely correspond to those m the innocent victim condition. In order to examme these similanties between conditions more fully, a 4 (role-playmg condition) X 5 (contextual level) multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the attribution of responsibilty ratmgs. Not surpnsmgly, the strongest result was a sizable mam effect of contextual level (F = 460.19, p < .0001) The magmtude of this findmg, which Shaw and Sulzer (1964) and Sulzer and Burglass ( 1 ^ ) had previously obtained, was
Empathy and attribution
165
such that the ratmgs at each contextual level differed significantly from those at all other levels While the analysis did not reveal a significant mteraction, there was a borderline mam effect of role playmg condition (F = 2 54, p < 07) However, the only sigmficant differences between role playmg conditions were those which had been mdicated by the planned comparisons Moreover, when the role-playmg conditions were compared at each of the contextual levels, there were no sigmficant differences beyond those observed m conjunction with the planned comparisons The absence of any additional differences in attnbution ratmgs suggests, first of all, that the responsible victim condition might actually have been a second nonvictim condition It is conceivable that the responsible victim subjects perceived paralysis as a "just reward" (cf Lerner & Sunmons, 1966) for causing an auto accident and, thus, regarded the person they role played as a nonvictim Similarly, a case can also be made to the effect that the responsible victim plus harmdoer manipulation was a second innocent victim mampulation Smce the death of the pedestrian m the responsible victun plus harmdoer condition was an unanticipated consequence of an attempt to avoid harmmg others, the subjects m this condition may have considered the person they role-played to be an mnocent victim of an unforeseeable mishap. Of course, questions of how to adequately account for the effects of the responsibihty and harmdoer treatments and whether these two exploratory variations would produce similar effects if tested m the absence of background role-playmg circumstances can only be answered m future research Implications for Theory From a theoretical pomt of view, the present findings suggest that the vicarious expenence of a victim's phght (and perhaps the vicanous experience of harmdomg) tends to ovemde "just world" considerations. Whereas the just world hypothesis (Lerner & Simmons, 1966) predicts that observers vnH. downgrade an innocent victim (on account of their supposed need to beheve that people get what they deserve), the subjects m the innocent victim condition displayed compassion for the vmdeserved suffering m the short stories by attributmg a relatively high percentage of the responsibihty to the central actors.
166
Aderman et al.
It is interesting to note that results which reflect compassion for a nnsfortunate other have recently been obtained in two other expenments Aderman, Brehm and Katz (1974) foimd that observers who received empathy-inducing mstructions did not derogate an mnocent victim, and Chaikm and Darley (1973) reported that the victim of a severe accident was not derogated by subjects who anticipated becommg victims themselves In accordance with Shaver's (1970) defensive attribution hypothesis, Chaildn and Darley explamed that the subjects who were potential victims had refused to derogate the observed victim m order to avoid havmg to blame themselves should a similar fate befall them However, since Stotland and Dunn (1963) have demonstrated that perception of a common fate facilitates empathic responsiveness, a case can be made for mterpreting the Chaildn and Darley eflEect m terms of empathy, too On the other hand, a defensive attribution mterpretation of the present findi n g would not be very plausible. As Chaikm and Darley themselves admit, the threat-inducmg capability of stories about accidents that happened to other people is probably qmte low. Still, only additional research can definitively determme whether empathy or defensive attnbution affords the better explanation of a compassionate response to undeserved suffenng SUMMARY
Emotional empathy experiences were manipulated m an investigation of attnbutions of personal responsibihty Male college students were instructed to imagine themselves as nonvictims, innocent victims, responsible victims, or harmdoing responsible victims durmg a five-mmute wheelchair nde through the corridors of a hospital. After completing their role-playing assignment, the subjects were asked to rate each of 20 negative outcome short stories in terms of the central actor's personal responsibihty. As predicted, it was found tliat the subjects who had been induced to empathize with an iimocent victim's plight assigned more personal responsibility to the central actors than did their "nonvictim" counterparts While other planned comparisons indicated that, in their respective role-playmg contexts, the responsibility variation moderated and the harmdoer variation intensified personal attributions, additional analyses suggested alternative interpretations of the effects of these two treatments.
Empathy and attribution
167 RjEFERENCES
Adeiman, D Elation, depiession, and helping behavior Jourtud of Personaltty and Socitd Psychology, 1972, 24, 91-101 Adennan, D , & Berkowitz, L Observational set, empathy, and helpmg Joumal of Persorudity and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 141-148 Aderman, D , Brehm, S S, & Katz, L B Empathic observation of an mnocent victim The just world revisited. Joumal of Personahty and Social Psychology, 1974, «9J 342-347 Chaikin, A I , & Darley, J M Victrni or perpetrator? Defensive attnbution of responsibihty and the need for order and justice Joumal of Personaltty and Soctal Psychology, 1973, 25, 268-275 Clore, G L , & Jeffeiy, K M Emotional role playmg, attitude change, and attraction toward a disabled person Joumal of Personabty and Sociai Psychology, 1972, 23, 105-111 Dymond, R F Personahty and empathy Joumal of Consulting Psychology, 1950, 14, 343-350 Fishbem, M , & Ajzen, I Attnbubon of responsibihty A theorebcal note Joumal of ExpenmetOal Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 148-153 Hays, W. L. Statistics for psychologists New York Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963 Heider, F The psychology of mterpersonal relations New York Wiley, 1958 Lerner, M J , & Simmons, C Observer's reaction to the "mnocent vicbm" Compassion or rejection? Joumal of Personahty and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 203-210
Mehrabian, A , & Epstein, N A measure of emotional empathy Joumal of Personahty, 1972, 40, 525-543 Nowhs, V Research with the Mood Adjective Check List In S S Tompkms and C Izzard (Eds ), Affect, cognawn, and personality New York Sprmger, 1965 Shaver, K. C Defensive attnbution. EfFects of seventy and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an acadent Joumal of Personality and Soctal Psychology, 1970, 14, 101-113 Shaw, M E , & Sulzer, J L An empmcal test of Heider's levels of attnbution of responsibihty. Joumal of Abnormal and Socud Psychology, 1964, 69, 39-46. Stotland, E Exploratory investigations of empathy In L Berkowitz (Ed.), Atfvances in expenmental soctal psychology, 4. New York Academic Press, 1969 Stotland, E , & Dunn, R. E Empathy, self-esteem, and birth order Joumal of Abnormal and Soctal Psychology, 1963, 66, 532-544 Sulzer, J L , & Burglass, R. K Responsibihty attnbubon, empathy, and pumtiveness Journal of Personaltty, 1968, 36, 272-282 Wang, C. K. A , & Thurstone, L L The measurement of soctal attitudes Chicago Umversity of Chicago Press, 1931 Manuscript recewed April 22, 1974
