mwmw‘v‘n‘k‘ _ a-" I uf. a \_ r. ““1" nUV‘. - .va .\ -.3 u r-_ r‘w‘ c-u |’\.§:\Ju\" .. my 5 I 4:: :4‘vv‘tr . “my-urn c I .35‘ “If: k\.mvt..auu.\ tr \4:?.7<.....' ‘l!§\::;1xifi ‘. u 3..”11' ." ‘3 I ‘.x.. 3. A u 3 "IN 3,; 7! r u 33.: $5-1m” ‘ Ir).- nuns r 3:33-11: “(ma-v9” ‘1; .r. 'x‘ - 53;; i\~nr~1- .. .7x:._-('.rv 1- us' luau-(«=1 - 1r .4 m 3 .3,“ 3w ma— 41—“! 3: J" - ,,3 as: .- _;. -m" ~_ 4 .4 '1“‘lf: firm» .. 3 mg. ._3 . 71:53»- Kiwi-W. _: u :1 n : A V -'. _,v; . ,{H.:.';.._.I.\‘ 1‘. r 3 - "M“. ,3... I . ~ ‘r' m 1" g-v . .«éry- ’ 'rr: .3”! 1"“ n . 553.." , . 3.. 3...,. . .. .. . :34. Y ' l i“! ,3 ""V I ‘I ., . ', , .- , 13:33.53. .3. . n: w!“ {3}; up." Ems Ill/IllIllIII/IIIIll/III/IIIIIII/I/ll/ll/lllllllillll This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Effects of Personal Norms and Responsibility Denial on Volunteering to Help. presented by Craig Jerome Oster has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. _ Psychology degree in Major professor 10-4-91 I)ate 0—7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBMRY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MAGICZ F3 MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution c:\ckc\dmdue.pm3—p.1 THE EFFECTS OF PERSONAL NORMS AND RESPONSIBILITY DENIAL ON VOLUNTEERING TO HELP BY Craig Jerome Oster A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1991 687’- 75% ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF PERSONAL NORMS AND RESPONSIBILITY DENIAL ON VOLUNTEERING TO HELP BY Craig Jerome Oster Batson and his associates have argued that the pattern of helping behavior that they discovered in their studies was caused primarily by differences in emotional states (empathy and personal distress) aroused in subjects who listened to a taped interview of a suffering student. In their studies, only subjects who experienced empathy while listening to the tape helped at a high level when they were in a condition in which it was easy to escape without helping. In contrast, subjects who experienced either personal distress or empathy helped at a high level when it was difficult to escape without helping. The current thesis consisted of two studies. The first study examined whether Toi and Batson’s (1982) empathy induction also affected cognitions that have been shown to be related to helping (Schwartz, 1977)--i.e., by inducing high personal norms and/or low responsibility denial. One half of the subjects listened to an audio tape of a suffering student, while the other half of the subjects listened to a control tape of a student talking about one of her hobbies. Results indicated that across listening conditions, there was no significant difference in levels of either personal norms or responsibility denial. Results also did not fully replicate Toi and Batson's (1982) emotional arousal inductions. Subjects in the empathy arousal condition did not report feeling significantly greater empathy than subjects in the distress condition. However, the personal distress arousal condition did generate marginally greater personal distress. Also, subjects who listened to the experimental tape had significantly greater empathy and personal distress than did subjects who listened to the control tape. The second study examined whether preexisting individual differences in personal norms and/or responsibility denial could, without any emotional arousal induction, generate the typical pattern of helping behavior that Batson and his colleagues demonstrated was a consequence of experiencing empathy or personal distress. This possibility was explored 'within a 2 (high and low personal norms) x 2 (high and low responsibility denial) x 2 (easy and difficult escape) factorial design. It was expected that all subjects would help at a high level in the difficult escape condition, whereas only subjects high personal norms and/or low responsibility denial would volunteer to help at a high level in the easy escape condition. The results showed that personal norms did yield the predicted pattern, while responsibility denial was not significantly related to helping. These findings were discussed in terms of their implications for understanding the moderators of helping behavior within the perspectives of Batson’s affect-based theory and Schwartz’s cognition-based theory. Thank you James David iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for the many people who have been supportive of me both professionally and personally during my first three years of graduate school. I am truly grateful for the guidance and support I have received from Professor Lawrence A. Messé. I have appreciated Larry's knowledge of theory, methodology, and statistics. His ability to focus on the most important aspects of the research problem has been helpful to me, and his commitment to high quality research has helped me create a scholarly thesis of which I am very proud. Furthermore, I am very grateful to him for making himself available to discuss important aspects of the research as it progressed. Larry helped me learn that making mistakes is human and is part of the research process. He also taught me the value of conducting research carefully. Finally, although Larry is serious about conducting scholarly research, his friendliness, patience, and sense of humor have been gifts to me. I would also like to thank Professor Norm Abeles for his support and willingness to be available to expedite my progress and completion of this thesis. iv In addition, I would also like to thank Professor Galen Bodenhausen for sharing his expertise in the area of Affect and Cognition. The readings he suggested were very helpful to my thinking about the research problem. I am also happy that Galen encouraged me to conduct the second study regardless of the results of the first study. The results of the second study were very interesting, and the study may not have been conducted if it were not for Galen's encouragement. Furthermore, I am appreciative of Professor C. Daniel Batson of the University of Kansas for sharing his experimental materials with me. Moreover, without help from undergraduate research assistants, this project would not have been possible. I was very fortunate to have the assistance of Rita Marshall, Paul Blatt, Kelly Patterson, Dana Krepp, and Laura Wagener. These students were incredibly professional and provided me with useful feedback while they worked on the project. Moreover, I am grateful to Jane Shipley, Nancy Hoglan, and Jim Noble who are local actors in Lansing; they helped create the audio tapes for this thesis research. I am thankful to Sharon Anderson, Suzy Pavik and Roger Halley from the psychology office for their support and encouragement. Furthermore, Steve Poulios graciously helped me find additional persons who would work on this project. Friends have been very important to my work in graduate school. Most prominent is my wonderful friend Jim Noble. V Jim volunteered to help develop a database and also entered data at lightening speed with remarkable accuracy. His encouragement was priceless when the work was very difficult or when I was discouraged. I also received a great deal of love and support from: Jennifer Foster, Claudia Mooney, Mabel Menadier, Elinor Decker, Kathie Pratt, Jean Herford, Arlene Kellogg, Alice Hansfield, Jim Nuttal, Phil Sharkey, Jennifer Foster, Max and Tomie Raines, Joan Penfield, Christina Kampfner, Leon Harris, Ruth Penner, Tom York, Ulyana Mayestranko, Alyce Harvey, Doug Austin, and Otto. My colleagues Eric Dammann, Sha Sha Camaj, Cheribeth Tan and Shirley Harris were also supportive. In addition, I would like to thank Norman Plew for sharing his Florida condominium--this allowed me to read some of my research articles on a sandy beach during Winter and Spring breaks. Mbreover, I would like to thank my grandmother for her assistance in helping me buy a decent computer. This has greatly aided me in my work. Furthermore, I am grateful to my parents for their love and support of my life goals. I also appreciate the love of my sisters Cathi and Christy. Finally, I would like to thank the students who served as subjects in the current study. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF TABLES. ...... . ......... ....... . ..... CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . .................. . 1 The Role of Empathy in Helping Behavior ................ .2 TheNatureofAltruism.................... .............. 3 Batson and Colleagues’ Basic Experimental DeSignOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0000000000 O 00000000000000 5 The EmpathyeAltruism Hypothesis..... ......... ...... ..... 7 The Role of Both Cognitive and Emotional Factors in Helping................................ ........ .9 Schwartz ' s Cognitive-Based Decision Making Model ....... 11 Personal Norms............. .......... .............12 Responsibility Denial............... .............. 16 Using Schwartz's Cognitive-Based Decision Making Model to Evaluate the Findings of Batson andAssociates . . . . . . . . . . ........ . ....... 20 Difficult Escape Condition ............. . ..... 23 Easy Escape Condition.. ......... .............24 CHAPTER 2 : INTRODUCTION TO STUDY ONE ....... . . . ........... . . 27 Designof StudyOne..... ........................... ....27 Hypotheses for Study One . . ......... . ................ . . . 28 CHAPTER 3 : METHOD FOR STUDY ONE . .............. . . ..... . . . . . . 31 Subjects. ...... . ..... . ............. . ................... 31 vii Procedure.................................. ............ 31 The Tapes.........................................32 Listening to the Bulletin Board Tape .............. 33 First Set of Dependent Measures . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . 34 Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire................ ....... . ........ 34 Bulletin Board Evaluation Form...............34 Manipulation of Listening Perspective.. ...... 35 Listening to the News from the Personal Side Tape....................................36 Second Set of Dependent Measures . . . . . . ............ 38 The News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form................ ............. .39 Responsibility Denial Scales ............... ..39 Personal Norms Questionnaire.................43 Debriefing....... .......................... ..45 CHAPTER4: RESULTS FORSTUDYONE...........................46 Factor Analysis of Emotional Response Questionnaire . . . . 46 Tests of Hypotheses....................................48 Analyses of Variance for News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form.................... .......... 54 Subjects ' Understanding of Content of Tape. . . . . . . . 54 Perception of Carol's Need ........................ 55 Attentiveness.....................................55 Subjects' Perception of how‘Worthwhile the News from the Personal Side Feature Was . . . . . . . . . . . 56 viii How Greatly Subjects were Emotionally Affected by the Interview with Carol ....... . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Subjects ' Rating of how Interesting the Interviewwith Carol Was . . . .................. 57 Likableness of Carol........................ ..... .57 Making News from the Personal Side a Regular Broadcast Feature .................... . ....... 57 CHAPTER 5 : DISCUSSION FOR STUDY ONE . . .................... . . 59 CHAPTER 6: INTRODUCTION TO STUDY TWO. . . ................. . . . 68 Design of Study Two . . ................................. . 68 Hypothesis for Study Two (Versions a, b, c, d, e). . . . . .69 CHAPTER 7 : METHOD FOR STUDY TWO ..................... . ..... . . 74 Subjects... ............................................ 74 Procedure. ....... . ..................................... 77 Carol’s Request for Help ........................ ..82 Debriefing.. ...................................... 84 Dependent Measure: Agreeing to Help Carol . . . . . . . . 84 Second Session. . . . . ............................... 85 CHAPTERB: RESULTSFORSTUDYTWO............... ............ 87 Factor Analysis for Emotional Communication Response Questionnaire ............................ 87 TestsoftheHypothesis................................88 The Relationship Between Empathy, Personal Norms Ease-of—Escape and Volunteering to Help. . . . . . . . . . . 94 Nonpredicted Findings Regarding Personal Distress and the Relationship Between Personal Distress Personal Norms and Volunteering to Help. . ......... 96 ix Analyses of Variance for News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form ...... ....99 Subjects ' Understanding of Content of Tape ...... . . 99 Perception of Carol’s Need. . . . . . . . .. ....... . ...... 99 Attentiveness. ........ .................... ........ 99 Subjects' Perception of how Worthwhile News from the Personal Side Feature was . . . . . . . . . . 101 How Much Subjects were Emotionally Affected by the Interviewwith Carol....................102 Subjects Rating of how Interesting the Interview with Carol was. ............................. 103 Likableness of Carol.............. ............... 103 Making News from the Personal Side a Regular Broadcast Feature ........ . . . . ............... 104 Sex Differences............... ....................... .109 CHAPTER 9 : DISCUSSION FOR STUDY TWO ..................... . . 111 CHAPTER 10 : GENERAL DISCUSSION. ......................... . . 134 APPENDICES.............. ..... ..................... ..142 Appendix A: Experimental Materials ................. . . 143 Appendix B: Consent Forms . . . . . ................... . . . . 161 Appendix C: Debriefing Materials . . . ................ . . 165 Appendix D: Tape Transcripts . . . ......... . . . . ........ . 168 Appendix E: Analyses of Variances ......... . . ...... . . . 174 Appendix F: Log-Linear Analysis .................... . . 205 LIST OF REFERENCES ................ . ....... . . . . . . . .......... 207 LIST OF TABLES Studv One 1. Empathy and Personal Distress Factors Derived from the Factor Analysis (Varimax Rotation) of the Ratings on Emotional Adjectives on The Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire................................50 2. Mean Empathy Scores for the Tape x Measurement Time Interaction......................................51 3. Mean Personal Distress Scores for the Tape x Measurement Time Interaction..........................51 4. Mean Personal Distress Scores for Listening Instructions xTime of Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 5. Mean Ratings of Concentrating on Listening to Information in the Broadcast for Sex x Listening Instructions Interaction..............................58 6. Mean Ratings of how Interesting the Broadcast was for TapexSexInteraction..... ....... 58 Studv Two 7. Empathy and Personal Distress Factors Derived from the Factor Analysis (varimax Rotation) of the Ratings on Emotional Adjectives on The Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire................................91 xi 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Number of Subjects who Volunteered to Help, Reflecting the Nonsignificant Escape x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms Interaction............................92 Number of Subjects who VOlunteered to Help, Reflecting the Nonsignificant Responsibility Denial x Escape Interaction...................................... ..... 93 Number of Subjects who VOlunteered to Help Reflecting the Significant Personal Norms x Escape Interaction. . .94 Mean Empathy Scores for the Personal Norms xMeasurement Time Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 97 Mean Personal Distress-1 Scores for the Personal Norms x Measurement Time Interaction. . . . . . . . . . ........ 98 Mean Personal Distress-2 Scores for the Personal Norms x Measurement Time Interaction ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Means for Concentrating on Listening to Information for Sex x Escape Interaction ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 Means for Concentrating on Listening to Information for Personal Norms x Escape x Sex Interaction. . . . . . . . 106 Female Mean Ratings of how Worthwhile the Broadcast was, for Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial Interaction in Easy-Escape Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Mean Emotionality Rating for Responsibility Denial x Sex Interaction......................................108 Mean Posttest Empathy Scores for Responsibility Denial x Sex Interaction ..... . ....................... 1 10 xii GENERAL INTRODUCTION Schwartz and his colleagues (Schwartz, 1967, 1968a, 1968b, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1977; Schwartz and Ben David, 1976; Schwartz and Clausen, 1970; Schwartz and Tessler, 1972) have shown that at least in some contexts, cognitive variables can moderate helping behavior. Batson and his associates (Coke et al., 1978; Batson, O’Quin, Fultz, Vanderplas, & Isen, 1978; Batson & Coke, 1981; Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley & Birch, 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982; Batson et al., 1983; Batson, Bolen, Cross & Neuringer-Benefiel, 1986; Batson et al., 1988; Batson et al., 1989) have shown that emotional variables, particularly feelings of empathy, also affect helping behavior. This study examined how two of the cognitive variables studied by Schwartz and his colleagues, namely personal norms and responsibility denial, are related to the pattern of helping behavior that Batson and his associates consistently have found when they have experimentally induced the emotional states of empathy and personal distress. 2 The Role of Empathy in Helping Behavior There is increasing evidence that emotional arousal, particularly empathic feelings, facilitates helping behavior (Coke et al., 1978; Hoffman, 1976; Krebs, 1975; Barnett et al., 1981; Diaz-Loving et al., 1981; Eisenberg-Berg & Mussen, 1978; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972; and Vinacke, 1980). In their literature review, Underwood and Mbore (1982) found that there was a reliable association between empathy and altruism that develops over time from childhood into adulthood. Empathy is generally conceived of as the ability to grasp the inner, emotional state of another person, as well as those factors that might have generated that state in her or him (Aronoff & Wilson, 1984). The experience of empathy involves an emotional response that is congruent with the observed well-being of another person in a particular situation. When associated with helping behavior, the externally aroused affect of empathy is what allows empathy to be judged as contributing to altruism (Elizur, 1985). Daniel Batson and his associates (e.g., Batson, Bolen, Cross & Neuringer-Benefiel, 1986; Batson Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley & Birch, 1981; Batson O’Quin, Fultz, Vanderplas, & Isen, 1978; Toi & Batson, 1982; Batson et al., 1988) have played a large role in investigating the link between empathy and helping behavior. This work has culminated in what Batson calls an empathy-based model of altruism. 3 seemed best to point out two related controversial aspects of it. And while the current study does not directly address either point, each has been important to the development of the literature on helping behavior; for this reason, the two issues are briefly summarized below. The Nature of Altruism First, Batson and his colleagues have suggested that subjects who experienced empathy in their experimental studies behaved altruistically without concern for rewards or punishments. Other researchers (e.g., Cialdini et al., 1981; Cialdini et al., 1987; Archer et al., 1981; Thompson et al., 1980; Dovidio, 1984) have argued that helping, as with all behavior, is ultimately hedonistic; and, these scientists have suggested alternative egoistic interpreta- tions for some or all of the results presented in support of the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson et al., 1988). Although Batson et a1. (1988) have attempted to provide some experimental evidence that challenged alternative egoistic hypotheses, these hypotheses merit further empirical testing before a conclusion can be drawn regarding their validity. Second, although most agree that altruism refers to prosocial behavior motivated by the ultimate goal of increasing another's welfare (Vinacke, 1980), there is disagreement regarding "...whether an act, to be called altruistic, must be devoid of any expectation of personal 4 gain by the actor" (Hoffman, 1977, p.306). Batson and his colleagues have suggested that there is "pure" altruism that is elicited by empathy and occurs with absolutely no expectation of reward or avoidance of punishment (e.g., Batson & Coke, 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982; Batson et al., 1983; Batson et al., 1988). Some researchers (e.g., Krebs, 1975; Schwartz, 1977) do not define altruism so narrowly. According to Schwartz (1977), altruistic motivation is an expression of internal values involving purposes or intentions to benefit another without concern for the network of material and social reinforcements. However, affirming one's values is tied to self-evaluation and, thus, is self rewarding; i.e., behaving altruistically gives the person a positive self-image, or is rewarding to her or his own value system (Schwartz & Howard, 1984). Thus, altruistic motivation produces action based on an individual’s sense of self-worth. According to Schwartz and Howard (1984): The choice to act on moral values despite nonmoral costs-what we have defined as altruistic behavior-is an assertion both of one’s self-determination and of what might be called one's competence as a moral actor. Thus behavioral affirmation of one's self-conception as a moral, concerned, social being can become a vehicle for demonstrating competence and self-determination. p.250. In this thesis, there is no evaluation of the relative merits of the definitions of altruism advocated in the 5 theories discussed above. Instead, volunteering to help among subjects in the current study will be referred to as "volunteering to help," without conveying any implications regarding whether the behavior is really altruistic or not. Batson and hi§iColleaque§LiBasic Experimental Design Batson and his colleagues' experiments have included several different variations of a basic design. In discussing their approach, I focus on the Toi and Batson (1982) experiment, since this is the study that I attempted to replicate and extend. Batson and his associates have advanced what they call the empathy-altruism hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that perceiving another person in need may create either personal distress or empathic concerns, two different emotional reactions that lead to two qualitatively distinct helping motivations (Batson and Coke, 1981). Many researchers (e.g., Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Batson & Coke, 1981; Batson et al., 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982; Batson et al., 1983; Batson et al., 1986; Davis, 1983; Schroeder et al., 1988; Batson et al., 1988; Batson et al., 1989) have used Stotland’s (1969) method for empirically generating empathy and personal distress. The procedure assumes that altering the perceptual set of persons witnessing others in need can differentially affect their level of empathy or personal distress. 5 theories discussed above. Instead, volunteering to help among subjects in the current study will be referred to as "volunteering to help," without conveying any implications regarding whether the behavior is really altruistic or not. Batson and his Colleagues' Basic Experimental Design Batson and his colleagues' experiments have included several different variations of a basic design. In discussing their approach, I focus on the Toi and Batson (1982) experiment, since this is the study that I attempted to replicate and extend. Batson and his associates have advanced what they call the empathy-altruism hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that perceiving another person in need may create either personal distress or empathic concerns, two different emotional reactions that lead to two qualitatively distinct helping motivations (Batson and Coke, 1981). Many researchers (e.g., Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Batson & Coke, 1981; Batson et al., 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982; Batson et al., 1983; Batson et al., 1986; Davis, 1983; Schroeder et al., 1988; Batson et al., 1988; Batson et al., 1989) have used Stotland's (1969) method for empirically generating empathy and personal distress. The procedure assumes that altering the perceptual set of persons witnessing others in need can differentially affect their level of empathy or personal distress. 6 One of Stotland's (1969) perceptual sets is called the "imagine-set." Subjects are induced to have this perceptual set by asking them to listen to a story of a person in distress and imagine that they are experiencing what the other person is experiencing. Toi and Batson (1982) suggested that the imagine-set leads subjects to take the perspective of the person in need. The other perceptual set is called the "observe-set." Subjects are induced to have this set by instructing them simply to attend to the facts in the same story. This set is expected to lead subjects to focus on their own personal distress, which is aroused by hearing the plight of the suffering person (Toi & Batson, 1982). In using this methodology, Toi and Batson (1982) exposed subjects to a recording of a suffering student who was in need of help. Half of the subjects were instructed to listen with the imagine-set and half were instructed to listen with the observe-set. After listening to the victim's story, subjects responded to an emotional check— list, which served as a manipulation check. This 28 item checklist contained some adjectives that reflect empathic concern (e.g., compassionate, sympathetic, moved) and other adjectives that reflect personal distress (e.g., grieved, upset, disturbed, alarmed). Batson and his associates have used several different versions of the emotional checklist. They consistently have found that the subjects in the ._-—— 7 imagine condition rate themselves higher on the items reflecting empathy, whereas subjects in the observe condition rate themselves higher on the items reflecting personal distress. After being induced to feel either empathy or personal distress, all subjects were then given an opportunity to help the person in need. Within this framework, half of the subjects were in an easy-to-escape situation. These subjects believed that they would not encounter the suffering person in the future; therefore, they could easily escape the situation without helping. The remaining subjects were put in a situation that made it difficult to leave without helping. These subjects believed that they would see the suffering victim on a weekly basis in their small introductory psychology discussion group. These manipulations resulted in a factorial design crossing two levels of the emotional arousal (i.e., empathy or personal distress) with two levels of cost for escaping without helping (i.e. easy vs. difficult escape) (Toi & Batson, 1982). The Empathy-Altruism vaothesis The empathy-altruism hypothesis predicts, across the four cells of the design, that there will be a one-versus- three helping pattern. Helping should be relatively low in the personal distress-easy escape cell and comparatively 8 high in the other three cells (Batson et al., 1983). This pattern has been found repeatedly in the studies of Batson and his associates' (e.g., Batson & Coke, 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982; Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Batson et al., 1981; Batson et al., 1983; Davis, 1983; Batson et al., 1986; Schroeder et al., 1988; Batson et al., 1988; Batson et al., 1989). Batson and Coke (1981) have argued that this pattern provides evidence for altruism: “Although the motivation cannot be inferred from any single behavioral response, it can be inferred from the pattern of helping responses" (p.177). They reasoned that subjects who experienced empathy were altruistically motivated, since they appeared to have as their primary goal, not the reduction of their own personal distress, but rather the reduction of the distress of the person in need. Helping alone, but not escape, could achieve this goal (Batson & Coke, 1981). Many studies have shown that when empathy is high, helping remains high, even if the empathetically aroused individual can easily escape further exposure to the suffering victim (Batson et al., 1981; Toi & Batson, 1982; Batson et al., 1983; Fultz et al., 1986; Batson et al., 1988).1 1However, there is one circumstance under which it has been shown that high.empathy subjects will escape. They do so when very high costs involved in helping leads to self-con- cern, which overrides the tendency for feelings of empathy to evoke altruism (Batson, 1983). 9 In contrast, in the context of Batson's model, when personal distress leads to helping, it tends to be based on self-concern for alleviating the distress felt by seeing another person suffer (Batson and Coke, 1981). Batson and his associates have suggested that subjects who experienced personal distress were egoistically motivated, since they did not help when escape was easy but helped when escape was difficult. Such a pattern suggests that these subjects acted primarily to alleviate their own distress: In short, they escaped when it was easy to do so, but helped when it was costly or embarrassing not to. If escape is easier than helping, egoistically motivated subjects will choose escape. Batson et a1. (1988) stated, "The likelihood that the egoistically motivated bystander will choose to help should, therefore, be a direct function of the costs associated with choosing to escape" (p.292). One cost of escaping from a situation involves level of physical effort. Other costs included possible feelings of shame and guilt expected as a result of knowing that the person in need still suffers. The Role of Both Cognitive and Emotional Factors in Helping A number of researchers have examined the role of cognitive factors in determining helping behavior (Latané & Darley, 1970; Snyder, 1974; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Pomazal 10 & Jaccard, 1976; Schwartz & Howard, 1984; Staub, 1984). Although Batson and his colleagues have acknowledged that cognitive processes were involved in the perspective taking that induced subjects to empathize with the suffering subject, their explanation is affectively based and does not consider the direct influence of cognitive factors on helping behavior. To illustrate, Toi and Batson (1982) explain that researchers who developed the empathy-altruism hypothesis (e.g., Hoffman, 1975; Krebs, 1975; Batson, Darley, & Coke, 1978; Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978) "...have suggested that the motivation to help is altruistic to the degree that it is evoked by an empathic emotional response to the victim's distress..." (p.282). In a similar fashion, they conceive of egoistic motivation as primarily motivated by the emotional state of personal distress. However, there is evidence that empathy does not operate in isolation from cognitive variables (Vinacke, 1980). Many researchers have examined the causal relationship between affect and cognition (for a thorough review of this relationship, see Fiske and Taylor, 1991). Although many studies have examined these two categories of psychological processes in relationship to helping, to date none has specifically studied the relationship between affects such as empathy and cognitions such as personal norms and responsibility denial, thereby investigating how both, together, might affect helping behavior. Therefore, the 11 current study extends past work by examining whether phenomena tied to affective inductions have cognitive moderators. Schwartz's Cognitive-Based Decision Making Mpdel In describing their overall perspective, Schwartz and Howard (1984) explained, "...we view people as information seekers and processors who actively pursue goals in an ongoing stream of behavior" (p.230). In their perspective, people compare the potential outcomes with their values or preferences and expectations (Schwartz and Howard, 1984). Schwartz and Howard (1984) have suggested that values cover a broad range of a person's goals, including social goals (e.g., esteem), material goals (e.g., a comfortable life), psychological goals (e.g., competence), and moral goals (e.g., compassion). Individual values are seen as relatively enduring beliefs. Such beliefs prescribe general manners of conduct or end states of being which are more desirable than their opposites (Rokeach, 1973). According to Schwartz (1967, 1968a, 1968b, 1974, 1977), in order to understand altruism, it is essential to understand personal values, personal norms, and other variables such as responsibility denial that can be important mediators of helping. Schwartz (1977), based upon his empirical findings, explains that: 12 Altruism--in contrast to the more inclusive "prosocial behavior"--implies purposes based in the person's value system. Hence altruism cannot be understood fully in the absence of studies which consider individual differences in values and norms as they interact with situational variables. p.275. Not only has Schwartz (1977) suggested that these cognitive variables need to be studied in relationship to situational variables, he has also recommended that they be studied in relationship to emotional arousal. When examining helping behavior, Schwartz states that it is important to consider explanations that focus on emotional arousal, explanations that focus on activation of social expectations, and explanations that focus on self- expectations; he has proposed that emotional arousal and activation of personal norms are not mutually exclusive explanations of altruism: "The processes they [the three forms of explanations mentioned above] postulate may occur simultaneously, jointly determining the occurrence and nature of prosocial behavior" (Schwartz, 1977, p.223). However, despite his interest in the relationship between emotional arousal and his cognitive factors, Schwartz has not studied these two sets of variables in relationship to each other. Personal NormsA Schwartz and Howard (1984) state that from a profile of unique individual moral values, people produce personal norms (self-expectations) that express feelings of moral obligation toward specific actions. 13 Persons utilize personal norms to assess their acts in terms of their moral worth to the self (Schwartz & Howard, 1984). There is empirical support for this relationship between values and personal norms (see Schwartz & Howard, 1984). Schwartz (1977) explains that alternative actions, evaluated simultaneously, will produce different levels of obligation; the more importance personal norms and values have for one’s self-evaluation, the stronger will be the feelings of obligation. This information processing occurs very quickly and is not necessarily conscious (Schwartz, 1977). In Schwartz’s view, personal norms influence behavior through self-sanctioning and self-evaluation. The nature and intensity of feeling are influenced by the magnitude and direction of the difference a person anticipates between her or his ideal internalized norm or value and the expected results of an action. Anticipation of, or actual conformity to, feelings of moral obligation leads to positive self- evaluations such as pride, improved self-esteem, and security. In contrast, personal norms also include an emotional component involving anticipatory feelings of self- dissatisfaction such as guilt, loss of self-esteem, and self-deprecation for not conforming to feelings of moral obligation (Schwartz & Howard, 1984). 14 Because personal norms are generated in the situation from an underlying value structure, premeasured personal norms predict ensuing behavior well only if the person's relevant underlying values are stable (Schwartz, 1977). Unstable underlying values may change between the time of the first measurement of personal norms and the time of the generation of personal norms that influence behavior in the situation of behavioral choice. Therefore, unstable relevant values may lead to a situation in which the premeasured personal norms and the personal norms operative in the situation are likely to be different (Schwartz & Howard, 1984). However, when values are relatively stable, self-reports of self-attributed personal norms have proven to be successful predictors of helping behavior. In addition, other researchers have also showed that there is a reliable relationship between self-attributed helping characteristics and helping behavior. To illustrate, Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) have shown that there is a high degree of correspondence between self-attributed motives and consequent behavior when both are closely matched on specificity and are assessed within a short time of one another. In short, although specific personal norms evolve from experience and are not always stable cognitive structures, they do show some stability over short periods of time and can function successfully as predictors of helping behavior. 15 In order to understand the concept of personal norms, it is useful to evaluate the relationship of these cognitions to social norms. Social norms are anchored in social groups, are perceived to be shared by members of a group, and are associated with social sanctions. Although there often is some overlap between personal norms held by individuals and prevailing social norms, Schwartz and Howard (1984) have demonstrated that personal norms can be operationalized so as to distinguish them from the related concepts of social norms and attitudes. Personal norms typically vary from one individual to another, are anchored in the self, and are tied to self-concept. Personal norms are an intrinsic source of motivation and are situation- specific conceptions of agreeable outcomes. However, social norms may become personal norms. According to Schwartz and Howard (1984), "When people repeatedly encounter the same situations, social norms may be internalized and become enduring standards that function as scripts retrievable from memory" (p. 247-248). Furthermore, personal norms have been shown to be better predictors of helping behavior than social norms (Schwartz, 1977). In addition, personal norms are better predictors of behavior than are values; this disparity in the link between these two related cognitions and helping most likely occurs because conceptions of preferred or ideal conditions taken from past experience--the experiential 16 bases for values--infrequently, if ever, fit current conceptions exactly (Schwartz, 1977). Responsibility Denial. A number of researchers also have examined the function of denying responsibility for helping (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975; Latané and Darley, 1970). Even with appropriate empathic arousal and appropriate personal norms, a person still must assume responsibility for acting in order for these variables to be expressed in overt action. When there is conflict regarding helping another person, denial of one’s obligation to alleviate this person’s need can help reduce decisional conflict. Sometimes people deny their responsibility to conform to either individual moral or social obligations. They may claim that under certain circumstances, personal or social norms do not reasonably apply. Denial or rejecting accountability for action may be justified by extenuating circumstances, such as overwhelming outside pressure, job requirements, illness, provocation, and so forth (Schwartz & Howard, 1984). Denial allows the person to run through a portion of the decision-making process regarding helping and create a new definition of the situation in which personal norms cease to function as an appropriate basis for self evaluation (Schwartz, 1968a). In Schwartz's model, any of several forms of denial may neutralize the impact of 17 personal norms on behavior (Schwartz & Howard, 1984) but the present study only examines the role of responsibility denial. Responsibility denial, which has been measured by Schwartz's Responsibility Denial Scale, is the tendency to accept rationales for denying the responsibility of the consequences of one’s behavior (e.g., Schwartz, 1968a, 1968b; Schwartz and Clausen, 1970; Schwartz, 1974; Schwartz and Ben David, 1976). Stated positively, responsibility denial measures the degree to which a person ascribes responsibility for his acts to himself, rather than to any other origin outside the self. Schwartz (1977) has referred to responsibility denial as reflecting "...the likelihood of deactivating or neutralizing feelings of obligation in advance of action..." (p.230). Using the Responsibility Denial Scale, several studies have found that personal norms correlate significantly with altruistic behavior among people who tend not to deny responsibility. The correlation between personal norms and altruistic behavior is near zero among people high in responsibility denial (Schwartz & Howard, 1984). Thus, although a person may have strong personal norms to help, if she or he has a trait of high responsibility denial, he or she would be less likely to act on these personal norms. Although Schwartz’s research has usually focused on how responsibility denial functions as a modifier of the impact 18 of personal norms and situational variables in helping (e.g., Schwartz & Clausen, 1970; Schwartz, 1968b), Schwartz (1974) also showed that responsibility denial alone accounted for almost 23% of the variance in volunteering to help. He showed that responsibility denial had a reasonably strong correlation (p = .48) with volunteering after one year, a remarkably robust relationship between a behavior and a general disposition (Schwartz, 1974). In addition, there was a .18 correlation between responsibility denial and helping reactions in an emergency (Schwartz & Clausen, 1970) and .28 in everyday peer contacts (Schwartz, 1968b). Schwartz proposes that individual differences in responsibility denial add to, and may interact with, situational conditions in influencing the sense of responsibility to relieve need (Schwartz and Ben David, 1976). Responsibility denial may have a particularly strong impact in situations where there are many rationales for denying personal responsibility to help and such rationales are admissible (Schwartz, 1974): persons high on responsibility denial are particularly vulnerable to influence by situational variations that provide bases for denying responsibility; those low on responsibility denial are not (Schwartz and Clausen, 1970). However, the trait of responsibility denial does not seem to play an important role when situational characteristics discourage subjects from denying responsibility. For example, Schwartz (1974) 19 has suggested that responsibility denial seems to have less direct influence when there are circumstances such as an emergency, when others are likely to sanction non-helping behavior regardless of the actor's denial of responsibility. There are many examples in the literature of how situations that encourage subjects to either accept or reject responsibility influence behavior. Milgram (1965), for example, in his classic studies of obedience to authority, concluded that situational characteristics allowed subjects to ascribe responsibility for their antisocial actions (inflicting serious pain upon a supposed victim) away from themselves and onto the experimenter. To illustrate further, Tilker (1970) found that when the responsibility of the experimenter was increased, subjects decreased personal responsibility. Tilker also demonstrated that when the responsibility of the experimenter was decreased and the responsibility of the subject was increased, subjects obeyed less; it was hard for subjects to deny responsibility when they were made responsible. Similarly, Lerner and Matthews (1967) found that more help was offered in conditions in which denying responsibility for what would happen to peers was more difficult. Furthermore, when such socially mediated costs are substantial and people are denied the chance for intrinsic, moral satisfaction from helping, the whole process of personal norm activation may be short-circuited as 20 irrelevant to reaching a decision. Under these circumstances, people will not be motivated to help by their personal norms even though they cannot deny responsibility. In short, direct appeals for help which emphasize social obligation make responsiveness contingent mainly upon social sanctions and not responsibility denial and/or personal norms (Schwartz, 1977). Direct appeals for help which emphasize social obligation and make it difficult to deny responsibility also probably raise concerns about impression management. A number of researchers have noted the importance of impression management in social psychology studies (Tedeschi & Riess, 1981; Page, 1981; Goffman, 1959; Schneider, 1981; Richardson and Cialdini, 1981). Tedeschi & Riess (1981) provide a simple definition of impression management. They state, "Impression management consists of any behavior by a person that has the purpose of controlling or manipulating the attributions and impressions formed of that person by others" (p.3). Page (1981) stresses the importance of acknowledging the intentional and active nature of persons as they manage impressions and play roles in social situations such as social psychology experiments. Using Schwartz's Cognitive-Based Decision Making Model to Evaluate the Findings of Batson and his Associates It is conceivable that some of the procedures that 21 Batson and his associates have used to test the empathy- altruism hypothesis affected factors other than empathy. Thus, the apparent positive relations between prosocial behavior and some of the affective indices could partly have been caused by processes other than empathy. However, the results of several empathy manipulation checks, overall, support the idea that the manipulations did moderate empathic and distress reactions (e.g., Krebs, 1975; Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978; Batson et al., 1981; Fultz et al., 1982). Nonetheless, even though empathy may have been successfully induced, it still could be that the induction technique also stimulated cognitive states that, in turn, contributed to the helping pattern found in the tests of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. For this reason, the first study of this thesis examined the possibility that personal norms and responsibility denial are also stimulated by the emotional arousal induction technique. Although these factors have been considered as cognitive personality traits by Schwartz (1977), there is a basis in the personality and social psychology literature for treating many personal variables as both traits and states. For example, Spielberger (1966, 1971) has studied anxiety as both a trait and as a state. On the one hand, he used the concept of Trait-Anxiety to refer to a person’s dispositional tendency to be anxious; it has been shown that 22 some individuals are consistently more anxious than others. On the other hand, he used the concept of State-Anxiety to refer to arousal of the autonomic nervous system and simultaneous reports of subjective distress and tension (Carson, 1969). .A very frightening experience could invoke State-Anxiety in most persons, including persons who tend not to be anxious in general, as well in those who characteristically tend to be "nervous." As stated above, responsibility denial has been shown to moderate the relationship between personal norms and helping behavior (Schwartz, 1977). Given the evidence that responsibility denial and personal norms function like traits, it is reasonable to explore if they may also function as states. I speculated that Batson and his associates' Imagine condition not only aroused empathy but also induced a cognitive state involving high personal norms and/or low responsibility denial. I speculated as well that their Observe condition, which involves subjects listening objectively to information about a victim in need, not only stimulated personal distress but also induced a cognitive state of high responsibility denial and/or low personal norms. In examining how the above cognitive states, if induced, may have influenced the behavior of subjects in Batson and his associates' experiments, the Difficult Escape 23 condition is considered first, followed by the Easy Escape condition. Difficult Escape Condition. I propose that Toi and Batson's (1982) Difficult Escape condition functioned as a situational constraint that made it difficult for subjects not to help.2 Considerations of impression management and socially mediated costs probably became primary and not only overrode the influence of responsibility denial and personal norms--as was discussed above--but probably also masked the effect of empathy, and personal distress.3 In the Difficult Escape condition, the appeal for help involved not only a letter from the professor, but also a letter from Carol (the victim) telling the subject that she or he would see her--with two broken legs--in the class discussion group which met each week. In addition, the subject believed that she or he was the only person from that group whom Carol had asked for help. If no help was offered, the subject realistically expected to continue seeing this suffering person and may have considered that this continued exposure would function as an enduring reminder that the subject did not volunteer to help her. 2The current study did not show how this situational constraint functioned but merely suggests that there is good reason to believe that it did exist and was operative. 3The current study did not examine the extent to which volunteering to help in the empathy-difficult escape condition resulted from impression management or the extent to which ‘volunteering to help resulted from levels of empathy, personal norms or responsibility denial. 24 Thus, helping may have been an exercise in impression management: the subject may have decided to help in order to prevent others, and him or herself, from having an image of the subject as a non-caring person; by helping, he or she could see him or herself, and be seen by others, as a helpful and caring person. Easv Escape Condition. In contrast, in Toi and Batson’s (1982) Easy Escape condition, the subject read Carol's request but did not expect to see Carol again. Thus, the subject was not in a situation where social obligation was as salient. He or she did not expect to ever have to meet Carol and therefore there was no need to help as a means of impression management. Therefore, a subject in the easy escape condition was more likely to be motivated by his or her levels of personal norms, responsibility denial, and empathy. In his discussion of personal norms and responsibility denial, Schwartz (1977) states: "...Emphasis on the need of the victim...activates personal norms and fosters responses based upon feelings of moral obligation (p.269)." I suspected that because of the listening instructions for the Personal Distress condition, subjects probably did not pay attention to the inner experience or needs of the suffering person. These subjects were in an emotional state of personal distress and were probably more focused on their own needs than on those of the suffering person in need. 25 With their self-focus, such subjects were likely to be rather inattentive to any personal norms that they might have had to help another; in other words, they might have experienced little intrinsic motivation to help. Instead, they were likely to feel more concerned about helping themselves. By not focusing on the needs of the suffering person, it also was probably easier for them to deny responsibility to help the other person. Moreover, this high state of responsibility denial probably neutralized what little salience personal norms might have had for these subjects. In the Personal Distress-Easy Escape condition, then, subjects probably did not perceive acting on their personal norms as appropriate to evaluation of themselves. As a consequence, when asked to help, subjects in the Personal Distress-Easy Escape condition responded at a low level. In summary, they probably felt little obligation to help, probably experienced a state of high responsibility denial, and could escape from helping with little consequence. In contrast, because subjects who experienced the empathy manipulation were paying attention to the inner experience and needs of the suffering person, I speculated that they experienced not only a state of high empathy, but also experienced a state of high personal norms and low responsibility denial with regard to acting upon these norms. Highly salient relevant personal norms should lead 26 to a high level of helping as long as there is a state of low responsibility denial that would prevent the effects of these norms from being neutralized (Schwartz, 1977). Because of the state of low responsibility denial and high personal norms, acting or not acting upon personal norms probably served as an appropriate basis for the subjects' evaluation of themselves in the empathy-easy escape condition. In such circumstances it would seem inappropriate to the subject not to act upon such norms. In summary, I speculated that subjects in Toi and Batson's (1982) Difficult Escape condition were motivated by considerations of impression management and socially mediated costs, whereas subjects in the Easy Escape conditions were primarily guided by personal affective and cognitive processes that were induced by the manipulation of listening set. Thus, subjects in the Personal Distress-Easy Escape condition were influenced by a state of high personal distress, low personal norms and high responsibility denial, whereas subjects in the Empathy-Easy Escape condition were affected by a state of empathy, high personal norms and low responsibility denial. The next chapter outlines the essential features of Study One, the first of two studies that examined some important implications of this line of reasoning. CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY ONE Qegiqn of Studv One This study was a partial replication of Toi and Batson’s (1982) experimental procedure. It has been well established that empathy and personal distress are elicited by the emotional inductions of the experimental procedure summarized earlier. In the first experiment of this thesis, I examined whether the different emotional arousal inductions that Batson and his colleagues’ used also generate differences in the salience of personal norms and responsibility denial. As in the Toi and Batson (1982) experiment, subjects in the current research listened to a tape of a suffering student. However, instead of asking each group of subjects in this experiment to help a person in need, participants' levels of personal norms and responsibility denial were treated as the dependent (State) variables. It was expected that the empathy condition would lead to significantly higher personal norms and/or significantly lower responsibility denial than the personal distress condition. 27 28 Furthermore, Batson and his associates have never employed a neutral, control stimulus to compare the personal distress and empathy that such a stimulus event might generate. For this reason, in the first study, an additional group of subjects listened to a control tape. This tape paralleled the format of the experimental tape (of the person in distress relating her story), but the interviewee in the control broadcast tape was not a victim. Instead, the interviewee, in a moderately enthusiastic tone, shared information about her hobby of building custom cars. In summary, the design of this experiment consisted of two independent variables, each with two levels. The experiment was a 2(imagine-set listening instructions versus observe-set listening instructions) x 2(experimental tape versus control tape) factorial design, with a minimum of 14 subjects per cell. Hypotheses for Studv One First, since it was expected that the emotional reactions stimulated by Batson and his colleagues resulted from stimulus cues provided by the suffering of the needy person, it was predicted that a tape that did not present such suffering would elicit significantly less emotional responses. Similarly, it was expected that such a tape would also elicit significantly fewer cognitive reactions. Therefore, Hypothesis I predicts that the experimental tape 29 will generate greater emotional reactions (both empathy and personal distress) than the control, neutral tape and Hypotheses II predicts that the experimental tape will generate higher relevant cognitive reactions (i.e., greater salience of personal norms and lower responsibility denial) than the control tape. Second, based on the findings of Batson and his associates, it was expected that Stotland's (1969) two listening-sets would each lead to different types of emotional arousal. Thus, Hypotheses III predicts that in the experimental tape condition, subjects given observe-set listening instructions will have significantly higher levels of personal distress than subjects given imagine-set listening instructions; and, Hypothesis IV predicts that in the experimental tape condition, subjects given imagine-set listening instructions will have significantly higher levels of empathy than subjects given observe-set listening instructions. Third, it was suggested that the imagine-set, which had subjects imagine the feelings of the victim, would make it difficult to deny responsibility--it would be difficult to distance themselves from the person's suffering while imagining that suffering. It was also suggested that imagining the feelings of the suffering person would lead subjects to feel increased levels of moral obligation to help. In contrast, it was suggested that the observe-set, 30 which had subjects concentrate on listening to the information in the broadcast, would allow subjects to feel more distanced from the suffering of the other person; therefore, it would be likely that these subjects experience a state of low personal norms and/or high responsibility denial. Therefore, Hypothesis V predicts that in the experimental tape condition, subjects given the imagine-set listening instructions will have significantly higher personal norms than subjects given the observe-set listening instructions and Hypothesis VI predicts that in the experimental tape condition, subjects given the imagine-set listening instructions will have significantly lower responsibility denial than subjects given the observe-set listening instructions. CHAPTER 3 METHOD FOR STUDY ONE Subjects Michigan State University introductory psychology students were recruited to participate in this research for course credit. A total of 130 students, 66 males and 64 females, were exposed to the experimental procedure. One additional student was not included in the sample because of an experimenter’s error in implementing listening instructions at the wrong time. Procedure Upon arrival at the research session, each subject was greeted by the experimenter and instructed to have a seat near a tape recorder. If the subject arrived while the experiment was in session with another subject, he or she read a sign saying to wait down the hall and that his or her turn to participate would come shortly. .After the subject was seated in the research room, he or she was asked to read the Introduction to the Current Study (presented in Appendix A) and sign a consent form (presented in Appendix B). The 31 32 introduction cast the experiment as part of a yearly project for pilot—testing new programs for the Michigan State University student radio station. The subject was told that he or she would be asked to listen and give his or her reactions to one of the available pilot tapes for each of two proposed programs: Bulletin Board, a program of announcements of upcoming events at Michigan State University, and News from the Personal Side, a program aimed at a more personalized approach to news events. The introduction explained that all the pilot tapes were based on real events, but that none of the tapes has been or would be aired. The Tapes. The Bulletin Board tape and the experimental version of the News from the Personal Side tape were verbatim productions of the scripts from the tapes used by Toi and Batson (1982).4 The Toi and Batson tapes made reference to the University of Kansas and the student radio station there. Therefore, I had to create my own version of these tapes which referred to Michigan State University and its student radio station. I received written permission from the manager of the local student radio station to use the station's call letters (WDBM) during the research. To create these tapes, I employed three persons from a local theater group to reenact the broadcasts. 4I would like to express my gratitude to Professor C. Daniel Batson for sharing a copy of his experimental tapes with me. 33 The control version tape of News from the Personal Side involved the same actresses who performed for the experimental version. This tape portrayed a situation designed to elicit moderately positive affect. These actresses used the same names for their characters as were employed in the experimental tape. In addition, they also used the same interview format and their script had the same number of sentences as the experimental script. Appendix D presents the transcripts for all tapes. Listening to the Bulletin Board tape. When the subject finished reading the introduction, the experimenter returned, checked to be certain that all instructions were clear, and then stated that she or he would be listening to the Bulletin Board tape first. (The order of tapes was supposedly determined by chance.) The experimenter next had the subject select, from the available Bulletin Board tapes, one particular pilot broadcast to hear. Although in actuality, all five tapes were the same, the subject believed that each tape was different and that each would only be heard by the one participant who selected it. After the subject made the tape selection, she or he was left alone to listen to the broadcast. This tape was a rather bland, 55-sec announcement pertaining to an upcoming lecture series in Anthropology. When the subject had finished listening to the tape, the experimenter returned with the first set of dependent measures. 34 First Set of Dependent Measuree Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire. Subjects first completed the Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire;5 it consisted of 24 adjectives describing different emotional states. This questionnaire is basically the same instrument that has been used by Batson and his associates (e.g., Batson & Coke, 1978; Toi & Batson, 1982; Batson et al., 1988). (A copy of this questionnaire is presented in Appendix A). The subject was asked to indicate on a 7-point scale (1=not at all, 7= extremely) how much he or she experienced each emotion while listening to the tape. In the list were adjectives that reflect feelings of empathy (sympathetic, intent, tender, moved, warm, compassionate, softhearted, kind, touched, empathic) and personal distress (alarmed, perturbed, grieved, upset, worried, disturbed, disconcerted, disgusted, anxious, bothered, uneasy, distressed, troubled, shocked). Administering this questionnaire at this time allowed for an assessment of baseline empathy and personal distress that could later be compared to posttest measures of these reactions. Bulletin Board Evaluation Form. Consistent with the cover story, the second questionnaire was the Bulletin Board Evaluation Form. This form asked the subject to indicate 5 This questionnaire was acquired from Professor C. Daniel Batson. 35 how interesting and worthwhile he or she felt the broadcast was, and hOW'mUCh it affected him or her emotionally. In addition, it asked the subject if the Bulletin Board should be made a regular feature on student radio. Having the subject listen to and evaluate the Bulletin Board tape was intended to strengthen the cover story and familiarize her or him with the questionnaires. Therefore, the data collected from the Bulletin Board Evaluation Form were not analyzed. However, the Bulletin Board Evaluation Form is presented in Appendix A. Manipulation of Listening Perspective. After the subject completed the Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire and the Bulletin Board Evaluation Form, the experimenter returned with written instructions describing the perspective he or she should adopt while listening to the News from the Personal Side tape. The manipulation of listening perspective was accomplished in exactly the same manner as the procedure used by Toi and Batson (1982). The experimenter remained blind to this manipulation. Subjects in the observe-set condition read: While you are listening to the broadcast, try to listen carefully to the information presented. Try to be as objective as possible, carefully attending to all the information presented about the situation and about the person who is being interviewed. Try not to concern yourself with how the person being interviewed feels about what has happened. Just concentrate on trying to listen objectively to the information presented in the broadcast. 36 Subjects in the imagine-set condition read: While you are listening to the broadcast, try to imagine how the person in the news feels. Try to take the perspective of the person who is being interviewed, imagining how he or she feels about what has happened and how it has affected his or her life. Try not to concern yourself with attending to all the information presented. Just concentrate on trying to imagine how the person interviewed in the broadcast feels. It was expected that for the subject who listened to the experimental tape, the imagine-set would lead to a significantly greater empathic emotional response to Carol's plight than the observe-set and that the observe-set would lead to a significantly greater personal distress emotional response than the imagine-set. For the subject who listened to the control tape, it was expected that the imagine-set would not induce significantly greater empathy than the observe-set and that the observe-set would not induce significantly more personal distress than the imagine-set. Listening to the News from the Personal Side Tape. In order to make listening-perspective instructions as salient as possible, the subject was asked to read through them twice. After reading the listening instructions, the subject was allowed to select one tape from the five that were available. Again, in actuality, all five tapes were the same, but he or she was led to believe that each was different and that each would be heard only by the one person who selected it. In the control condition, the subject chose one of five identical copies of the hobby 37 tape: in the experimental condition, the subject chose one of five identical copies of the accident tape. The subject, after making her or his selection, was left alone to listen to the tape. In the experimental tape, the female announcer explained that she wished to get behind cold statistics about auto accidents and consider effects of an accident on the life of a particular individual. She then interviewed Carol Marcy, a freshman at Michigan State University who recently had both legs broken in an auto accident. In response to the interviewer's questions, Carol explained that the most tragic consequence of the accident had been missing classes; she had missed a whole month of school because of her long hospitalization. She was behind in all of her classes but was especially concerned about introductory psychology. She had learned that she would have to drop the course if she could not find another student in the class to go over the lecture notes with her. She explained that she would be an entire year behind in her program of study in elementary education. Carol finished by stating that it had always been her dream to be an elementary school teacher, but that it appeared that this dream might not be realized. In the control version of News from the Personal Side, the female announcer explained that she wished to explore the hobby of an individual on campus and get behind the 38 roles that students ordinarily present to others on campus. She then interviewed Carol Marcy, a freshman at Michigan State University who had a hobby involving the building of custom cars. In response to the interviewer's questions, Carol explained how her hobby developed, how she found time to engage in it, who shared her interest in it, and so on. Second Set of Dependent Measures There were four dependent measures the subject was asked to complete after listening to News from the Personal Side. He or she first completed the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form. After completing this questionnaire, the subject again completed the Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire, discussed above. This questionnaire served as a manipulation check for the listening sets and also allowed for an assessment of pretest-posttest differences in emotional state. In addition, the subject filled out the Modified Responsibility Denial Scale and the Personal Norms Questionnaire. The News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form, the Modified Responsibility Denial Scale, and the Personal Norms Questionnaire were presented so that subjects would receive them in one of six possible orders. This procedure was implemented so that there would be no systematic bias in responses as a consequence of order of presentation. However, the subject always was given the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form first because 39 that seemed to fit best with the cover story that evaluation of the broadcasts was the focus of the study. The Newe from the Personal Side Evaluation Form; This form was the same as the Bulletin Board Evaluation Form, with the addition of four questions. The subject was asked how great the need was of the person in the broadcast; this question examined the possibility that subjects with different perceptual sets would see Carol’s need differently. In addition, the subject was asked how likable was the person interviewed in the broadcast. This question was designed to examine whether subjects with different perceptual sets would rate Carol's likability differently. Whereas the Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire functioned to assess whether the listening instructions induced actual differences in emotion, the other two additional News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form questions functioned to obtain the subject self-report of whether he or she listened according to the instructions for the perceptual set. These questions asked: (1) to what extent the subject concentrated on listening to the information presented in the broadcast; and, (2) to what extent the subject concentrated on imagining how the person being interviewed felt. Begponsibility Denial Scaleey Schwartz’s (1967) 24 item Responsibility Denial Scale, which assesses an individual's tendency to deny responsibility for helping 40 (Schwartz, 1977), is the basis from which the Modified Responsibility Denial Scale was created. (To conceal the purpose of this instrument, in both studies this scale was presented to subjects as an "Opinion Survey.") Therefore, even though Schwartz’s version of the Responsibility Denial Scale was only used in Study Two, it will be discussed here in conjunction with the Modified Responsibility Denial Scale used in Study One. In constructing the items for this measure, Schwartz (1967) attempted to sample broadly from the possible rationales for ascribing responsibility away from the self. Potential bases for denying or ignoring the actor’s responsibility were reflected in the items. These included: conforming to the majority, role requirements, extreme provocation or other extenuating circumstances, absence of intentionality, legality, illness, valid preoccupations, general external causality. The placement of responsibility was presented by expressions of blame, fault, forgiveness, guilt, justifiability, holding responsible, excusing, and similar words. Instructions for the Responsibility Denial Scale read: "Each of the items below is a statement of an attitude or opinion which some people have. Please read each statement and then decide whether you agree with it or disagree with it. There are no right or wrong responses to these statements." Subjects then respond according to whether 41 they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the statements. They are told that if they are not certain about their answer that they should answer that they either agree or disagree depending on which response comes closer to their opinion. The extreme alternatives are included to reduce resistance to giving definite responses, but for the purposes of scoring they are not distinguished from simple agreement or disagreement. The responses are scored by assigning a "1" to responses where the subject accepts responsibility and assigning a "0" to responses where the subject rejects responsibility. As a result, higher numbers reflect low responsibility denial, while lower numbers reflect high responsibility denial. A sample of three items is presented below. They are marked A or D (for Agree and Disagree) to indicate the response that reflects ascription of responsibility to the self: __9_ You can't blame basically good people who are forced by their environment to be inconsiderate of others. A Being very upset or preoccupied does not excuse a person for doing anything he would ordinarily avoid. D If a person is nasty to me, I feel very little responsibility to treat him well. Schwartz only has used responsibility denial as an independent (or predictor) variable in his studies. In Study One, however, responsibility denial was examined as an 42 induced state, as opposed to being treated as an individual trait. Therefore, the Modified Responsibility Denial Scale was created to measure responsibility denial as an induced state. The questions in the modified version of the Responsibility Denial Scale are more limited in scope than those in the original scale. In the Modified Responsibility Denial Scale, the questions are intended to tap only responsibility denial as it was expected to be manifested in a state resulting from the experimental inductions. Of the original 24 items, only 15 were used on the Modified Responsibility Denial Scale, and some of these were changed to reflect induced states that would be relevant to the helping situation that would be examined in Study Two. Here is a sample of three items that were retained (or revised) from the original questionnaire because they seemed to reflect responsibility denial as an induced state. They are marked A or D (for Agree and Disagree) to indicate the response scored as reflecting ascription of responsibility to the self: D You can’t expect a person to act much differently from everyone else. D When I work many hours, I am so busy that I often do not have time to volunteer to help others. D When a person feels pressured to do something, there comes a point beyond which he should simply leave. 43 Personal Norms Questionnaire. Schwartz (1977) developed a questionnaire method for measuring personal norms. The purpose of the Personal Norm Questionnaire is to measure the feelings of moral obligation a person is apt to experience in a behavioral choice situation. Personal norms are typically measured by providing people with behavior choices in a hypothetical situation (Schwartz, 1977). Subjects are then asked to describe the intensity of moral obligation to act (positive, neutral, or negative). The questions are in the form of "In specific circumstances X, would you feel a moral (personal) obligation to perform act Y?" A paragraph preceding the personal norm items instructs respondents to report what they themselves would "...feel they ought to do, regardless of what others might expect of them or of what they might actually do" (Schwartz & Howard, 1984, p.244). The 7 point response scales include a zero point of "no obligation," so the person can assert that she or he does not perceive the particular behavior in terms of morality or obligation (Schwartz & Howard, 1984) and a -1 point for subjects to indicate they would feel an obligation not to help. Other researchers in addition to Schwartz, (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970; Pomazal & Jaccard, 1976) have used a similar methodology. The Personal Norm Questionnaire created for the current research, which can be found in Appendix A, inquired into 44 subjects' personal norms related to helping another person who, without such help, could not accomplish some goal. (This questionnaire was presented to subjects as the "Situation Survey" to help conceal its purpose.) Such personal norms were created to be relevant to Toi and Batson's (1982) experimental situation in which Carol could not, without help, accomplish her educational goal. Subjects given the Personal Norm Questionnaire were presented with the same instructions, cited above, that Schwartz and Howard (1984) used in their research. Here are two of the questions from the six item questionnaire: 1. .A study-tutor center will -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 be created on campus to help MSU students with high-risk for dropping out of college. Students with knowledge in different subject areas will be asked to volunteer any amount of time to help these students. If you had knowledge in one of these subject areas should you volunteer? 2. The MSU Clinical Center has a -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 new program for students who are in recovery from operations. Most of these students' families live far away and they students need some 45 social support. The clinical center is asking for student volunteers to spend some time with these patient- students. Should you volunteer? Debriefing. After the subject completed the questionnaires, he or she was told that debriefing information would be mailed once the experiment was completed. To assist in this process, the subject completed a form including his or her name, address, and phone number. A copy of the debriefing form is presented in Appendix C. The subject was asked if he or she had any questions. Such questions were answered as well as possible without giving away the purpose of the study. The subject was thanked for his or her participation, and asked not to discuss the experiment with anyone until the study was completed. The subject was then excused. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF STUDY ONE Factor Analysie of Emotional Communication Response Questionnaire .A principal-component factor analysis, with varimax rotation of factors having Eigenvalues greater than 1.00, was performed on the Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire (To examine this analysis, see Table 1). A two factor solution emerged for the 24 items that comprised this measure. These factors were given the names Empathy and Personal Distress. The Empathy factor included nine adjectives (sympathetic, tender, moved, warm, compassionate, softhearted, kind, touched and empathic) and the Personal Distress factor included eight adjectives (perturbed, disturbed, disgusted, anxious, bothered, uneasy, distressed, and troubled). The results of the factor analysis were used as the basis for constructing composite measures of Empathy and Personal Distress. In each case the items that loaded substantially on each factor were summed. The resulting scales had coefficient alphas of .95 and .93 for Empathy and Personal Distress, respectively. 46 47 Other researchers have conducted factor analyses on the same, or slightly modified, emotionality questionnaires and have also found that the adjectives loaded on two distinct factors (Empathy and Personal Distress). Although each of these analyses has generated somewhat different results, the adjectives representing each of these two factors have always had face validity. For example, in their factor analysis of the questionnaire, Batson et al., (1983) found that six adjectives loaded on the Empathy factor (sympathetic, moved, compassionate, tender, warm, and softhearted) and that eight adjectives loaded on the Personal Distress factor (alarmed, grieved, upset, worried, disturbed, and perturbed, distressed, and troubled). To further illustrate, Cialdini et a1. (1987) found that three adjectives loaded on the Empathy factor (moved, compassionate, and sympathetic) and that five adjectives loaded on the Personal Distress factor (alarmed, worried, upset, distrubed, and grieved). Thus, while the present analysis yielded somewhat different specific findings, the adjectives that did load substantially on the Empathy and Personal Distress factors were consistent with what other researchers had found. 48 Teepe of Hypotheses Hypotheeis I: The experimental tape will generate greater emotional reactions (both empathy and distress) than the control, neutral tape. There was evidence to support Hypothesis I. Overall, subjects did experience greater Empathy after hearing the broadcast interview (M 22.46) than before hearing the broadcast interview (M 12.03), §(l, 109) = 132.05, p < .0001. However, consistent with Hypothesis I, there was a significant Tape x Measurement Time interaction on Empathy E(1, 109) = 52.92, p < .0001 and a significant main effect of Tape on level of Empathy, 3(1, 109) = 33.56, p < .0001. There also was a significant simple effect of Tape on Posttest Empathy scores, F(1, 231) = 213.23, p < .0001; however, there was no such significant simple effect of Tape on Pretest Empathy scores, F(1, 231) = .03. The means reflecting this interaction are presented in Table 2. Similarly, overall, subjects experienced greater Personal Distress after listening to the broadcast interview (M = 14.08) than before hearing the broadcast interview (M = 10.12), 3(1, 102) = 28.47, p < .0001. Again, consistent with Hypothesis I, however, there was also significant Tape x Measurement Time interaction on Personal Distress, E(1, 102) = 36.09, p < .0001 and a significant main effect of Tape on Personal Distress, F(1, 102) = 24.65, p < .0001. In addition, there was a simple effect of Tape on Posttest 49 Personal Distress scores, E(1, 224) = 37.77, p < .0001, while there was no simple effect of Tape on Pretest Personal Distress scores, 2(1, 224) .04. The means for Personal Distress reflected by this Tape x Measurement Time interaction are presented in Table 3. 50 Table 1 Empathy and Personal Dietrese Factore Derived fromythe Factor Anal sis Varimax Rotation) of the Ratings on Emotional Adjectives on The Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire‘. — Emotional Empathy Personal Nonlabelled Adjectives Factor Distress Factor Factor Alarmed .39 .46 .56 Perturbed .07 .70 .38 Grieved .55 .44 .48 Sympathetic .74 .70 .29 Intent .28 .44 .67 Upset .55 .25 .27 Worried .50 .04 .41 Tender .72 .62 .25 Disturbed .38 .57 .14 Moved .81 .36 .22 Disconcerted .22 .83 .67 Disgusted .18 .21 .29 Anxious .14 .38 .10 Warm .77 .74 .09 Compassionate .86 .59 .17 Softhearted .89 .22 .16 Bothered .22 .83 .01 Kind .73 .20 .29 Uneasy .38 .75 .20 Distressed .34 .79 .23 Touched .78 .25 .22 Troubled .28 .83 .21 Shocked .31 .32 .66 Empathic .63 .25 .35 — Percent of Variance Accounted for by Bach Factor 7.20 6.50 3.00 am = 130 51 Table 2 Mean Empathy Scores for the Tape 3 Measurement Time Interaction Empathy Tape Pretest Posttest Experimental 12.25 29.78 Control 11.89 15.54 Table 3 Mean Personal Distress Scores for the Tape x Measurement Time Interaction Personal Distress Tape Pretest Posttest Experimental 10.05 19.41 Control 9.94 9.79 52 Hypothesis II: The experimental tape will generate significantly greater relevant cognitive reactions (i.e., greater salience of personal norms and lower responsibility denial) than the control tape. There was no evidence to support Hypothesis II. There was no significant effect of Tape on either Personal Norms, F(1, 122) = .69 or Responsibility Denial, 3(1, 122) = 1.13. Hypothesis III: In the experimental tape condition, subjects given observe-set listening instructions will have significantly higher levels of Personal Distress than subjects given imagine-set listening instructions. There was some evidence to support Hypothesis III: The overall analysis did not generate the expected significant Listen x Measurement Time interaction, F(1, 102) = 1.30, p < .26--or a significant Tape x Listen x Measurement Time interaction, F(1, 102) = .19, p < .67. However, the pattern of means (presented in Table 4) and planned comparisons did suggest that Observe Listening Instructions generated I greater post manipulation Distress than did Imagine Instructions, p(236) = 1.52, p < .05 (one tailed). 53 Table 4 Mean Personal Distress Scores for Listeninq Instructions x Measurement Time Interaction Personal Distress Listening Instructions Pretest Posttest Imagine-set 9.62 13.84 Observe-set 10.35 15.78 Hypothesis IV: In the experimental tape condition, subjects given imagine-set listening instructions will have significantly higher levels of Empathy than subjects given observe-set listening instructions. There was no evidence to support Hypothesis IV: There was not a significant Listening Instructions x Tape x Measurement Time interaction on subjects' level of Empathy, F(1, 109) = 0.39, p < .54--or a significant Listening Instructions x Measurement Time interaction, F(1, 109) = .07, p < .80. Hypotheeis V: In the experimental tape condition, subjects given the imagine-set listening instructions will have significantly higher Personal Norms than subjects given the observe-set listening instructions. 54 There was no evidence to support Hypothesis V: There was not a significant Listening Instructions x Tape interaction for Personal Norms, F(1, 122) = 0.17, p < .68. Hypothesis VI: In the experimental tape condition, subjects given the imagine-set listening instructions will have significantly lower Responsibility Denial than subjects given the observe-set listening instructions. There was no evidence to support Hypothesis VI: There ‘was not a significant Listening Instruction x Tape interaction for Responsibility Denial, F(1,122) = .07, p < .80. Analyses of Variance for News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form In addition to testing the hypotheses, a series of supplementary analyses of variance was conducted for each of the items in the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form. Listening instructions, Tape listened to, and subject Sex were the independent variables in this analysis. Subjects' Understanding of Content of Tape. An examination of subjects’ summaries of the contents of News from the Personal Side revealed that only one person had an inadequate description of the contents of the tape. However, there were no obvious differences in this person’s responses when compared to those collected from the rest of the subjects. 55 Perception of Carol's Need. On the News from the Personal Side reaction questionnaire, subjects indicated the magnitude of Carol’s need (1 = very little, 9 = very great). As expected, subjects reported that the need of the person in the experimental tape was significantly greater than the need of the person in the control tape (M = 6.26 vs. M = 4.39), F(1, 122) = 25.88, p < .0001. Attentiveness. Subjects also reported on the reaction questionnaire the extent to which they concentrated on: (a) observing the facts of the broadcast and (b) imagining what it was like experiencing what Carol was experiencing (1 = not at all, 9 = very much for each question). As expected subjects in the Observe condition reported more concentration on observing the facts of the broadcast (M 6.83) than did subjects in the Imagine condition (M = 5.46), F(1, 122) = 21.57, p < .0001. There also was a significant Sex x Listening Instructions interaction on subjects’ reports of Concentrating on Information in the broadcast F(1, 122) = 14.69, p < .0001. The means that generated this effect are presented in Table 5. Simple effects analysis revealed that for males, there was not a significant effect of Listening Instructions on self-reports of Concentration on Listening to information in the broadcast interview, F(1, 126) = .41. In contrast, females in the Observe listening condition reported Concentrating on Listening to information significantly more than did females 56 in the Imagine listening condition, 3(1, 126) = 34.72, p < 0001. In addition, as expected, subjects in the Observe condition indicated that they Concentrated less on Imagining the feelings of Carol (M = 4.72) than did subjects in the Imagine condition (M = 6.88), F(1, 122) = 40.47, p< .0001. Furthermore, subjects who listened to the control tape reported that they Concentrated on Imagining how Carol felt (M = 5.34) less than did subjects who listened to the experimental tape (M = 6.24), F(1, 122) = 8.84, p < .004. Subjects' Perception of How Worthwhile the News From the Personal Side Feature Was. Subjects indicated how worthwhile they thought broadcasts such as News from the Personal Side were (1 = not at all worthwhile, 9 = extremely worthwhile). Subjects who listened to the experimental tape rated the interview as more Worthwhile (M = 5.26) than did subjects who listened to the control tape (M = 4.45), F(1, 122) = 6.00, p < .016. How Greatly Subjects were Emotionally Affected by the Interview with Carol. Subjects reported how greatly the tape affected them Emotionally (Emotionality) (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely). As expected, subjects who listened to the experimental tape reported greater Emotionality (M = 4.76) than did subjects who listened to the control tape (M = 2.80), g(1, 122) = 35.57, E < .0001. 57 Subjecte' Rating of How Interesting the Interview with Carol Was. Subjects indicated how Interesting the broadcast was to them (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely). There was a marginally significant Sex x Tape interaction on subjects' rating regarding how interesting the broadcast was, F(1, 122) = 3.64, p < .06. A simple effects analysis showed that there was not a significant tape effect for males, 3(1, 126) = .01. In contrast, females who listened to the experimental tape reported that the broadcast interview was significantly more interesting than did females who listened to the control tape, F(1, 126) = 6.61, p < .03. The mean ratings of how interesting the broadcast was are presented in Table 6. Likableness of Carol. There were no significant findings for subjects’ responses to the question "In your opinion, how likeable was the person interviewed in the broadcast?" Making News from the Personal Side a Regular Broadcast Feature. There were no significant findings for subjects' responses to the question "Should News from the Personal Side be made a regular WDBM feature?" 58 Table 5 Mean Ratings of Concentrating on Listening to Information in the Broadcast for Sex x Listening Instructions Interaction Sex Listening Instructions Male Female Imagine-set 6.07 4.94 Observe-set 6.33 7.45 Table 6 Mean Ratings of How Interesting Broadcast was for Tape x Sex Interaction Sex Tape Male Female Control 4.81 3.90 Experimental 4.77 5.03 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION FOR STUDY ONE The major objective of the first experiment was to examine if the arousal induction sets used by Toi and Batson (1982) also affect subjects' cognitions--particularly their level of responsibility denial and the salience of their personal norms. It was found that subjects experienced greater increases in both empathy and personal distress after listening to the accident victim version of News from the Personal Side than they did after listening to the hobby version. However, this study did not replicate Toi and Batson's (1982) finding that the (imagine) set that instructed subjects to focus on imagining the feelings of the suffering person produced significantly greater empathy than the (observe) set that asked subjects merely to listen to the information in the broadcast. Instead, for some reason, both groups of subjects experienced approximately a twofold increase in their level of empathy after listening to the tape. 59 60 As expected, the observe set did generate greater personal distress in subjects than did the imagine set--but only marginally so. A plausible explanation for the failure to replicate Toi and Batson’s (1982) results for empathy involves the differences in their and the present version of the News from the Personal Side. Several pre-experimental judges felt that the actress playing Carol in present tape basically expressed the same affect as the actress playing Carol in Toi and Batson's (1982) tape, but that the present interview sounded more realistic and that the present Carol seemed more dramatic and less depressed than did her earlier counterpart. These tape-related factors may have led subjects in the current study to experience high levels of empathy regardless of the listening instructions; Carol's obvious emotionality may have made it difficult for subjects not to experience empathy for her. In contrast, in Toi and Batson's (1982) tape, it seems that Carol's expressed emotions were more subtle and may not have been strong enough to induce empathy in subjects who followed the observe-set listening instructions. However, subjects who followed the imagine-set listening instructions were more likely to be able to perceive Carol's emotions and thus experience empathy. Thus, there may have been a ceiling effect for empathy in the current study which did not occur in the study of Toi and Batson (1982). 61 In addition to not replicating Toi and Batson's emotional arousal inductions, there also was no support for the hypothesis that the experimental version of the News from the Personal Side broadcast would lead to significantly higher personal norms and significantly lower responsibility denial than would the control version. Since there was no difference in cognitive reactions to the tapes, these variables were not susceptible to the differences between tapes that were critical for the study. Moreover, there was no support for the hypothesis that the imagine-set would lead to significantly higher personal norms and significantly lower responsibility denial than the observe- set. Subjects in these conditions did not experience significantly different levels of personal norms or responsibility denial. These findings support Schwartz’s view that personal norms and responsibility denial function as stable traits but not as transitory states. As noted, subjects listening to the accident victim tape reported significantly greater empathy, regardless of listening conditions, than did subjects listening to the hobby (control) tape. This pattern may have resulted from how subjects listened to the broadcast: subjects who listened to the experimental tape reported that they followed the imagine-set instructions significantly more than did subjects who listened to the control tape. Perhaps it was easier for subjects to listen empathetically to a 62 suffering person than it was for them to listen to an excited person; or, perhaps subjects thought it was more socially important to do so--or at least to report doing so. Furthermore, subjects listening to the victim-tape reported marginally significantly greater personal distress than did subjects listening to the control tape. Surprisingly, there was not a corresponding expected significant difference between the experimental and control tape conditions for subjects' self-reports of concentrating on listening to information in the broadcast--as would be expected according to the theory of Batson and his colleagues. These findings regarding the experimental and the control versions of News from the Personal Side broadcast provide support for the claim that the empathy and distress scores of subjects in response to the experimental version of the Carol Marcy story resulted from the stimulus of the tape and not some other factor. Examination of subjects' responses to the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form did not reveal any particularly surprising findings. Subjects who listened to the experimental tape, in comparison to subjects who listened to the control tape, gave significantly higher ratings for how great they thought Carol's need was. This makes sense since the control tape did not portray any needs of Carol, whereas the experimental tape focused on Carol’s needs. 63 In addition, subjects who listened to the experimental tape, in comparison to subjects who listened to the control tape, gave significantly higher ratings for how worthwhile they thought the broadcast was. These ratings of how worthwhile the broadcast was suggest that the students placed greater value on listening to the needs of a fellow student in distress than they placed on listening to the hobby of a fellow student. However, this finding could also reflect, to some extent, impression management on the part of the subjects to have others see them as holding such socially laudable values. Furthermore, subjects who listened to the experimental tape, as compared to subjects who listened to the control tape, reported that they were significantly more emotionally affected by the tape. This finding is consistent with the finding that subjects who listened to the experimental tape experienced greater empathy and personal distress than subjects who listened to the control tape. In addition, females who listened to the experimental tape reported that the broadcast interview was significantly more interesting than did females who listened to the control tape. Since there was not a parallel finding for males, this pattern suggests that females are somewhat more attracted to hearing about the needs of others than are males-~and/or females are less interested in hearing someone (even an other women) discuss automobiles. 64 Bakan (1966) has provided a theory that helps to illuminate these sex findings. Bakan suggests that females characteristically have a greater communal orientation, while males characteristically have a greater agentic orientation. According to Bakan, agency involves concerns ‘with success, prominence, achievement, and so forth; communion denotes concerns with social orientation including, acceptance, intimacy, interpersonal relationships and attachments. Carlson (1971) and Messé, Watts, and Vallacher (1982) have provided empirical support for Bakan's theory that males are more agentic and females are more communal in their orientations. Independent of Bakan, Gilligan (1982) has offered a similar theory to explain sex differences in behavior. Even though Gilligan does not use the words "communion" and "agency" to describe the orientations of women and men, it seems that these words could be applied to her descriptions of the two sexes. She differs from Bakan in that her focus is on differences in the moral orientations of men and women that influence how they relate to others. Gilligan suggests that women are socialized to view themselves as connected to others; as such, their moral judgements are organized on the basis of a strong concern with considerations of connections and care to others. In contrast, she suggests that men are socialized to become more autonomous and detached, and therefore their moral 65 judgements are organized more on the basis of equity and fairness. When Gilligan's claims have been tested by having subjects respond to hypothetical moral dilemmas involving prohibited acts such as lying or stealing, little evidence of sex difference has been found (e.g., Friedman, Robinson, & Friedman, 1987). However, when participants have been requested to talk about real-life dilemmas from their own experience (e.g. Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988) or hypothetical relationship-oriented moral dilemmas (Mills, Pedersen, & Grusec, 1989) there has been some support for Gilligan’s claims. Thus, as with the theory of Bakan (1966), there is some empirical support for the perspective of Gilligan (1982). If females in the current study had the moral orientation described by Gilligan and had the communion orientation described by Bakan (1966), it would explain why they felt that the program that focused on the life situation of a person in need was more interesting than the program that focused on a person’s hobby. Listening to the accident tape provided a situation in which this orientation could be expressed: they could enter into Carol’s story of her experience of suffering and feel attachment, care, and acceptance towards her; in the control tape, Carol's enthusiastic discussion of working on cars probably provided a less salient opportunity for the women to make such a 66 connection with Carol, since she did not really express any needs. Taken together, the findings regarding experimental and control tape differences suggest that the experimental tape had its effect on subjects because of the contents of the tape. In conclusion, Toi and Batson's (1982) emotional arousal induction was not replicated. Furthermore, it was shown that personal norms and responsibility denial do not function as induced states. Regardless of whether Study One had shown that there were differences in cognitive states resulting from the two emotional inductions, it would still have remained unclear whether these factors, and not empathy alone, could have contributed to the pattern of helping behavior that Batson and his associates consistently have found. Therefore, a second study was conducted to test more directly the possibility that personal norms and/or responsibility denial have a similar effect as empathy on helping behavior under conditions of easy and difficult escape. Although Study One did not show that personal norms and responsibility denial are affected by situational characteristics, there is reason to believe that the impact of these variables is influenced by situational variables. For example, according to Schwartz (1977), responsibility denial and personal norms will not play an important role 67 when there is a significant situational constraint--as there is in Toi and Batson's (1982) difficult-escape condition. Thus, in Study Two, I examined whether preexisting differences in personal norms and responsibility denial in combination with difficult and easy-escape conditions, could reproduce Toi and Batson's (1982) three vs. one pattern of helping behavior. Furthermore, it is possible that empathy and personal distress are related to the impact of the traits of personal norms and responsibility denial. Thus, naturally occurring differences in empathy and personal distress were measured in Study Two in order to examine their relationship to personal norms, responsibility denial and volunteering to help. CHAPTER 6 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY TWO Qeeign of Study Two As in the first study, Study Two used a modification of Toi and Batson’s (1982) procedure. This second experiment examined as independent, trait variables the parallel dependent state variables (personal norms and responsibility denial) from the first study. Though personal norms and responsibility denial did not appear to function as state variables in the first study, there is reason to believe that there are relatively enduring individual differences in these variables (Schwartz, 1977). In Study Two, individual differences in the level of trait personal norms and responsibility denial served in place of the emotional arousal inductions used in the original Toi and Batson (1982) experiment. A neutral set of listening instructions was given to all subjects, and it was expected that emotional reactions would be equivalent across conditions. Thus, this study examined whether, in the absence of any manipulation of emotional states, individual differences 68 69 in personal norms and responsibility denial crossed with the situational variable of difficulty/ease-of—escape, would lead to the pattern of volunteering to help that Batson and his associates previously have attributed solely to affective differences. In this design, there were three independent variables, each with two levels: personal norms (high versus low), responsibility denial (low versus high), and escape (easy versus difficult), cast in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial, with a minimum of 10 subjects per cell. Subjects for the second experiment were preselected on the basis of their existing levels (high or low) of personal norms and responsibility denial. Thus, there were four different types of subjects in each type of escape condition. Despite the fact that the findings of the first experiment did not support the idea that listening set affects the salience of personal norms and the sense of responsibility, it was thought that the second experiment could still provide additional information about the role of cognitive factors in helping behavior within the context that Batson and his colleagues have used exclusively to study the emotional antecedents of altruism. Hypothesis for Study Two (versions a. b; c. d. e); The hypothesis for Study Two predicts that all subjects will volunteer to help at a high level in the difficult 70 escape condition, whereas only certain subjects will volunteer to help at a high level in the easy escape condition. There are five possible incarnations of this hypothesis (a, b, c, d, e). The five patterns of possible results involve the influence of personal norms and/or responsibility denial, in addition to easy/difficult escape, interacting to determine the level of volunteering to help in this study. It was expected that for all five possible patterns, subjects in the difficult escape condition would help at a high level, primarily as a result of situational constraints, which made it difficult for any person to refrain from helping.1 However, for each of the five patterns of possible results there was a prediction of what cognitive factor(s) would lead to a high level of volunteering to help in the easy escape condition. Based on the theory of Schwartz (e.g., 1968b, 1973, 1977) it was expected that the most complicated possible pattern of results was most likely to occur: that high personal norms and low responsibility denial in combination will lead to a high level of volunteering to help (as did empathy in Toi and Batson’s (1982) study) in the easy escape condition.2'3 1Refer back to pages 21-22 for the development of this position. 2Refer back to pages 22-24 for the development of this position. 71 Thus, Hypothesis (a) predicts that there will be a significant Escape x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms interaction on VOlunteering to Help. This effect was expected to reflect a specific pattern of helping responses: .All four difficult escape cells (difficult escape/high responsibility denial/high personal norms, difficult escape/high responsibility denial/low personal norms, difficult escape/low responsibility denial/low personal norms, and difficult escape/low responsibility denial/high personal norms) and one easy escape cell (easy escape/high personal norms/low responsibility denial) were expected to ShOW'a significantly higher level of volunteering to help than the remaining three easy escape cells (easy escape/low responsibility denial/low personal norms, easy escape/high responsibility denial/high personal norms, and easy escape/high responsibility denial/low personal norms). Although it was expected that responsibility denial and personal norms would combine to determine helping behavior, there was an examination of whether either responsibility denial or personal norms alone might determine the level of volunteering to help. There was reason to think that responsibility denial might function alone without the influence of personal norms to generate a high level of volunteering to help in the easy 3 Recall that these are the cognitive variables which, in addition to empathy, were expected to result from the empathy induction in the first study. 72 escape condition. In one study, Schwartz (1974) did not measure personal norms but found that responsibility denial had a reasonably strong correlation (; = .48) with volunteering after one year. Although Schwartz's theory would suggest that this relationship was influenced by personal norms, it is possible responsibility denial affected helping independently of other cognitive variables. Furthermore, since the conditions of the current study are somewhat different from those typically used by Schwartz--Schwartz has not studied trait responsibility denial in the context of an experimental situation in which a direct request is made by a suffering person--there was further reason to suspect that low responsibility denial might lead to a high level of helping in the easy escape condition. In addition, this difference in conditions also provided reason to expect that personal norms alone, without the influence of responsibility denial, might determine helping behavior, even though Schwartz’s theory would not support such a contention. Therefore, Hypothesis (b) predicts that there will be a significant Escape x Responsibility Denial interaction on subject VOlunteering to Help. This effect was expected to reflect a specific pattern of helping responses: The two difficult escape cells (difficult escape/high responsibility denial and difficult escape/low responsibility denial) and the easy escape/low responsibility denial cell will be show 73 a significantly higher level of volunteering to help than the easy escape/high responsibility denial cell. Similarly, Mypothesis (c) predicts that there will be a significant Escape x Personal Norms interaction on subject Volunteering to Help. This effect was expected to reflect a specific pattern of helping responses: The two difficult escape cells (difficult escape/high personal norms and difficult escape/low personal norms) and the easy escape/high personal norms will show a significantly higher level of volunteering to help than the easy escape/low personal norms cell. Furthermore, it was also thought likely that not only would responsibility denial interact with personal norms to affect volunteering to help in the easy escape condition, but that responsibility denial alone would also affect helping. Schwartz (1968b) showed that although personal norms and responsibility denial functioned together to determine helping behavior, responsibility denial alone was significantly correlated with peer ratings of the subject's level of helping behavior (; = .28). Thus Mypothesis (d) predicts that the hypothesis in both form (a) and form (b) will be supported. Finally, it could be that high personal norms and low responsibility denial might each independently lead to a high level of helping in the easy escape condition. Thus, Mypothesis (e) predicts that hypothesis (b) and (c) will independently occur. CHAPTER 7 METHOD FOR STUDY TWO Subjects Five hundred fifty-two Michigan State University introductory psychology students, 203 males and 349 females, voluntarily completed the Responsibility Denial Scale and the Personal Norms Questionnaire during the beginning of one of their class periods. (These questionnaires were discussed in detail in the method section for Study One and appear in Appendix A). Responsibility Denial and Personal Norms, along with Sex and Ease-of—Escape, were the independent variables in Study Two.4 I did not want subjects to associate the screening questionnaires, which openly dealt with issues of helping and responsibility, with the second part of the study, which ostensibly had to do with pilot radio broadcasts. Therefore, the two persons who administered the questionnaires did not participate in any way in the second part of the study. Furthermore, respondents were told that ‘Respondents were enrolled in a different introductory psychology class from that which the subjects in Study One were enrolled. 74 75 if they signed the consent form, their names could be given to other researchers, thereby providing them with possible opportunities to participate in research for credit. Scores on the Personal Norms Questionnaire ranged from to -6 to 30, while scores on the Responsibility Denial Scale ranged from 2 to 23. To participate in Study Two, a person needed to be either in the bottom third of the distribution of personal norms scores (12 or less) or in the top third (18 or greater). Not only did participation in this study require that a person's personal norm score be in the bottom or top third of the distribution of personal norm scores, it was also necessary to have responsibility denial scores that were either in the bottom third of the distribution (14 or less) or in the top third (16 or greater) of responsibility denial scores.5 These operations generated four distinct groups of subjects. These were subjects with: (1) High responsibility denial and high personal norms; (2) High responsibility denial and low personal norms; (3) Low responsibility denial and low personal norms; (4) Low responsibility denial and high personal norms. Subjects 5In his research, Schwartz (1973) has also trichotomized responsibility denial and found significant differences between the top and bottom third of responsibility denial scores. However, Schwartz (1968) has also used a median split for responsibility denial to obtain significant results and Schwartz and Ben David (1976) have used quartiles of responsibility denial and found significant differences between the upper and lower quartiles). 76 from each of these groups were then recruited to participate in the study. When researchers from this project called to recruit potential subjects, they said, "I’ve been given your name by another researcher. Do you need any research credits?" If the student answered "no," then the researcher thanked her or him and ended the conversation. If the student said "yes," then the researcher continued, "I am part of a communications psychology research project, and we are having students listen to pilot broadcast tapes from the student radio station and fill out response questionnaires." Then the student was asked to sign up for two, half-hour sessions, one with a specific time and the second to be arranged during the first session. A total of 101 students, 50 females and 51 males, participated in the experiment and completed usable questionnaires. There were 25 persons (14 females and 11 males) in the High Responsibility Denial/High Personal Norms group; 25 persons (11 females and 14 males) in the Low Responsibility Denial/Low Personal Norms group; 24 persons (13 females and 11 males) in the Low Responsibility Denial/High Personal Norms group; and, 27 persons (12 females and 15 males) in the High Responsibility Denial/Low Personal Norms group. Two other students were not included in the final sample because of researcher errors in implementing experimental procedure. 77 One half of the subjects in each of these groups were assigned at random to a condition in which it was difficult to escape volunteering to help a fellow student in distress. The remaining subjects were assigned to a condition in which it was easy to escape volunteering to help a fellow student in distress. Procedure The procedure for Study Two was, in some respects, identical to the procedure for Study One. When a subject arrived, he or she read the Introduction to the Current Study and signed the consent form. Then, as in the first experiment, the subject listened to the Bulletin Board tape. After listening to the Bulletin Board tape, he or she completed the same first set of dependent measures as did subjects in Study One: the Bulletin Board Evaluation Form and the Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire. These dependent measures served the same purpose they did in Study One. In contrast to the Study One, however, subjects in Study Two only listened to the experimental version of News from the Personal Side Tape. Furthermore, there was only one listening set induction for Study Two subjects. In this study, the goal was not to induce differences in emotional states (although naturally occurring individual differences in emotional states were likely to occur), but rather, to 78 observe how subjects’ cognitive traits influenced their level of volunteering to help a fellow student in distress. For this reason, subjects were given a set of non-mood inducing listening instructions. These instructions were intended to keep the format of the experimental procedure similar to that of Toi and Batson (1982). This safeguard seemed important because it was possible that merely giving emotional induction listening instructions would influence subjects in some manner above and beyond emotional arousal. Therefore, subjects were instructed to listen to the tape in the following manner: While you are listening to the broadcast, try to listen to the interview as you would listen to it if it were broadcast from the student radio station. Just listen to it as you ordinarily would listen to an interview on the radio. After reading these listening instructions, the subject selected and listened to the experimental tape in exactly the same manner as did subjects in Study One. When the subject was finished listening to the tape, he or she was asked to complete the Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire again. When the subject had completed the questionnaire, the experimenter created either the Difficult or Easy Escape condition, based on the condition to which the subject had been randomly assigned. 79 Because the introductory psychology course at Michigan State University did not meet in small discussion groups, as it did at the University of Kansas where Toi and Batson (1982) conducted their research, I had to create Difficult/Ease-of-Escape conditions that were somewhat different from those of Toi and Batson (1982). Otherwise, the procedure that was used closely followed that of Toi and Batson. Before the ease-of—escape conditions were implemented, all subjects were told the following by the experimenter: I want to briefly tell you what the second part of this study will be like. Then, we can arrange a time for you to participate. The persons who were interviewed for News from the Personal Side are being paid to participate in a tape recorded interview with students such as yourself. The taped interviews will not be aired but will be reviewed by our research group. We will be evaluating the merits of creating an interview show in which MSU students, who are not trained broadcasters, interview other MSU students regarding their interests. The interview will be very informal and you will not need to prepare for it. We prefer that you do not prepare. The entire session will last no more than 30 minutes. When you arrive, one of our staff will spend about 10 minutes to help write some brief notes, then you will conduct a very short interview. The idea is that we want to have interviews conducted by people who are not trained to do interviews. We need to schedule a time when you can participate for 30 minutes. We will be doing the study from to . What day is best for you?" 80 After the subject chose a time, the experimenter said: "Let me check the schedule to see who is free to be interviewed at that time." What she or he said next was determined by whether the subject was assigned to the Easy or Difficult Escape condition. For the Easy Escape condition, the experimenter looked at a bogus schedule and said: "This is the time Jake Stone is available to be interviewed. You will be interviewing Jake, an MSU athlete who is on the lacrosse team. You will be asking him questions regarding what it is like to participate in a not very popular sport at a major university." For the difficult escape condition, the experimenter looked at a bogus schedule and said: "This is the time Carol Marcy is available to be interviewed." With a somewhat surprised look on her or his face, the experimenter then said: "That’s the same person who's interview you listened to today. You will be asking her questions about her recent car accident." The experimenter then told all subjects where the interview would be held then casually stated: "We need you to provide us with your phone number on this sheet, so that we can contact you in case something happens and we need to change the time of your interview. Also, please put your address on it, too, so we can mail you further information and results when the study is completed." This procedure 81 allowed the experimenter later to mail a notice to the subject that the remainder of the study was canceled, but that the subject could receive credit by completing some questionnaires and bringing them to the experimenter's office. Next, the experimenter asked the subject who her or his introductory psychology professor was. Regardless of the student’s answer, the researcher said: "Oh, good, I can give you a letter from Dr. Messé." The experimenter then went to the drawer and pulled out the envelope addressed "To the student listening to the Carol Marcy tape." This letter was placed there before the student had arrived. The experimenter then handed the subject the letter which had the student’s professor’s name in the body of the text. The letter also contributed to the ease-of—escape by referring to whether Carol planned to see the subject in the future. After handing the letter to the subject, the researcher said: "Dr. Messé is the communications psychology professor in charge of this project. He said that I should give this letter to the student who listened to the Carol Marcy tape and had Dr. (student’s professor's name)." In a somewhat flustered manner the experimenter said: "Oh no, I was supposed to have you complete a News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form, but it has apparently been misplaced. I'll need to get another copy. While I am gone, you should open the envelope and read its contents. I don't know what the 82 letter is about, but Professor Messé wants you to read it before you leave." Carol's Reguest for Help. In the envelope, there was a typewritten letter from Carol's professor and a handwritten letter from Carol. In addition, there was a form on which the subject was supposed to indicate whether they would volunteer to help Carol. This form is reproduced in Appendix E. The letter from the professor explained why Carol’s letter was attached: When I was previewing the pilot tapes for the News From the Personal Side program, I noticed that Carol Marcy needs the help of an Introductory Psychology student so that she can catch up on the material she missed while in the hospital. It occurred to me that since you are an Introductory Psychology student, you might be able to help her. Therefore, I contacted Carol and asked her if she would like to write you a letter explaining her situation and asking for your help. At first she was reluctant to do so, because she did not want to impose on you. But since she still has not found anyone to help her and the deadline is fast approaching, she at last agreed to write. Her letter is enclosed. I would like to ask you to read it carefully, and to respond or not as you wish. Of course, your participation in this study in no way obligates you to help Carol; it is entirely up to you. Although the assistant conducting this study knows nothing about Carol's situation, if you wish to help you should fill out the enclosed card, and return it to the assistant and ask them to give it to me. The handwritten letter from Carol explained her need and asked the subject to help her by agreeing to go over the introductory psychology lecture notes for the past month. 83 Carol added: "My instructor said that it's not important how well you are doing in the class or what section you are in, what's important is that you are willing to take the time to help me out." In the difficult escape condition, Carol's letter read: I'm starting back to class next week. I'm in the [time] o'clock section on [day] with [instructor’s name]. I doubt if there are many students in wheelchairs with both legs in casts. If you are one of the persons who is interviewing me, then I'll see you at that time. Thus, whether they helped or not, subjects in the difficult escape condition expected to see Carol in the future: during the second part of the experiment and in class. However, in the easy escape condition, subjects did not expect to see Carol at all (unless they volunteered to help). They read: Since I'm still in this wheelchair, the instructor told me that I could get the material for the remaining classes to study at home. That way I won't have to come to school in my wheelchair. But, of course, I'll be happy to meet you wherever you want to go over the notes. After leaving the subject alone to read these letters, the experimenter returned to the room and said she or he found the response questionnaire. The experimenter placed the questionnaire on the desk in front of the subject and 84 told her or him to please complete it when finished with the letter. The experimenter then left the room for several minutes. Debriefing. The experimenter returned when the subject had completed the questionnaire. He or she was told that along with some preliminary results, debriefing information would be mailed once the study was complete. The researcher did not mention the letter. If the subject asked the experimenter what he or she should do with the letter, the experimenter acted as if she or he had never seen the letter and looked at the letter with the student to see what the professor had said. Some subjects took the letter with them, some left the letter on the table, and some handed the letter to the researcher. The subject was asked if he or she had any questions. These questions were answered as best as possible without giving away the purpose of the study. In addition, the subject was given a slip of paper, as a reminder of his or her commitment to participate in the next session. She or he then was thanked for participating and asked not to talk about the research with anyone until the study was completed. After this, the subject was excused. Dependent Measure: Agreeing to Help Carol. The dependent variable was whether the subject completed the slip and returned the envelope to the experimenter, indicating a commitment to help by going over lecture notes 85 with Carol. Responses were coded dichotomously: 1 if the subject agrees to help, 0 if he or she did not. Second Seeeion. All subjects were mailed a letter which informed them that the second experimental session has been canceled, but that they could receive one additional participation credit if they completed the Responsibility Denial Scale and the Personal Norm Questionnaire which were enclosed along with a "Psychology Department Research Evaluation Survey." A consent form was attached to these materials (See Appendix B). 74 subjects returned this questionnaire. Subjects were given the above measures for three reasons. First, completing these materials provided subjects with a task to perform, so that they could receive the credit which they would have received from the "canceled" session. Second, the Psychology Department Research Evaluation Survey helped assess whether subjects were suspicious that Carol was not a real student in need. Subjects were asked the following questions to help determine if they were suspicious or not: (1) Was the study important and worthwhile?; (2) Was the purpose of the study made clear to you? What was it?; and, (3) Did you dislike anything about the study? If yes, please explain. The following filler items were added to make the questionnaire more believable: (1) Was the research room comfortable?; and, (2) Did you 86 feel that the researcher was friendly enough? (A copy of this survey is located in Appendix A). Third, the data from the Responsibility Denial Scale and the Personal Norms Questionnaire were used for research purposes apart from this master's thesis (to assess test- retest reliability for these questionnaires). CHAPTER 8 RESULTS FOR STUDY TWO Factor Analysis of Emotional Communication Response Questionnaire .A principal-component factor analysis, with varimax rotation for factors having Eigenvalues greater than 1.00, was performed on the Communication Emotional Response Questionnaire (To examine this analysis, see Table 7). A three factor solution emerged for the 24 items that comprised this measure. These factors were given the following names: Empathy, Personal Distress-1 and Personal Distress-2. The Empathy factor included eight adjectives (sympathetic, tender, moved, warm, compassionate, softhearted, kind, and empathic). It is not evident why there were two personal distress factors. Both distress factors included adjectives which previous researchers have found in their distress factors.1 The Personal Distress-1 factor included four adjectives (perturbed, disconcerted, disgusted, and anxious) and the Personal Distress-2 factor included four adjectives (bothered, uneasy, distressed, 1See page 46 for a discussion.of the Empathy and Personal Distress Factor solutions obtained by other researchers. 87 88 troubled). These distress factors each were found to be similarly related to other experimental variables. The results of the factor analysis were used as the basis for constructing composite measures of Empathy, Personal Distress-1 and Personal Distress-2. In each case the items that loaded substantially on each factor were summed. The resulting scales had coefficient alphas of .94, .79 and .92 for Empathy, Personal Distress-1 and Personal Distress-2, respectively. Tests of the Hypothesis A log-linear analysis was performed to test the five ways in which the hypothesis for Study Two could be supported. The complete findings for this analysis are summarized in Appendix G. Hypothesis (a): There was no evidence for the most complicated way in which the hypothesis could be supported: There was not a significant Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial x Escape Interaction on Volunteering to Help, such that volunteering to help was higher in the four conditions involving difficult escape and one easy escape condition (Easy Escape/High Personal Norms/Low Responsibility Denial) than in the other easy escape conditions, 13(1) = 29. p = .59. Table 8 presents the number of subjects who helped in each condition reflecting this nonsignificant interaction. As you can see, the pattern is not as was predicted, 89 particularly since those easy escape subjects in the High Personal Norms-High Responsibility Denial condition helped as frequently as did their counterparts in the High Personal Norms-Low Responsibility Denial condition. Hypothesis (b): There was no evidence for a second potential way for supporting the hypothesis for this study: There was not a significant Responsibility Denial x Escape interaction on VOlunteering to Help, x?(1) = .00, p = .99. Table 9 presents the number of subjects who helped in each condition reflecting this nonsignificant interaction. As indicated, the pattern of helping differences was as predicted, but disparities in frequencies were too low to be considered reliable. Hypothesis (0): There was evidence for the third potential way for in which the hypothesis for this study could be supported: A planned comparison showed that subjects in the Easy Escape/Low Personal Norms group VOlunteered to Help significantly less that subjects in the other three groups [13(1) = 5.94, p = .02]. This three vs. one pattern is the same pattern Toi and Batson's (1982) discovered for subjects who experienced empathy. Furthermore, in the Difficult Escape condition, VOlunteering to Help was not significantly different for subjects with High Personal Norms, as compared to subjects with Low Personal Norms, x?(1) = 1.60, p = .21, whereas in the Easy Escape condition, subjects with High Personal Norms 90 Volunteered to Help significantly more than did subjects with Low Personal Norms, x?(1) = 11.16, p = .001. Table 10 presents the number of subjects who volunteered to help reflecting the significant Personal Norms x Escape interaction.2 Hypothesis (d): This hypothesis, which stated that version (a) and (b) would both occur, was not supported since there was no evidence for form (a) or (b) of the hypothesis. Hypothesis (e): This hypothesis, which stated that version (b) and (c) would each independently occur, was not supported since there was no evidence for form (b) of the hypothesis. 2There was an examination of the percentage of the subjects who were suspicions that the experimental swnario*was bogus. Seventy-four of the subjects who participated in Experiment Two completed the Psychology Department Research Evaluation Survey which was designed to identify such suspiciousness. Of these subjects, only 7 subjects, three males and four females, showed suspiciousness. Tws 9.5% of the subjects showed suspiciousness. The above log-linear analyses were also performed with data from the suspicious subjects removed. The results were essentially the same as those reported for the complete sample. Therefore, these subjects were not removed from the sample. 'The suspicion rate in the present study is comparable to the rates found in other studies using similar manipulations. The suspicion rate was 11% in Toi and Batson (1982), 7% in.Manucia et a1. (1984), and 8% in Cialdini et al. (1987). 91 Table 7 Empathy and Pereonal Distress Factors Derived from the Factor Analysis (varimax Rotation) of the Ratings on Emptional Adjectives on The Communication Emotional Response Questionnairea. Emotional Empathy Personal Personal Adjectives Factor Distress-1 Distress-2 Factor Factor Alarmed .51 .40 .26 Perturbed —.09 .64 .37 Grieved .48 .29 .52 Sympathetic .81 .17 .28 Intent .50 .51 .19 Upset .50 .56 .41 Worried .60 .48 .35 Tender .72 .19 .42 Disturbed .32 .58 .55 Moved .81 .18 .36 Disconcerted .28 .66 .13 Disgusted .02 .80 .35 Anxious .30 .65 .21 Warm .79 .25 .08 Compassionate .85 .09 .17 Softhearted .85 .10 .29 Bothered .17 .42 .70 Kind .82 .14 .10 Uneasy .15 .31 .80 Distressed .40 .32 .78 Touched .69 .00 .52 Troubled .44 .24 .76 Shocked .28 .41 .55 Empathic .65 .24 .13 — Percent of Variance Accounted for by Each Factor .60 4.20 4.70 92 Table 8 Number of Subjects who VOlunteered to Help. Reflecting the Nonsignificant Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial 5 Escape Interaction Help Ease-of— Personal Responsibility Yes No Escape Norms Denial Low 4 7 Low High 2 9 Easy Low 10 3 High High 9* 3 Low 7 6 Low High 6 8 Difficult Low 8 3 High High 9 6 *Contrary to prediction, helping in this condition was substantial. 93 Table 9 Number of Subjects who Volunteered to Help, Reflecting the Nonsignificant Responsibility Denial x Escape Interaction Help Ease-of—Escape Responsibility Yes No Denial Low 14 10* Easy High 11 12 Low 15 9* Difficult High 15 14* *Contrary to prediction, helping in these conditions, combined, was not significantly greater than helping in the Easy Escape-High Responsibility Denial condition (x?(1) = .62, p < .44). 94 Table 10 Number of Subjecte who VOlunteered toeflelp, Reflegting the Significant Escape x Personal Norms Interaction Help Ease-of—Escape Personal Norms Yes No Low 6 16 Easy High 19 6* Low 13 14* Difficult High 17 9* *As predicted, helping in these conditions was significantly greater than helping in the Easy Escape-Low Personal Norms condition. The Relationship Between Empathy, Personal Norms. Ease-of- Escape and VOlunteering to Help Subjects’ Empathy scores were greater after listening to the broadcast interview (M = 27.30) than they were before listening to the broadcast interview (M = 10.31), F(1, 75) = 21.47, p < .0001. Also, there was a significant Personal Norms x Measurement Time interaction on subjects’ Empathy 95 scores, F(1, 75) = 9.12, p < .003. There was a significant simple effect of Personal Norms on Empathy Posttest scores, F(1,174) = 35.37, p < .0001, but not on Pretest scores, F(1, 174) = 1.56. The mean Empathy scores for the Personal Norms x Measurement Time interaction are presented in Table 11. Furthermore, there was a significant correlation between VOlunteering to Help and Empathy, ; = .19, p < .04 (one-tailed). However, unlike Toi and Batson’s (1982) finding, Empathy's effect on Helping was not mediated by Ease-of-Escape, p(83) = .87. In fact, an analysis of the empathy-helping relationship within escape conditions revealed that there was a significant correlation only in the Difficult Escape condition, ; = .26, p < .04; in the Easy Escape condition the correlation was in the predicted direction, but not significant, p = .12, p < .22. This is not the relationship between Empathy and Volunteering to Help, as mediated by ease of escape, that would be expected according to Batson's theory. Since Personal Norms were significantly related to Empathy, and significantly related to Volunteering to Help (as mediated by Ease of Escape), and since Empathy was significantly related to Volunteering to Help, it was possible that the effects of Personal Norms on VOlunteering to Help were mediated by Empathy. However, an ANCOVA showed that when the variance due to Empathy was removed, the significant pattern of Personal Norms effects remained 96 unchanged. Therefore, Empathy was unlikely to have mediated the relationship between Personal Norms and VOlunteering to Help that this study found. Nonpredicted Findings Regarding Personal Distress and the Relationship Between Personal Distress. Personal Norms. and Volunteering to Help Subjects’ Personal Distress-1 scores were greater after listening to the broadcast interview (M = 7.89) than they were before listening to the broadcast interview (M = 5.42), F(1, 74) = 25.27, p < .0001. Also, there was a marginally significant Personal Norms x Measurement Time interaction on subjects' Personal Distress-1 scores, F(1, 74) = 2.90, p < .093. There was a significant simple effect of Personal Norms on Personal Distress-1 Posttest scores, E(1,173) = 4.00, p < .05, but not on Pretest scores, F(1, 173) = .10. The mean Personal Distress-1 scores for the Personal Norms x Measurement Time interaction are presented in Table 12. Although there was a relationship between Personal Norms and Personal Distress-1, there was not a significant relationship between Personal Distress-1 and VOlunteering to Help, F(1, 86) = 1.6. Subjects’ Personal Distress-2 scores were also greater after listening to the broadcast interview (M = 10.67) than before listening to the broadcast interview (M = 4.97), F(1, 72) = 62.19, p < .0001. There was a significant overall 97 effect of Personal Norms on Personal Distress-2 scores, F(1, 72) = 5.99, p < .017, which was qualified by a Personal Norms x Measurement Time interaction on Personal Distress-2 scores, F(1, 72) = 6.02, p < .017. There was a significant simple effect of Personal Norms on Posttest Personal Distress-2 scores, F(1, 171) = 10.40, p < .01, but not for Pretest scores, F(1, 171) = .02. The mean Personal Distress-2 scores for the Personal Norms x Measurement Time interaction are presented in Table 13. Although there was a relationship between Personal Norms and Personal Distress-2, there was not a significant relationship between Volunteering to Help and Personal Distress-2, F(1, 84) = .34. Table 11 Mean Empathy Scores for the Personal Norms x Measurement Time Interaction Empathy Personal Norms Pretest Posttest Low 9.16 22.44 High 11.26 31.88 98 Table 12 Mean Personal Distress-1 Scores for the Personal Norms x Measurement Time Interaction Personal Distress-1 Personal Norms Pretest Posttest Low 5.29 7.22 High 5.55 8.70 Table 13 Mean Personal Distress-2 Scores for the Personal Norms x Measurement Time Interaction Personal Distress-2 Personal Norms Pretest Posttest Low 4.87 9.18 High 5.08 12.52 99 Analyses of Variance for News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form A.series of supplemental analyses of variance was conducted for each of the items in the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form. Listening Instructions, Type of Tape listened to, and Sex were the independent variables for these analyses. Subjects’ Understanding of Content of Tape. An examination of subjects’ summaries of the contents of News from the Personal Side revealed that all subjects produced an adequate description of the contents of the tape. Thus, there were no significant findings for this variable. Perception of Carol's Need. Subjects indicated the magnitude of Carol's Need (1 = very little, 9 = very great). Subjects with High Personal Norms reported that Carol had greater Need (M = 7.43) than did subjects with Low Personal Norms (M = 6.33), F(1, 84) = 12.81, p < .001. Subjects with Low Responsibility Denial indicated that Carol had greater Need (M = 7.23) than did subjects with High Responsibility Denial (M = 6.58), F(1, 84) = 4.94, p < .029. Both effects are in the expected direction. Attentiveness. Subjects indicated the extent to which they concentrated on listening to the information presented in the broadcast (1 = not at all, 9 = a great deal). Subjects with High Personal Norms reported that they Concentrated on Listening to the information presented in 100 the broadcast (M = 6.94) more than did subjects with Low Personal Norms (M = 5.92), F(1, 83) = 10.32, p < .002. Furthermore, there was a marginally significant Sex x Escape interaction on subjects' reports of the extent to which they Concentrated on Listening to the information presented in the broadcast, F(1, 83) = 3.85, p < .053. The means reflecting this interaction are presented in Table 14. In addition, there was a marginally significant Escape x Sex x Personal Norms interaction on subjects' reports of the extent to which they Concentrated on Listening to the information presented in the broadcast, F(1, 83) = 3.86, p < .053. For females, there was a significant simple, Escape x Personal Norms interaction on reports of Concentrating on Listening to information in the broadcast interview F(1, 83) = 5.23, p < .033. For males, the comparable effect was not significant, F(1, 83) = .26. For females in the easy escape condition, there was a simple, simple main effect of Personal Norms on reports of Concentrating on Listening to information, F(1, 83) = 10.17, p < .008. There was no comparable significant effect in the Difficult Escape condition, F(1, 83) = .01. Means for Concentration on Listening to information for the Personal Norms x Escape interaction are presented in Table 15. Subjects indicated the extent to which they Concentrated on Imagining the feelings of the person being interviewed in the broadcast (1 = not at all, 9 = a great 101 deal). Subjects with High Personal Norms reported that they Concentrated on Imagining Carol’s feelings more (M = 7.20) than did subjects with Low Personal Norms (M = 5.59), F(1, 83) = 22.12, p < .0001. Subjects with Low Responsibility Denial reported that they Concentrated on Imagining Carol’s feelings more (M = 6.85) than did subjects with High Responsibility Denial (M = 5.98), F(1, 83) = 6.78, p < .011. Subjects’ Perception of How Worthwhile the News From the Personal Side Feature was. Subjects responded to the question "How worthwhile do you feel broadcasts of this kind are?" (1 = not at all worthwhile, 9 = extremely worthwhile). Subjects with High Personal Norms indicated that they felt such broadcasts were more Worthwhile (M = 6.18) than did subjects with Low Personal Norms (M = 4.96), F(1, 83) = 10.18, p < .002. There was a marginally significant finding that females reported they felt that such broadcasts were more Worthwhile (M = 5.98) than did males (M = 5.16), 3(1, 83) = 3.81, p < .06. In addition, there was a significant Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms x Escape x Sex interaction on subjects ratings of how Worthwhile such broadcasts are, F(1, 83) = 5.74, p < .02. There was a significant simple Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms x Escape interaction for females' ratings of how Worthwhile such broadcasts are, F(1, 83) = 4.22, p < .03, but not for 102 males', F(1, 83) = 1.81. For females in the Easy Escape condition, there was a significant simple, simple Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms interaction on ratings of how Worthwhile such broadcasts are, §(1, 83) = 6.47, p < .025), but not for females in the Difficult Escape condition, F(1, 83) = .07. For females in the Easy Escape- High Responsibility Denial condition, there was a significant simple, simple, simple effect of Personal Norms on ratings of how Worthwhile such broadcasts are, F(1, 83) = 10.29, p < .01, that did not occur for females in the Easy Escape-Low Responsibility Denial Condition, §(l, 83) = .04. Female mean ratings of how Worthwhile such broadcasts are for the simple Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial interaction in the Easy Escape condition are presented in Table 16. How Much Subjects were Emotionally Affected by the Interview with Carol. Subjects reported how much the interview with Carol affected them Emotionally (Emotionality: 1 = not at all, 9 = extremely). Subjects with Low Responsibility Denial had greater Emotionality in response to the broadcast (M = 5.69) than did subjects with High Responsibility Denial (M = 4.92), F(1, 84) = 4.87, p < .03. In addition, subjects with High Personal Norms reported greater Emotionality in response to the broadcast (M = 6.10) than did subjects with Low Personal Norms (M = 4.450), 2(1, 84) = 24.27, p < .0001. 103 There was a marginally significant Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial interaction on Emotionality, F(1, 84) = 3.78, p < .055. In addition, there was a marginally significant simple Escape x Responsibility Denial interaction on Emotionality for females, F(1, 84) = 3.18, p < .10, but not for males, F(1, 84) = .94. There was a significant simple, simple effect of Responsibility Denial on Emotionality for females in the Easy Escape condition, E(1, 84) = 9.315 p < .01, but not for females in the Difficult Escape condition, §(1, 84) = .29. The mean ratings for Emotionality affected for the Responsibility Denial Escape x Sex interaction are presented in Table 17. Subjects' Rating of how Interesting the Interview with Carol was. Subjects indicated how interesting they thought the interview with Carol was (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely). Subjects with High Personal Norms rated the broadcast as more Interesting (M = 5.67) than did subjects with Low Personal Norms (M = 4.33), F(1, 84) = 13.52, p < .0001. In addition, there was a marginally significant finding that females rated the broadcast as more Interesting (M = 5.42) than did males (M = 4.60), F(1, 84) = 3.67, p < .06. Likableness of Carol. Subjects reported how likable the interviewee (Carol) was (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely). Subjects with High Personal Norms reported that Carol was more Likable (M = 6.22) than did subjects with Low Personal 104 Norms (M = 4.98), F(1, 84) = 11.60, p < .001. Subjects with Low Responsibility Denial reported that Carol was more Likable (M = 6.02) than did subjects with High Responsibility Denial (M = 5.23), E(1, 84) = 4.72, p < .04. Making News From the Personal Side a Regular Feature? Subjects indicated whether News from the Personal Side should be made a regular feature at the radio station (1 = definitely not, 9 = definitely yes). Subjects with High Personal Norms indicated that they thought News from the Personal Side should be made a Regular Feature to a greater extent (M = 6.06) than did subjects with Low Personal Norms (M = 4.92), F(1, 83) = 6.58, p < .02. Similarly, subjects with Low Responsibility Denial indicated that they thought News from the Personal Side should be made a Regular Feature to a greater extent (M = 6.00) than did subjects with High Responsibility Denial (M = 5.02), F(1, 83) = 4.50 p < .04. Also, females reported that they thought News from the Personal Side should be made a Regular Feature to a greater extent (M = 6.100) than did their male counterparts (M = 4.878), §(1, 83) = 6.79, p < .011. 105 Table 14 Means for Concentrating,on Listening to Information for Sex x Escape Interaction Escape Sex Easy Difficult Female 6.04 6.70 Male 6.57 6.12 106 Table 15 Means for Concentrating on Listening to Information for Personal Norms x Escape x Sex Interaction Personal Norms Sex Ease-of Escape LOW' High Easy 4.91 7.08 Female Difficult 6.92 7.00 Easy 6.18 6.92 Male Difficult 5.57 6.75 107 Table 16 Female Mean Ratings of how Worthwhile the Broadcast was. for Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial Interaction in Easy Escape Condition Personal Norms Responsibility Low High Denial Low 6.50 6.29 High 3.20 7.00 108 Table 17 Mean Emotionality Rating for Responsibility Denial x Escape x Seprnteraction Responsibility Denial Sex Ease-of Escape LOW‘ High Easy 4.73 4.92 Male Difficult 5.20 4.75 Easy 6.77 4.60 Female Difficult 5.79 5.39 109 Sex Differences Females volunteered to help significantly more than did males, x?(1) = 11.68, p = 0.001. In addition, there was a significant Sex x Responsibility Denial interaction for Empathy, 3(1, 75) = 6.13, p < .016, which was qualified by a marginally significant Sex x Responsibility Denial x Measurement Time interaction, F(1, 75) = 2.87, p < .094. Simple effects analysis revealed a significant simple Sex x Responsibility Denial interaction on Posttest Empathy scores, F(1, 174) = 7.78, p < .01, but not on Pretest Empathy scores, 3(1, 174) = .53. There was a significant simple, simple effect of Responsibility Denial on female Posttest Empathy scores, F(1, 174) = 11.52, p < .001, but not on male posttest empathy scores, F(1, 174) = .27. Furthermore, there was a simple, simple effect of Sex on Posttest Empathy scores of subjects with low responsibility denial, F(1, 87) = 4.21, p < .05, but not on Postest Empathy scores of subjects with high responsibility denial, 3(1, 87) = 1.12. The mean Posttest Empathy scores relevant to the Sex x Responsibility Denial interaction are shown in Table 18. 110 Table 18 Mean Posttest Empathy Scores for Responsibility Denial x Sex Interaction Responsibility Denial Sex Low High Male 25.43 27.19 Female 32.24 24.09 CHAPTER 9 DISCUSSION FOR STUDY TWO The primary objective of this study was to explore if the three vs. one pattern of volunteering to help as a function of ease-of—escape and emotional state (Toi and Batson, 1982) also occurs when the cognitive variables of personal norms and responsibility denial are substituted for empathy (and personal distress). There was little, if any evidence for the most complicated expression of the hypothesis (version a), which predicted that only subjects with low responsibility denial and high personal norms in the easy escape condition, as well as all subjects in the difficult escape condition, would volunteer to help at a significantly higher level than those in the easy escape condition who had other combinations of personal norms and responsibility denial. Differences in volunteering to help were not consistent with this particular form of the hypothesis. Thus, personal norms and responsibility denial did not function in combination to create the three vs. one pattern of helping behavior. This particular incarnation of the hypotheses was the most consistent with Schwartz's theory (Schwartz, 1968a, lll 112 1977; Schwartz and Howard, 1984), which states that in addition to high personal norms, low responsibility denial is necessary for helping behavior to occur, except under conditions with extraordinary situational constraints. Thus, findings from Study Two did not yield additional supporting evidence for Schwartz's theory of how personal norms and responsibility denial function together. In addition, there was no reliable evidence in support of the form of the hypothesis (version b) that predicted that only subjects with low responsibility denial in the easy-escape condition, as well as all subjects in the difficult escape condition, would volunteer to help at a significantly higher level than those in the easy escape condition who had high responsibility denial. Although Schwartz (1974) has shown that responsibility denial alone can be an effective predictor of helping behavior, in the current study differences in volunteering to help as a function of this variable were not extreme enough to support this particular form of the hypothesis. Thus, responsibility denial did not function alone, without the influence of personal norms, to create the three vs. one pattern of volunteering to help. In contrast, there was evidence for the form of the hypothesis (version c)that predicted that only subjects with high personal norms in the easy-escape condition, as well as all subjects in the difficult-escape condition, would 113 volunteer to help at a significantly higher level than those in the easy-escape condition who had low personal norms. Differences in helping were consistent with this particular form of the hypothesis. Thus, personal norms did function alone, without the influence of responsibility denial, to create the three vs. one pattern of volunteering to help, that Toi and Batson (1982) have previously shown to be determined by manipulated levels of empathy and personal distress. Furthermore, because there was no evidence for versions (a) and (b) of the hypothesis, version (d) of the hypothesis, which stated that both (a) and (b) would occur, was not supported. Similarly, because there was no evidence for version (b) of the hypothesis, version (e) of the hypothesis, which stated that both (b) and (c) would occur, was not supported. It is possible that the pattern of helping associated with personal norms resulted from social desirability, which may have functioned as an underlying factor that was a mediating link between these two variables. Previous research using the paradigm that has typically employed by Batson and his associates has produced mixed results regarding the influence of social desirability on helping behavior. To illustrate, in a direct test of whether helping was mediated by social desirability, Fultz et al. (1986) directly examined if social desirability mediated the 114 link between empathy and helping behavior. These researchers showed that empathy influenced helping when the potential for social evaluation (of socially desirable behavior) was low as well as high. However, Cialdini et a1. (1987), using a similar methodology, found that helping was associated with social desirability scores only when subjects were empathically oriented toward the victim. In any event, the implications of these mixed findings for the present research which examined the link between cognitive variables and helping is not straightforward. In the current research, it could be that subjects had a tendency to give socially desirable responses to the personal norms and responsibility denial questionnaires; and, this tendency to express socially desirable behaviors might also promote inclinations to help, particularly when responses to a victim's request are open to public scrutiny. However, if social desirability significantly influenced both responses to the two cognitive measures and helping behavior, I would have expected that both personal norms and responsibility denial would also have been associated with helping behavior.1 However, as noted, responsibility denial was not related to helping. Thus, it seems unlikely 1Schwartz (1967b) believed that there was a much greater likelihood that responsibility denial, rather than personal norms, might be correlated with social desirability. However, he demonstrated that there was a correlation of -.01 between responsibility denial and social desirability as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). 115 that social desirability mediated the link between cognition and helping that Study Two of this thesis demonstrated. Why were high personal norms not mediated by responsibility denial as predicted by Schwartz’s theory? As mentioned earlier, Schwartz has not studied the influence of preexisting responsibility denial on responding to a nonemergency request for help from a needy person in the context of a laboratory situation. It is plausible that in the current study, this type of situation made it difficult to deny responsibility regardless of the ease-of—escape. Schwartz (1970) has suggested that personal norms can lead to helping behavior apart from the influence of trait responsibility denial as long as the situation makes the subject’s responsibility highly salient. Even though in the current experiment the easy escape condition appears to have functioned with less situational constraint on personal norms than did the difficult escape condition, there is reason to believe that in both conditions the letter from the professor, an authority figure, along with Carol’s enclosed letter, made it sufficiently clear to subjects that they were responsible for whether or not Carol received help; it was implied to subjects in both conditions that if they did not volunteer to help Carol, she might not get help elsewhere, and therefore she would have to drop her psychology course--a turn of events that would be very painful to her. 116 In addition, it was of interest to examine in this study whether non-experimentally induced emotional arousal generated the three vs. one pattern of helping behavior-- either independently from or as related to personal norms. There is a precedent for studying naturally occurring emotional arousal using the basic research paradigm of Batson and his associates (e.g., Batson et al., 1983, studies 1 and 2; Batson et al., 1986, study 1; and Fultz et al., 1986). In this work, subjects were introduced to a person who was experiencing personal distress. Then on the basis of a self-report emotional response questionnaire similar to the one used in the current work, the researchers obtained measures of naturally occurring empathy and personal distress. They discovered that these naturally occurring emotions were associated with the same three vs. one pattern of volunteering to help as they observed when they induced these affective states via listening instructions (e.g., Toi & Batson, 1982). An analysis of the naturally occurring emotional arousal of subjects in the current study showed that both empathy and personal distress were greater for subjects after, as compared to before, listening to the News from the Personal Side broadcast. Therefore, as in the first study, but without the aid of an emotional induction, listening to the experimental tape led to emotional arousal. However, this emotional arousal was not related to the three vs. one 117 pattern of volunteering to help as would be expected from the theory of Batson and his associates. From the work of Batson and his colleagues, I might have expected that empathy would be associated with a high level of volunteering to help in both the easy and difficult-to-escape conditions. Furthermore, because high personal norms were associated with a high level of volunteering to help in both the easy and difficult escape conditions in this study, I might have expected that high personal norms would be associated with empathy. In agreement with these expectations, personal norm level was significantly positively correlated with self-reported empathy. However, in the current study--contrary to expectations based on Batson’s findings--empathy was significantly related to volunteering to help in the difficult escape condition but not in the easy escape condition. In addition, I might have also expected that personal distress would be associated with a high level of volunteering to help in the difficult-escape condition but not in the easy-escape condition. Because in the current study low personal norms were associated with a high level of volunteering to help in the difficult escape condition but not in the easy-escape condition, I might have expected that low personal norms would be associated with personal distress. In contrast to these expectations, the results 118 revealed a marginally significant finding that subjects with high personal norms had greater posttest personal distress scores than subjects with low personal norms; but, in any event, personal distress was not related to volunteering to help. In summary, personal norms are evidently related to increased feelings of both empathy and personal distress; and, even though empathy was related to helping, it could not explain the effects of personal norms on the three vs. one pattern of volunteering to help. Thus, by substituting high personal norms for induced empathy and by substituting low personal norms for induced personal distress, this experiment successfully obtained Toi and Batson’s (1982) three vs. one pattern of volunteering to help under easy and difficult-escape conditions. Therefore, Batson and his associates' purely emotional explanation for the three vs. one pattern of volunteering to help appears inadequate; at least personal norms, and perhaps other cognitive factors as well, need to be considered when attempting to understand volunteering to help as moderated by ease of escape. Why was the three vs. one pattern of volunteering to help that was based on naturally occurring empathy and personal distress that Batson and his colleagues’(e.g., Batson et al., 1983, studies 1 and 2; Batson et al., 1986, study 1; and Fultz et al., 1986) observed not replicated? 119 This failure may have resulted from differences between the emotional stimulus value of the need situations presented to subjects in these past studies and the current study. In all the studies mentioned above, the experimenter asked the subject if they wanted to help the person in need, so that the person in need did not directly ask for help. In contrast, in the current study subjects not only heard an emotional presentation by Carol of her painful situation, they also received a personal letter from Carol (and her professor) asking the subject to help Carol. It is unclear how this difference in emotional stimuli may have led to differences in the experience of empathy and its impact on helping. However, because the naturally occurring emotional arousal stimulated by the tape in Study Two did not replicate the three vs. one pattern of helping discovered by Batson and his colleagues, it seems that this pattern may only occur for a limited range of emotional stimuli. In addition to findings relevant to the hypothesis of this study, there were many other interesting findings pertaining to the subject characteristics of personal norms, responsibility denial, and sex. First, consider the findings regarding personal norms: Not only did subjects with high personal norms help significantly more than did subjects with low personal helping norms, they also yielded significantly higher scores 120 on all eight items on the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form. High personal-norm subjects responded with higher ratings for how interesting they thought the broadcast was, how worthwhile they thought the broadcast was, and the extent to which they thought the broadcast should become a regular feature of the MSU student radio station. These findings suggest that persons with high personal norms value situations that provide information about persons who need help to a greater extent than do subjects with low personal norms. Furthermore, these subjects’ listening behavior was in accordance with their claim that they value such broadcasts: not only did they report that they valued the broadcast to a greater extent than did subjects with low personal norms, they also gave higher ratings for how much they concentrated on imagining the feelings of Carol while listening to the interview. As would be predicted by the theory of Batson and his associates, this listening behavior was associated with greater empathy for these high personal norm subjects. Furthermore, females in the easy escape condition with high personal norms, as compared to those with low personal norms, gave significantly higher ratings for concentrating on listening to information in the broadcast. In contrast, females in the difficult escape condition, regardless of their level of personal norms, gave similarly high ratings 121 for concentrating on listening to information in the broadcast. However, since concentration on listening occurred before the ease-of—escape manipulation, there is no reason to expect that there were differences between escape conditions in actual listening behavior. Therefore, it seems likely that females with high personal norms concentrated on listening to information to a greater extent than did females with low personal norms regardless of escape conditions. The difficult-escape condition may have presented a novel situation in which females felt insecure: subjects in this condition were planning to conduct a tape recorded interview with Carol, a stranger who was suffering--and who had asked the subject for help. Thus, to regain their sense of security, subjects with low personal norms in the difficult to escape condition may have been motivated to see themselves as having concentrated on listening to the information from the interview they heard. Seeing themselves in this way could have helped alleviate potentially feeling conflicted about interviewing Carol without having concentrated on listening to her in the past and thus helped them feel more secure about the interview. It is unclear, however, why the response of males to this question was not significantly influenced by the ease-of—escape condition. Furthermore, subjects with high personal norms reported that they were more emotionally affected by the broadcast. 122 This result is consistent with the finding that subjects with high personal norms experienced greater empathy and personal distress than did subjects with low personal norms. In addition to being more emotionally affected by the broadcast, subjects with high personal norms rated the need of Carol as significantly greater than did subjects with low personal norms. In general, the above findings can be explained by Schwartz's (1977) theory. Recall the meaning of the personal norms as measured in this study: this construct referred to hOW'mUCh the person felt personally morally obligated to help another person who, without that help would not be able meet their need. According to Schwartz (1977), subjects are motivated to act in accordance with their personal norms because it is rewarding to their self- concept--and that negative feelings about the self may arise from not acting in accordance with their personal norms. Seen from this point of view, it is not surprising that subjects with high personal norms provided significantly higher ratings for the eight questions discussed above. It seems that such persons would value situations that provide information about a person in need because of the potential rewards to their self-concept. It also makes sense that they would be highly motivated to concentrate on listening to such information and to concentrate on imagining the feelings of a needy person. Furthermore, according to the 123 theory of Batson and his associates, this pattern of listening would explain why subjects with high personal norms reported greater empathy, greater personal distress, and being more emotionally effected in general. Perhaps subjects with high personal norms may have been motivated to see the need of Carol as greater because this perception would provide further reason to help her. In addition, the fact that subjects with higher personal norms provided higher ratings on all of the questions on the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form raises the possibility that extreme response style (ERS) could have played a role in contributing to this pattern. It is possible that the reason subjects reported consistently high ratings for these variables is because they have may have a general tendency to provide extreme ratings. When, over time and across stimuli, a person consistently uses the extreme choices on tests that employ items requiring the subject to respond along an intensity dimension (e.g., 1s and 7s on a seven—point rating scale)-- as does the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form-- they may be said to have ERS (Bonarius, 1971; Hamilton, 1965, 1968; Bachman and O’Malley, 1984; Van der Kloot, Kroonenberg, & Bakker, 1985). According to Hamilton (1968), although the variables underlying ERS have not been clearly identified--there is little support for a link between ERS 124 and any traditional personality dimensions (Bonarius, 1971)- -there is considerable evidence for reliability of ERS. Perhaps there is a link between high personal norms and ERS. However, not all extreme responding represents a response bias in test—taking. There is evidence that extreme responses are valid indicators of extreme opinions (Paulhus, 1991). For example, there is evidence that extreme test responses predict extreme behavior (Schuman and Presser, 1981; cf. Peabody, 1962). The current study did not use a methodology to measure ERS; thus, it is uncertain whether ERS actually occurred in the current study. To the extent that the results in the current study are a result of extreme responding, this would provide further evidence that extreme test responses predict extreme behavior. In addition, ERS may be related to high personal norms. Further research is needed to examine this possibility. Nonetheless, the current study's findings about the relationship between personal norms and other variables enhances our understanding of the construct of personal norms and how they operate. Like personal norms, responsibility denial was found to be related to several types of the judgements that subjects made about their experience. For example, subjects with low responsibility denial reported significantly higher ratings both for making News from the Personal Side a regular feature and for concentrating on imagining the feelings of 125 Carol than did subjects with high responsibility denial. Subjects with low responsibility denial characteristically ascribe responsibility to themselves for caring about and responding to others (Schwartz, 1977). Thus, it makes sense that compared to subjects with high responsibility denial, these subjects valued a program that highlighted the personal story and needs of another person and that they would listen empathically to that person. Based on theorizing of Batson and his associates, if low responsibility denial subjects' reported higher rates of concentrating on imagining the feelings of Carol reflects actual listening, these subjects, as compared to subjects with high responsibility denial, should also have higher levels of empathy. The results revealed that females with low responsibility denial, as compared to those with high responsibility denial, did have greater empathy. This was not the case for males. There is evidence--which will be discussed in the next section--that females often show more empathy than males. However, it is not clear why low responsibility denial might be a more potent, empathically related factor for females.2 In addition, in the easy escape condition, females with low responsibility denial gave significantly higher ratings for being emotionally affected by the broadcast than did 2Personal distress ‘was not significantly' related to responsibility denial for either sex. 126 females with high responsibility denial. In contrast, however, in the difficult escape condition, females with low responsibility denial did not give significantly different ratings than females with high responsibility denial for being emotionally affected by the broadcast. It seems that "emotionally affected" referred to some emotional state that differed from either personal distress or empathy. I came to this conclusion because there was not a Responsibility Denial x Escape x Sex interaction for either Empathy or Personal Distress, even though there was a Responsibility Denial x Escape x Sex interaction for being "emotionally affected." Thus, it is unclear what being "emotionally affected" meant to the subjects. Since listening to the broadcast occurred before the ease-of—escape manipulation, escape could not have influenced how much the broadcast emotionally affected subjects while they listened to it. It seems likely that reports of subjects in the easy escape condition of being emotionally affected reflects how they felt during the broadcast--that females with low responsibility denial were more sensitive to Carol’s story and therefore felt more emotionally affected that did females with high responsibility denial. In contrast, reports of subjects in the difficult- escape condition may reflect how the difficult-escape condition influenced subjects' recollection of hOW'mUCh the 127 broadcast affected them emotionally. Perhaps the difficult- escape condition raised some kind of emotional arousal level of all subjects--they were planning to interview a suffering student who had asked for their help--and that this influ- enced all subjects to recall that they had been strongly emotionally affected by the broadcast. In addition, subjects with low responsibility reported significantly higher ratings for the magnitude of Carol’s need and how likable they thought she was than did subjects with high responsibility denial. Perhaps the low defensiveness that possibly is associated with low responsibility denial allowed these subjects to look at Carol's personal need more closely and to view her neediness more positively. In summary, as with personal norms, responsibility denial was related to a number of features of subjects’ attitudes towards the suffering person. Although responsibility denial was not significantly associated with actually volunteering to help, it was associated with characteristics that seem supportive of helping behavior. Finally, I will discuss findings that were not discussed earlier. Although there was no overall sex difference in reported empathy, it was noted above that females with low responsibility denial had significantly higher empathy scores than females with high responsibility denial and that there was no such finding for males. 128 Furthermore, females with low responsibility denial had significantly higher empathy than did males with low responsibility denial scores. In their literature review on sex differences in empathy, Eisenberg and Lennon (1983) explain that findings of sex differences in empathy have been a function of the methods used to assess empathy. They observed that sex differences in empathy have been greatest when it has been obvious what behavior or trait was being assessed--that is, when research has used rather straight forward self-report measures of empathy. In addition, they observed that when the subjects were asked to rate their emotional response (sometimes by means of self-report) in contrived situations, there were only moderate differences (still favoring females). However, they found that there were no evident sex differences when the measure of empathy was either physiological or unobtrusive recording of nonverbal reactions to another person's emotional state. Eisenberg and Lennon (1983) suggest that when empathy differences favoring women do occur, they are likely to result from differences between males and females in terms of how empathic they want to appear to others. Hence, such differences tend to occur in circumstances in which the person knows they are observed or may be monitored. Eisenberg and Lennon’s (1983) observation about contrived situations is most relevant to the current study. 129 Among 25 such studies they reviewed, there were only nine in which there were sex differences; and, of these, seven favored women. It is interesting to note that Batson et al.'s (1983) research was included among the studies using self-report in a contrived situation that did not report a significant sex difference in empathy. Additional studies exploring sex differences in self- report measures of empathy in contrived situations have been conducted since Eisenberg and Lennon's (1983) literature review. For example, in their studies to test Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis, Fultz et a1. (1986) and Schroeder et a1. (1988) also did not find a sex difference in empathy. However, in all three of their studies using both women and men, Batson et a1. (1988) found greater self- reported empathy in women than in men. In explaining their finding of sex differences in empathy, Batson et a1. (1988) agreed with the above interpretation of Eisenberg and Lennon (1983)--and of Eisenberg & Miller (1987)--that subjects differ more in how they conceive of the appropriateness of reporting empathic feelings than in the actual experience of them. It is not clear why there has been little consistency in sex differences in empathy across studies that have used Batson’s basic empathy-altruism experimental design and empathy self-report measure. In addition, it is not evident why the current study did not find an overall sex difference 130 in self-reported empathy, but found sex differences in empathy as a function of level of responsibility denial. Future research on sex differences in empathy should measure responsibility denial and examine whether it mediates the relationship between sex and empathy. Perhaps females with low responsibility denial feel that it is more important to be seen as empathic than do females with high responsibility denial; furthermore, perhaps these women also feel that it is more important to be seen as empathic than do males with low responsibility denial. In addition, there was a marginally significant finding that females thought the broadcast was more interesting than did males. Furthermore, compared to males, females were more favorable to the idea that the News from the Personal Side Broadcast should become a regular feature. Moreover, there was a marginally significant finding that females thought the broadcast was more worthwhile than did males. In addition, for females in the easy-escape condition who had high responsibility denial, those with high personal norms rated the broadcast as more worthwhile than did those with low personal norms. This complicated pattern provides some evidence for a conditional relationship between personal norms and responsibility denial; however, unlike the relationship predicted from Schwartz’s perspective on personal norms, in the observed interaction, responsibility denial did not neutralize the effect of high personal norms. 131 In any event, taken together, the above findings suggest that females place a higher value on information about the suffering of a peer in distress than did males. In addition, women also volunteered to help Carol significantly more than did males. Eagly and Crowley's (1986) meta-analytic review of sex differences in helping behavior revealed that in general men helped more than women and women received more help than men. However, sex differences in helping were extremely inconsistent across studies, but were most successfully predicted by attributes of the studies and the helping behaviors. In short, males have tended to help more when a situation calls for helping behavior which involves sex-typed skills (Deaux, 1976) or has been prescribed by the male gender role (Eagly & Crowley, 1986). Eagly and Crowley (1986) credit Gilligan (1982) for her contribution to gender role theory--her theory, along with that of Bakan (1966) was mentioned in the discussion for Study One; however, these reviewers focus on the relationship between gender role and helping behavior. They state: ..the male gender role fosters helping that is heroic and chivalrous, whereas the female gender role fosters helping that is nurturant and caring. In social psychological studies, helping behavior has been examined in the context of short-term encounters with strangers. This focus has tended to exclude from the research literature those helping behaviors prescribed by the female gender role, because they are displayed primarily in long-term, close relationships. In contrast, the helping behaviors prescribed by the male 132 gender role have been generously represented in research findings because they are displayed in relationships with strangers as well as in close relationships. (p. 283). This explanation illuminates the possible etiological basis for the orientations described by Bakan (1966) and Gilligan (1982) that were discussed earlier. Regardless of the origins of these orientations, they provide potential explanations for the current study's findings regarding gender. Consider how the above theories may help us understand this study’s discovered sex differences in volunteering to help. The subjects had begun to enter into a possible rela- tionship with Carol: they spent time listening to Carol's story and responded to it by completing the measures; in addition, they received a personal letter from Carol and had to consider continuing to meet with her and share class notes with her. It is possible that females helped at a significantly higher level than males because of their communal orientation and feminine gender role--women are more concerned with intimacy, connection, interpersonal communication and caring for others whereas males were more concerned with individualistic matters (Bakan, 1966; Gilligan, 1982). Although there have not been studies of Bakan's theory in relationship to actual helping behavior, research on Bakan's (1966) agency and communion has shown that sex differences in agency and communion can help 133 explain differences in males’ and females’ responses in a somewhat different situation wherein another person’s welfare is dependent on their behavior--that involving self/other reward allocation (Watts, Messé, Vallacher, 1982). The situation involving a female student who was in need and depending on help provided an important opportunity for women to act on their orientation to connect with and express care for another. Perhaps the women were also more able to respond to Carol’s level of dependency and neediness. Carlson (1971) showed that females were more tolerant of negative affect, and Schopler and Bateson (1965) discovered that as the dependency of a needy person increased, female subjects became more altruistic, while male subjects became less so. In summary, although the literature in social psychology has shown that men tend to help more than women, this study provides evidence that women may help more than men in situations that involve a relationship with the victim that may last for some time. It is unclear, however, why Batson and his associates have not found consistent sex differences in helping behavior when they used similar helping scenarios (e.g., Coke, Batson & McDavis, 1978; Schroeder et al., 1988)3 3Toi and Batson (1982) did not find any sex differences because they, like Fultz et al. (1986) and Batson et a1. (1981), used only female subjects. CHAPTER 10 GENERAL DISCUSSION Study One failed to replicate Toi and Batson's (1982) emotional arousal induction. It was suggested that this outcome may have occurred because the present version of the News from the Personal Side portrayed emotions more strongly and may have led to a ceiling effect for empathy. It appears that Toi and Batson’s (1982) finding regarding the three vs. one pattern behavior may not be very robust since the induced emotional arousal responsible for this pattern may be dependent upon a limited range of emotional stimuli. Similarly, in Study Two, there was not a replication of the finding of Batson and his colleagues (e.g., Batson et al., 1983, Studies 1 and 2; Batson et al., 1986, Study 1; and Fultz et al., 1986) that in response to a person in need, naturally occurring differences in empathy and personal distress lead to the three vs. one pattern of helping behavior; instead, in the current study, personal distress was not related to helping, and empathy was only related to helping in the difficult escape condition. As with the failure to replicate Toi and Batson (1982) in Study One, this failure in replication may also have 134 135 resulted from differences in the emotional impact between the stimuli used by these researchers and the tape used in the current study. This speculation suggests that Batson and his associates' findings of the influence of experimentally induced and naturally occurring emotional arousal on the three vs. one pattern of volunteering to help may depend upon a limited range of stimuli and therefore be a somewhat limited phenomenon. It will be important for future research on the influence of emotional arousal on the three vs. one pattern of helping behavior to vary the stimuli in the need situation and observe the range of situations in which the pattern occurs. My expectations were not met regarding the cognitive variables examined in Study One. In agreement with the theory of Schwartz (1977), Study One demonstrated that Schwartz’s (1977) cognitive variables--personal norms and responsibility denial--did not function as states; in other words, they were not affected by Toi and Batson’s (1982) emotional arousal induction technique. However, Study Two showed that when preexisting personal norms were activated, they acted on helping behavior as the emotional variables of empathy and personal distress have been shown to act on helping by Batson and his colleagues. The finding of Study Two that the three vs. one pattern of helping can be created by personal norms, independent of empathy and personal distress, presents a 136 challenge to Batson and his associates' claim that the three vs. one pattern of helping is purely determined by aroused empathy and personal distress. Thus, Study Two showed that personal norms were influential in determining helping behavior in a situation in which emotional arousal had previously been thought to be primarily influential. Furthermore, this research raises the possibility that personal norms may have played an important role in other research that has solely examined the influence of emotional arousal on helping behavior. It is unclear whether in situations in which the three vs. one pattern of helping behavior results from either experimentally induced or naturally occurring emotional arousal, personal norms jointly determine this pattern. Thus, it is important for future research that attempts to replicate and extend the findings of Batson and his associates to also measure personal norms. If it is shown that empathy and high personal norms jointly influence volunteering to help in the easy escape condition, Batson and his colleagues will need to incorporate the variable of personal norms into their current explanation of the three vs. one pattern of helping behavior. This possible result would lead to a fundamental change in their theory. Batson and his associates have argued that empathy leads to helping behavior in the easy escape condition without concern of self-rewards, whereas 137 Schwartz's (1977) claims that subjects with high personal norms are motivated to act on these norms because they are self-rewarding--and because to not act on these norms may involve negative self-judgements. Of course, future research needs to test this claim that personal norms are associated with self-rewards. If this claim is shown to be true, and if a future study shows that together empathy and high personal norms motivate helping behavior in the easy escape condition, Batson and his associates would have to abandon their contention that empathy motivates helping behavior without concern for rewards or punishments. Furthermore, Study Two extends the findings of Schwartz by showing that personal norms can be activated and hence influence behavior, without the influence of responsibility denial (as a trait). Schwartz has never reported a study in which he measured both personal norms and responsibility denial but found only that the former influenced helping. However, Schwartz's theory can accommodate this finding; as long as responsibility is highly salient, responsibility denial should not play an important role in determining helping behavior (Schwartz, 1977). In the current study responsibility may have been salient enough to make responsibility denial difficult but not so strong that it overrode the influence of personal norms. It would be interesting to replicate Study Two with the addition of a high and low salience of responsibility 138 condition. It appears that in both the easy and difficult escape conditions of the current study, the letters from the professor and Carol served to create a high salience of responsibility condition. A low salience condition could incorporate additional opportunities for subjects to deny responsibility (e.g., the letter from the professor could tell the subject that several subjects are being asked to help). As compared to subjects with low personal norms, subjects in Study Two with high personal norms showed that they valued situations that provide information about a person who is in need. Based upon the theory of Schwartz (1977) it was suggested that the favorable attitude about such information occurred because helping in such contexts potentially could provide rewards for their self-concept. Furthermore, it was suggested that these potential self- rewards may have been the reason why subjects with high personal norms were more highly motivated to concentrate on listening to such information and to concentrate on imagining the feelings of Carol. In addition, it was proposed that the reason subjects with high personal norms felt that the need of Carol was greater than did subjects with low personal norms, was because this perception would provide further reason to help her. Whether or not this reasoning is correct, the collection of findings about personal norms raises further 139 questions regarding personal norms and helping: (1) Is the influence of personal norms on helping behavior mediated by listening behavior?; (2) Do persons with high personal norms characteristically perceive greater need in potential recipients of aid than do persons with low personal norms?; and, (3) To what extent do persons with high personal norms, as compared to subjects with low personal norms, seek out situations where another person needs help. Although responsibility denial did not play an important role in determining helping behavior in the present research, it was shown to be associated with several variables, also related to personal norms, that seem associated with helping behavior. Subjects with low responsibility denial, as compared to subjects with high responsibility denial, were more likely to report that they concentrated on imagining the feelings of Carol, that her needs were great and that she was likable. They were also significantly more likely to report that they felt News from the Personal Side should be a regular feature. Given the similarity of responses of subjects with high personal norms and subjects with low responsibility denial, it would be interesting for future research to further examine how personal norms and responsibility denial are related to one another. Moreover, in examining a helping situation unlike the ones previously studied by Schwartz and his colleagues, 140 Study Two demonstrated that personal norms influence helping behavior in a greater range of situations than had previously been shown. Furthermore, both studies showed that there were important differences between males and females. Study One and Study Two showed that females thought the experimental tape (involving a person in need) was more interesting than did males. In addition, Study One provided some evidence that females were more empathic than males, while Study Two showed that females helped significantly more than males. These sex differences were interpreted within the framework of theories (Bakan, 1966; Gilligan, 1982; and, Eagly and Crowley, 1983) that suggest women, as compared to men, are more likely to value being connected to others, to have more interest in other people's problems, to be more empathic, and to be more helpful in their ongoing relationships with others. In short, the sex differences found in this thesis were suggested to indicate that women and men each relate to the world differently. In conclusion, the present research has contributed to our understanding of the influence of personal norms and responsibility denial on volunteering to help. Personal norms were extended to help explain helping behavior that was previously thought to be determined solely by empathy. .Although personal norms have not been studied very much in the past ten years, the current research suggests that it 141 will be fruitful for future research on helping behavior to include the measurement of personal norms. APPENDICES APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS 144 INTRODUCTION TO THE CURRENT STUDY This study is part of a yearly project for pilot testing new programs for WDBM, the local university radio station. You will be asked to carefully listen and give your reactions to one of the available pilot tapes of two proposed programs: Bulletin Board, a program of announcements of upcoming events at the University, and News from the Personal Side, a program aimed at a more personalized approach to news events. All the pilot tapes are based on real events, but none of the tapes has or will be aired. You will be asked to adopt a specific listening perspective while listening to the second tape because how people listen can influence their reactions to broadcast materials. 145 Bulletin Board Evaluation Form Please answer each question. Briefly summarize the content of the broadcast Please circle the number that best represents your opinion. How interesting was the broadcast to you? not at all extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How much did the broadcast affect you emotionally? not at all extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How worthwhile do you feel broadcasts of this kind are? not at all extremely worthwhile worthwhile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Should Bulletin Board be made a regular WDBM feature? definitely not definitely yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 146 Communication Emotional Response Scale Please indicate by circling a number the degree to which you felt each of these emotional reactions while listening to the broadcast. Do not worry if you did not experience many of these emotions. Only a few may be applicable to a particular broadcast. Please be sure to circle a number for each item. not at all moderately extremely alarmed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 perturbed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 grieved l 2 3 4 5 6 7 gympathetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 intent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 upset I 2 3 4 5 6 7 worried 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 tender 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 disturbed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 moved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 disconcerted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 disgusted 1 211 3 4 5 6 7 anxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ‘warm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 compassionate l 2 3 4 5 6 7 softhearted 1 2_. 3 4 5 6 7 bothered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 kind 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 uneasy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 distressed 1 e2, 3 4 5 6 7 touched 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 troubled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 shocked 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 empathic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 147 News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form Please answer each question. Briefly summarize the content of the broadcast. Please circle the number that best represents your opinion. How interesting was the broadcast to you? not at all extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How much did the broadcast affect you emotionally? not at all extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 How great is the need of the person interviewed in the broadcast? very little very great 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In you opinion, how likeable was the person interviewed in the broadcast? not at all extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 148 News from,the Personal Side Evaluation Continued How worthwhile do you feel broadcasts of this kind are? not at all extremely worthwhile worthwhile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Should News from the Personal Side be made a regular WDBM feature? definitely not definitely yes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 While listening, to what extent did you concentrate on listening to the information presented in the broadcast? not at all a great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 To what extent did you concentrate on imagining how the person being interviewed felt? not at all a great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 149 Personal Norms Questionnaire Instructions: For the following hypothetical situations report what you would feel you ought to do, regardless of what others might expect of you or of what they might actually do. Please record your answer on a scale from -1 to 5 (-1= Obligation not to help, 0=No obligation either way, 1,2,3,4= increasingly strong feelings of obligation to help, and 5=Strong obligation to help. Question 1. .A study-tutor center will -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 be created on campus to help MSU students with high-risk for dropping out of college. Students with knowledge in different subject areas will be asked to volunteer any amount of time to help these students. If you had knowledge in one of these subject areas should you volunteer? 2. The MSU Clinical Center has a -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 new program for students who are in recovery from operations. Most of these students' families live far away and they students need some social support. The clinical center is asking for student volunteers to spend some time with these patient-students. Should you volunteer? 3. On some evening you seen an —1 0 l 2 3 4 5 elderly couple with a flat tire on a highway with little traffic and it was pouring rain. Should you get out in the rain and assist them? 150 Personal Norms Questionnaire Contineed... Question 4. There is a new place in East -1 0 1 2 Lansing that serves meals to the homeless five days per week. They rely upon volunteers to serve the meals. You have been asked to help serve dinner for two nights. Should you? 5. One evening a student loses -1 0 1 2 their contact lenses in the MSU union and cannot see very well. They happen to ask you if you would help them walk across campus to their dorm to get their glasses. Should you assist this person? 6. Someone goes to visit your -1 0 1 2 neighbor who happens to not be home. This person comes to your house and asks to use your phone to call for a ride. Should you assist this person? 151 Responsibility Denial Scale Each of the items below is a statement of an attitude or opinion which some people have. Please read each statement and then.decide whether you agree with it or disagree‘with it. There are no right or wrong responses to these statements. If you Strongly Agree, place a SA in the space provided. If you Agree, place an A.in the space provided. If you Disagree, place a D in the space provided. If you Strongly disagree, place a SD in the space provided. If you are not certain, answer A.or D according to which comes closer to your opinion. Do not leave any items blank. D 1. When a soldier kills his enemy in war he should not feel guilty. D 2. You can’t blame basically good people who are forced by circumstances beyond their control to be inconsiderate of others. D 3. When you consider how hard it is for an honest businessman to get ahead in today's economy, it is easier to forgive shrewdness in business. A 4. Even when I realize a cause is hopeless in the long run, I still feel it is my responsibility to work for it. D 5. When things go wrong for me it is often not my own fault. D 6. When a person is pushed hard enough, there comes a point beyond which anything he does is justifiable. A 7. If I were a judge, I would probably become personally involved in the decisions I would have to make. D 8. You can't expect a person to act much differently from everyone else. D 9. With the pressure for grades and the widespread cheating in schools nowadays, the individual who cheats occasionally is not really much at fault. A 11. D 13. A 14. A 16. A 18. A 20. A 21. A 24. 152 Responsibility Denial Scale Continued... Occasionally in life a person finds himself in a situation in which he has absolutely no control over what he does to others. If I hurt someone unintentionally, I would feel almost as guilty as I would if I had done the same thing intentionally. When a person is completely involved in valuable work, you can't blame them if they are insensitive to those persons around them. It is unfair to judge a person by the way they act when they are put in with a bad crowd. Failing to return the money when you are given too much change is the same as stealing from a store. It doesn't make much sense to be concerned about hOW'We act when we are sick and feeling miserable. Extenuating circumstances never completely remove a person's responsibility for their actions. If I damaged someone's car in an accident that was legally his fault, I would still feel somewhat guilty. If I were a lawyer who won a case for a client I believed to be guilty, I would probably feel somewhat guilty myself. The older I get, the more I hold myself to account for what happens to those around me. Being very upset or preoccupied does not excuse a person for doing anything he would ordinarily avoid. Writing in a book a friend lends you is not at all worse than writing in a library book. Gossiping is so common in our society that a person who gossips once in a while can't really be blamed so much. If a person is nasty to me, I feel very little responsibility to treat him well. No matter what a person has done to us, there is no excuse for taking advantage of him. 153 Modified Responsibility Denial Scale Each of the items below is a statement of an attitude or opinion which some people have. Please read each statement and then decide whether you agree with.it or disagree with it. There are no right or wrong responses to these statements. If you Strongly Agree, place a SA in the space provided. If you Agree, place an A in the space provided. If you Disagree, place a D in the space provided. If you Strongly disagree, place a SD in the space provided. If you are not certain, answer A.or D according to which comes closer to your opinion. Do not leave any items blank. D 1. You can't blame basically good people who are forced by circumstances beyond their control to be inconsiderate of others. D 2. When I work many hours, I am so busy that I often do not have time to volunteer to help others. D 3. When a person feels pressured to do something, there comes a point beyond which he should simply leave. D 4. You can't expect a person to act much differently from everyone else. D 5. With the pressure for grades in school nowadays, the individual who does not share information with other students cannot really be faulted. D 6. Occasionally in life a person finds himself in a situation in which he has absolutely no control over what he does to others. I. d No matter how much a person is pressured, he is always responsible for what he does. A 8. If I hurt someone's feelings unintentionally, I would feel almost as guilty as I would if I had done the same thing intentionally. D 9. When a person is completely involved in valuable work, you can't blame them if they are insensitive to those around them. 154 Modified Responsibility Denial Scale Continued... D D A A .A 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. It is unfair to judge a person by the way they act when they have not slept enough. It doesn't make much sense to be concerned about hOW'We act when we are sick and feeling miserable. Extenuating circumstances never completely remove a person's responsibility for their actions. The older I get, the more I hold myself to account for what happens to those around me. Being very upset or preoccupied does not excuse a person from not doing anything he would ordinarily do. 155 Letters Regpesting Help from the Subjects These letters were in an envelope which the experiment- er handed to the subjects. The letter from the professor explained why Carol's letter was attached: When I was previewing the pilot tapes for the News From the Personal Side program, I noticed that Carol Marcy needs the help of an Introductory Psychology student so that she can catch up on the material she missed while in the hospital. It occurred to me that since you are an Introductory Psychology student, you might be able to help her. Therefore, I contacted Carol and asked her if she would like to write you a letter explaining her situation and asking for your help. At first she was reluctant to do so, because she did not want to impose on you. But since she still has not found anyone to help her and the deadline is fast approach- ing, she at last agreed to write. Her letter is enclosed. I would like to ask you to read it carefully, and to respond or not as you wish. Of course, your participation in this study in no way obligates you to help Carol; it is entirely up to you. If you wish to help you should fill out the enclosed card, and return it to the assistant who will give it to Carol. For the easy escape condition, the last sentence of the letter from the professor was changed to read: Although the assistant conducting this study knows nothing about Carol’s situation, if you wish to help you should fill out the enclosed card, and return it to the assistant and ask him to give it to me. 156 Letters Reguesting Help from the Subjects The handwritten letter from Carol explains her need and asks the subject to help her by agreeing to go over the introduc- tory psychology lecture notes for the past month. Carol's letter read: I have not yet found anyone to help me go over intro psych. class notes from the past month. I may fail the class if I do not get any help and this will put me behind in my program. My instructor said that it's not important how well you are doing in the class or what section you are in, what’s important is that you are willing to take the time to help me out. I'm starting back to class next week. I'm in the [instructor's name] class. I know there are several different sections, but if you're in the same one, I'm sure you won’t have any trouble picking me out. I doubt if there are many students in wheelchairs with both legs in casts. If you are one of the persons who is interviewing me, then I'll see you at that time. 157 PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT RESEARCH EVALUATION SURVEY Dear Research Participant, Each year the Psychology Department reviews several research projects which are conducted with introductory psychology students. We are interested in evaluating the quality of the experiences students have as research participants. One of the studies which we are reviewing is the "Pilot Broadcast Study." We have instructed the researchers of this study to make sure that all of their participants have an opportunity to complete this form. Please answer all of the following questions regarding your participation in the "Pilot Broadcast Study." Thank you. 1. Was the research room comfortable? 2. Did you feel that the researcher was friendly enough? 3. Was the study important and worthwhile? Continued on next page... 158 PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT RESEARCH EVALUATION SURVEY CONTINUED... 4. Was the purpose of the study made clear to you? What was it? 5. Did you dislike anything about the study? If yes, please explain. 159 Regpest for help card Please check one of the following: I will volunteer time to help Carol Marcy review Psychology lecture notes. I choose not to volunteer time to help Carol Marcy review Psychology lecture notes. If you checked that you will volunteer to help Carol, please write how much time you can donate. Write your name and phone number below so Carol can contact you. Name 8 Phone #: Best times to be reached: 160 Name. Address. and Phone Number reguest form--to assist in mailing full debriefing information. In order for us to mail you further information.after the study is completed, please fill out the information below. Thanks. Name 8 Phone: Address: APPENDIX B CONSENT FORMS 162 CONSENT FORM COVER SHEET FOR SCREENING FOR EMPERIMENT #2 1. I have freely consented to complete the attached research questionnaires and by signing below I give permission for the researcher to contact me to let me know of future research opportunities. 2. Furthermore, I will allow my name be given to other researchers so that they may call me with research opportunities. Of course, I have a right to accept or refuse to participate in these studies as I see fit. 3. I understand that all information gathered from these questionnaires will be confidential in that my identity and responses will be assigned code numbers during, or soon after, my participation. 4. I understand that "1 indicate my voluntary agreement to fill out the attached questionnaire by completing and returning the attached questionnaires." TITLE OF PROJECT: ATTITUDE AND BELIEF STUDY NAME (please print): PHONE NUMBER: AND BEST TIMES TO CALL: SIGNED: DATE : / / 163 CONSENT FORM FOR EXPERIMENT ONE AND EXPERIMENT TWO 1. I have freely consented to participate in scientific research being conducted by: Craig J. Oster and his research assistants, under the supervision of Professor Lawrence Messé. 2. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in this study at any time without penalty. 3. I understand that my participation in this research does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. 4. I understand that I will be given additional information about this study after the entire study is completed. 5. I understand that if I choose to participate in the full study, it will take less than 50 minutes to complete. 6. I understand that all data from this study will be confidential in that my identity and responses will be assigned code numbers during, or soon after, my participation. 7. I understand that all results will be treated with strict confidence and that I and all other subjects will remain anonymous in any report of research findings; on request and within these restrictions results will be made available to subjects. I can contact Craig Oster at 332-0919 regarding these findings or any questions or concerns raised by participating in this study. 8. I understand that the full purpose and methods of the study may not be explained in full until after the study is complete. 9. I understand that this research requires that I will carefully listen to two audio tapes and will be given specific instructions for listening to the tapes. I will be asked to complete several questionnaires during my participation in this study. TITLE OF PROJECT: PILOT RADIO BROADCASTS SIGNED: DATE AGE: EXPERIMENTER: 164 Consent Form,Cover Letter for Mailed Retest Questionnaires and Psychology Department Survey Dear Student, The purpose of this letter is to announce that we needed to cancel your second appointment for "Pilot Broadcast Studies." We tried to reach you by phone to inform you of this. You still can earn one additional experimental credit by completing all of the enclosed forms. To receive the one credit, you will need.to deliver these forms to 39 Snyder Hall between 9am-5pm on one of the following days: Monday February 4, Tuesday February 5 or Wednesday 6. Bring your card so we can stamp it at that time. If you do not deliver these forms at the above times, we will be unable to give you the experimental credit. Therefore, make sure you return these forms on time. Please read the following statements and sign below before completing the questionnaires. 1. I understand that "I indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning the attached questionnaires." 2. I understand that all data from this study will be confidential in that, my' identity and responses will be assigned code numbers during, or soon.aftery.my participation. 3. I have freely consented to complete these research questionnaires and by signing below I give permission for the researcher to contact me to let me know of future research opportunities. TITLE OF PROJECT: Pilot Broadcast Study- NAME PRINTED: PHONE NUMBER: AND BEST TIMES TO CALL: SIGNED: DATE: / / APPENDIX C DEBRIEFING FORMS 166 CONFIRMATION OF DEBRIEFING FOR STUDY ONE: "PILOT BROADCASTS." The purpose of this letter is to provide you with more complete information about the purpose of the study in which you participated as a part of your introductory psychology course. The persons in the tapes were actors and the events depicted were fictitious. We conducted the experiment in this manner in order to create a situation that would simulate two real life situations: one in which a person was in need, one in which a person is enjoying talking about a hobby. The purpose of this investigation was to examine how different types of instructions for listening to a person in need affect emotions, attitudes and beliefs. We were interested in how listening instructions influences people's responses to questionnaires on their emotions and beliefs. No information will be available about your performance personally, however. This rule insures that all data are confidential, and your name will not be associated with any of your responses after they are coded. However, here are some of our findings: We used two types of listening instructions: One type was supposed to induce empathy and the other type was supposed to induce personal distress. We found that these listening instructions failed to produce these results. Furthermore, we discovered that these two types of listening instructions did not produce differences in the cognitive states of participants. We also found that the tape with the person in need produced significantly more emotional responses in participants than did the tape with the person talking about their hobby. You may contact Craig Oster at 332-0919 if you have any questions about the content of this research project. Thanks for your participation in this research. 167 CONFIRMATION OF DEBRIEFING FOR STUDY TWO: "PILOT BROADCASTS." The purpose of this letter is to provide you with more complete information about the purpose of the study in which you participated as a part of your introductory psychology course. The persons in the tapes were actors and the events depicted were fictitious. We conducted the experiment in this manner in order to create a situation that would simulate a real life situation in which a person was in need. The purpose of this study was to examine some of the antecedents of helping behavior. For example, we were interested in examining how different types of attitudes influence emotion and helping behavior. No information will be available about your performance personally, however. This rule insures that all data are confidential, and your name will not be associated with any of your responses after they are coded. Here is our main research finding about the behavior of subjects in general: We discovered that subjects who had expressed favorable attitudes about helping others actually volunteered to help a fellow student at a significantly higher rate than did subjects with less favorable views. The data indicate, then, that this type of belief does relate to actual behavior--a connection between attitudes and actions that does not always exist. You may contact Craig Oster at 332-0919 if you have any questions about the content of this research project. Thank you for your participation in this research. APPENDIX D TAPE TRANSCRIPTS 169 Tape #1 Bulletin Board Tape: Anthropology Lecture Series Time elapsed during tape: 55 seconds Announcer=A Monotone, factual presentation. Read somewhat fast. Announcer: This week three guest speakers will visit MSU. Each one is a professor from a different part of the world. They have all been in America since August of this year and as part of their job they will travel to various parts of the United States, discussing variations in culture between the United States and their respective countries. One comes from Mexico, one from Kenya, and the third from Yugoslavia. All lectures will be free of charge. Each speaker is going to talk for about two hours and will then remain on campus the following day to answer any questions. For those interested, there will also be a fourth meeting. This meeting, held by an anthropologist, Dr. Hanson, will sum up the speakers various points. Then Dr. Hanson will sum up and compare all three cultures with the culture of the United States. We strongly encourage you to come to any and all meetings. Please watch the State News for exact times and places. 170 Tape #2 News Frgm the Personal Side-An Interview with Carol Marcy: A Student’s Stopy of a Personal Tragedy Time elapsed during interview: 4 minutes. Interviewer=I VOice and style are mature, concerned, friendly, serious. Carol Marcy=C In personal pain. Worried about school. A nice person. I= Auto accidents continue to maim and kill Americans. But the tragic impact of automobile accidents is often lost in the cold fact of statistics. Two were killed. Four injured. One is in critical condition. The reality of the tragedy implicit in such statements was brought home last month with Carol Marcy, a Michigan State University freshmen from Lansing, she was riding in the car with her parents as they returned to their former home in Muncie Indiana, to visit friends. Recently, I talked with Carol about what happened next. C: Well, you know, it was it was really just, it was awful. I was riding in the front seat, mom was in the back. I, I can still see that car coming toward us. It all seemed to happen so slowly. The car crossed over into our lane, and Dad tried to turn to avoid it... I remember the look on the other drivers face, like he couldn't believe it was happen- ing either. Anyhow (small sigh) he hit us right on my side. It drove the engine right back into the front seat and smashed both of my legs. I guess you can see their still (slight laugh) in casts and I'm still in this wheel chair. But doctors say I should be fine in another few months. I guess I was really lucky, the breaks could have been a lot worse. And if I hadn’t been wearing my seat belt, well, well they say it would have been all over. But, well, fortunately though both Mbm and Dad escaped with just cuts and bruises. I: I'm glad to see you're getting better. Still, I imagine all the time in the hospital and all this time in the wheelchair is really interfering with your studies. C: Oh yeah, I can’t believe how far behind I am already. I'm not sure I could ever catch up. Well, but well actually I've been able to keep up in most of the classes that I need, except for Psych___, you know introductory psychology? 1: What’s the problem? 171 C: Well (small sigh), because of the accident I missed over a month of classes and they told me unless I could find another student from Psych ___ to go over the class materi- als and notes with me, I’ll have to drop the class. So far I haven’t been able to find anybody. I: You don't anyone in the class? Or couldn’t you take it again in another term? C: Well (small sigh), really I don't know anyone else in the class. And I really don't want to drop because Introduc- tory Psych is one of the courses I was supposed to take in my freshman year if I’m going to get into the Elementary Education Program. That's what I want to do. But, the courses you have to take for Elementary Education are really structured, and if I have to drop psychology now, it will set me back a whole year. (sigh) And I really can't afford an extra year. The money I get from my work and my savings just isn't enough. I: Carol, I hope something works out. C: Well, I hope so too. I really want to stay in the Elementary Education Program because, well it’s always been my dream to be a teacher. And, well, I really love kids and I've always been able to, at least I’ve felt like I've always been able to communicate with them really well, especially kids in grade school. I'd especially like to teach third graders, that's what I would really like to do. I: Good luck Carol. Just a look at the problem an accident can cause even after the pain is gone as people try to put their lives back together. This is Margaret Hanks for WDBM Michigan State University. 172 Tape #3 News from the Personal Side: An Interview with Carol Marcy- A Student and her Hobby Time elapsed during interview: 4 minutes. Interviewer=I Voice and style are mature, concerned, friendly, serious. Carol Marcy=C Interested in her hobby. At ease. A nice person. I=MSU is a campus with much diversity. One largely unex- plored area of student diversity is the area of hobbies. Most students do not realize that many of their peers have very interesting and sometimes unusual hobbies. Train collecting, rock and roll accordion, playing spy games, and many others. Today's guest, Carol Marcy, provides an example of a young woman with a hobby often thought to be engaged in primarily by males. Carol spends some of her free time working on cars and rebuilt a 57 corvette which she exhibits at statewide auto shows. Recently, I talked with Carol about her hobby. C: Well, you know, the hobby came quite naturally. When I was growing up my father custom painted cars for a living. Although he mostly painted and rebuilt cars for his costum- ers, he always had a project of his own going on. He let me start helping him with small tasks when I was about 13. Gradually, I learned more and more. In high school, I took auto mechanics and autobody. I love watching a car become more and more beautiful as I work on it. The real reward comes when I get it on the road. Even though I knew I would go to college and major in business, I also knew I loved working with cars and that I could earn extra money helping my father while I was in college. I created my own custom car when I was 16. It was a 67 Pontiac Firebird. When I first got the gar it was falling apart. The doors were rusting through. I repaired the body with fiberglass and painted the car bright orange and put custom decals on the side. Also I had parts of the engine built up and chrome plated. I won first prize at the high school custom car auto show. I: What do other students think when they hear about your hobby? Are many students interested in custom cars? C: (Laughs). Yes they are. Most students are surprised to hear about my hobby. I don't tell everybody, I only tell people who I get to know fairly well. It is an unusual hobby for a woman. Right away, after they lose their 173 disbelief, they become very interested. I think most people are fascinated with custom cars. Both men and women are attracted to beautiful cars. Times are changing and more women are interested in cars today than 10 years ago. I: What do they say when they see your 57 Corvette? C: Usually they can't wait to go for a ride. When they see the car they can tell it looks like a very fast car. Once they go for a ride they usually want me to drive when we go out on weekends (laughs). I don't mind as long as they help pay for gas. I: Are you working on rebuilding any other cars Carol? C: Well, right nOW'I am working mostly on getting good grades. I have a part time job on campus and my family is helping pay for my tuition. They want me to focus on my studies. Anyways, the garage I work in is located in Ohio where my family lives. When I go home to live for the summer, however, my father has a Ford Mustang he said I could rebuild and sell for some extra money. I’m gonna work for my father during the summer. I will also do some modifications on my own car. I: How many competitions have you been in? C: I have been in about a dozen competitions. This usually involves a cash prize for winning but I don't enter competitions for the money. They are a nice chance to show your car off and look at all of the other cool cars. Last year, I entered my corvette in a car show in the city of St. Johns, which is less than an hour from campus. The ShOW'WaS held at an apple cider mill and it was very fun. 1: Carol thanks for joining us. It has been very interesting to hear about your hobby. If we take the time to get to know fellow students more we may be quite sur- prised at how interesting their lives are. This is Margaret Hanks for WDBM Michigan State University. APPENDIX E ANALYSES OF VARIANCES 175 Study One, Analysis of variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape x Measurement Time for Empathy. Source lg; M§ E p.< Escape (A) 1 4.18 .32 .58 Help (B) 1 21.96 1.66 .21 .A x B 1 11.22 .85 .36 Error 1 86 13.22 Measurement Time (C) 1 275.31 25.72 .0001 .A x C 1 .10 .01 .93 B x C 1 2.54 .24 .63 A x B x C 1 7.04 .66 .42 Error 2 86 10.70 176 Study One, Analysis of Variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape ijeasurement Time for Personal Distress. Source g; MS 2 2‘ Sex (A) 1 5.02 .12 .74 Listening Instructions (B) 1 142.31 3.30* .08 Tape (C) 1 1062.23 24.65 .0001 .A x B l 31.53 .73 .40 .A x C 1 6.87 .16 .69 B x C 1 160.35 3.72 .06 .A x B x C 1 3.02 .07 .80 Error 1 102 43.10 Measurement Time (D) 1 923.40 28.47 .0001 A x D l 51.57 1.59 .21 B x D l 42.25 1.30 .26 C x D 1 1170.53 36.09 .0001 A x B x D 1 3.03 .09 .77 A x C x D 1 178.99 5.52 .03 B x C x D 1 6.03 .19 .67 A x B x C x D 1 55.43 1.71 .20 Error 2 102 32.43 *A t-score conversion was performed on this F score, which yielded: t(102) = 1.817, p.< .04 (one-tailed). 177 Study One, Analysis of Variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape for Understanding of Content of the News from the Personal Side. Source MS MS 3 p.< Sex (A) 1 .06 1.50 .23 Listening Instructions (B) 1 .06 1.50 .23 Tape (C) 1 .01 .22 .65 A x B 1 .06 1.50 .23 A x C 1 .01 .22 .65 B x C 1 .01 .22 .65 A x B x C 1 .01 .22 .65 Error 84 .12 178 Study One, Analysis of Variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape for Response to the Question from.the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "How Interesting was the Broadcast to you?" Source g; MS S p.< Sex (A) l 2.73 .89 .35 Listening Instructions (B) 1 3.30 1.08 .31 Tape (C) 1 7.89 2.57 .12 A x B 1 2.76 .90 .35 A x C 1 11.15 3.64 .06 B x C 1 3.97 1.29 .26 A x B x C 1 .76 .25 .62 Error 84 3.07 179 Study One, Analysis of variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape for Response to the Question from.the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "How Much did the Broadcast Affect you Emotionally?" Source g; MS E p.< Sex (A) 1 .08 .02 .88 Listening Instructions (B) 1 1.71 .51 .48 Tape (C) 1 120.35 35.57 .0001 A,x B 1 4.68 1.38 .25 .A x C l .15 .05 .84 B x C 1 8.44 2.49 .12 A.x B x C 1 2.68 .79 .38 Error 84 2.74 180 Study One, Analysis of Variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape for Response to the Question from the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "How Great is the Need of the Person Interviewed in the Broadcast?" Source g; MS E p.< Sex (A) 1 6.91 1.61 .21 Listening Instructions (B) 1 9.62 2.23 .14 Tape (C) 1 111.46 25.88 .0001 .A x B 1 1.88 .44 .51 .A x C 1 11.85 2.75 .10 B x C 1 .14 .03 .86 A,x B x C 1 3.36 .78 .38 Error 84 2.37 181 Study One, Analysis of Variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape for Response to the Question from the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "In Your Opinion, how Likable was the Person Interviewed in the Broadcast?" Source g; MS E p.< Sex (A) 1 4.75 1.42 .24 Listening Instructions (B) 1 1.28 .38 .54 Tape (C) 1 6.11 1.83 .19 A x B 1 6.05 1.81 .18 A x C 1 3.32 .99 .33 B x C 1 .02 .00 .95 (A x B x C 1 3.01 .90 .35 Error 84 3.06 182 Study One, Analysis of Variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape for Response to the Question from the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "How WOrthwhile do you Feel Broadcasts of this Kind are?" Source gs MS 3 p.< Sex (A) 1 5.56 1.66 .20 Listening Instructions (B) l .27 .08 .78 Tape (C) 1 20.12 6.00 .02 A.x B 1 7.89 2.35 .13 A.x C l 1.39 .41 .53 B x C 1 5.04 1.50 .22 A,x B x C 1 .01 .00 .98 Error 83 3.51 183 Study One, Analysis of Variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape for Response to the Question from the News from the Personal Side Evaluation.Form: "Should.News from.the Personal Side be Made a Regular Feature?" Source g; MS E p.< Sex (A) 1 .01 .00 .97 Listening Instructions (B) 1 .10 .02 .88 Tape (C) 1 4.04 .94 .34 A x B 1 1.84 .43 .52 A x C 1 .21 .05 .83 B x C 1 .35 .08 .78 A x B x C 1 .85 .20 .66 Error 83 4.3 3" 184 Study One, Analysis of Variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape for Response to the Question from.the News from.the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "While Listening, to what Extent did you Concentrate on Listening to the Information Presented in the Broadcast?" Source as MS S p.< Sex (A) 1 .02 .01 .95 Listening Instructions (B) 1 61.86 21.57 .00 Tape (C) 1 1.27 .44 .51 A x B 1 42.12 14.69 .00 A x C 1 7.85 2.74 .11 B x C 1 .13 .04 .84 A x B x C 1 1.60 .56 .46 Error 83 2.63 185 Study One, Analysis of Variance for Sex x Listening Instructions x Tape for Response to the Question from.the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "To What Extent did you Concentrate on Imagining hOW'the Person Being Interviewed Felt?" Source g; MS E p.< Sex (A) 1 2.50 .62 .44 Listening Instructions (B) 1 163.78 40.47 .01 Tape (C) 1 35.78 8.84 .004 A x B 1 5.04 1.25 .27 A x C l 1.27 .32 .58 B x C 1 3 54 .87 .36 A x B x C l .18 .05 .84 Error 83 2.77 Study Two, Empathy. Analysis 186 of Variance for Personal Norms Responsibility Denial x Escape x Sex x Measurement Time for X Source g; MS S p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 1283.09 21.47 .0001 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 115.51 1.93 .17 Escape (C) 1 6.07 10 .76 Sex (D) 1 19.34 .32 .58 A.x B 1 44.87 75 .39 A.x C 1 48.70 .82 .37 A x D 1 49.18 .82 .37 B x C 1 32.46 .54 .47 B x D 1 366.27 6.13 .02 C x D l .09 .00 .97 .A x B x C 1 4.52 08 .79 A,x B x D 1 3.56 06 .81 .A x C x D 1 288.96 4.84 .04 B x C x D 1 156.68 2.62 .11 A x B x C D 1 42.61 .71 .41 Error 1 75 59.75 Measurement Time (E) 1 12366.92 A x E 1 489.65 9.12 .003 B x E 1 111.81 2.08 .16 C x E 1 .00 .00 .99 D x E 1 .03 .00 .98 A x B x E 1 18.24 .34 .57 .A x C x E 1 15.12 .28 .60 A x D x E 1 .30 .01 .95 B x C x E 1 9.98 .19 .67 187 Study Two, Analysis of variance for Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial x Escape x Sex x MeasureMwnt Time for Em thy continued. B x D x E 1 154.37 2.87 .09 C x D x E 1 .44 .01 .93 .A x B x C x E 1 7.08 .13 .72 AxB xD XE 1 52.94 .98 .33 .A x C x D x E 1 209.50 3.90 .052 B x C x D x E 1 52.75 .98 .33 A.x B x C x D x E 1 49.60 .92 .34 Error 2 75 53.72 Study Two, Analysis 188 of Variance for Personal Norms X Responsibility Denial x Escape x Sex x Measurement Time for Personal Distress-1. Source g; MS S p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 36.61 2.77 .11 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 32.59 2.46 .13 Escape (C) 1 4.52 .34 .57 Sex (D) 1 13.06 .99 .33 .A x B 1 12.77 .97 .33 A x C 1 .10 .01 .94 A.x D 1 13.76 1.04 .32 B x C 1 25.16 1.90 .18 B x D 1 16.41 1.24 .27 C x D 1 1.15 .09 .77 A x B x C l .86 .07 .80 AxB XD 1 1.34 .10 .76 A x C x D 1 10.15 .77 .39 B x C x D 1 1.63 .12 .73 A x B x C x D 1 9.85 .74 .40 Error 1 74 13.24 Measurement Time (E) 1 265.20 25.27 .0001 A x E 1 30.38 2.90 .093 B x E l 26.07 2.48 .12 C x E l .00 .00 .99 D x E l 2.21 .21 65 A x B x E l 16.80 1.60 .21 A x C x E 1 7.28 .69 .41 A x D x E 1 5.78 .55 .46 B x C x E 1 11.30 1.08 .31 Study Two, Analysis Responsibility Denial x Escape x Sex x Measurement Time for Distress-1 continued. Personal B x D x D x B x3» w 3’ W 3’ 0 w (1 f) w >4 N >4 8 M94 X #4 X Error X X X E 1 E 1 C x E 1 D x E 1 D x E l D x E 1 C x D 1 74 189 of Variance 33 .60 .68 10. .37 .23 .64 94 .17 10. 49 for Personal Norms x .06 .82 .35 .56 1.04 .32 .04 .86 .02 .89 3.21 .077 .21 .65 190 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial x Escape x Sex x Measurement Time for Personal Distress-2. Source g; MS S p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 139.34 5.99 .02 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 .15 .01 .94 Escape (C) l 4.91 .21 .65 Sex (D) 1 11.97 .51 .48 A.x B 1 27.61 1.19 .28 A.x C 1 30.39 1.31 .26 A x D 1 29.78 1.28 .27 B x C 1 .00 .00 .99 B x D 1 63.27 2.72 .11 C x D 1 6.71 .29 .60 A x B x C 1 58.63 2.52 .12 A.x B x D 1 1.64 .07 .80 A x C x D 1 21.32 .92 .35 B x C x D 1 2.76 .12 .74 A x B x C x D 1 5.85 .25 .62 Error 1 72 23.28 Measurement Time (E) 1 1326.10 62.19 .0001 A,x E 1 128.34 6.02 .02 B x E 1 .00 .00 .99 C x E 1 3.50 .16 .69 D x E 1 47.58 2.23 .14 A x B x E 1 9.78 .46 .51 A x C x E 1 26.57 1.25 .27 AxD xE 1 .01 .00 .99 B x C x E 1 4.03 .19 .67 191 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial x Escape x Sex x Measurement Time for Personal Distress—2 continued. B x D x E 1 31.67 1.49 .23 C x D x E 1 9.12 .43 .52 .A x B x C x E 1 .04 .00 .97 .A x B x D x E 1 .24 .01 .92 .A x C x D x E 1 19.46 .91 .34 B x C x D x E 1 17.95 .84 .37 A x B x C x D .22 .64 x E 1 4.71 Error 2 72 21.32 Study Two, Analysis 192 of Variance Measurement Time for Personal Empathy. for Escape x Help x Source g; MS E p.< Escape (A) 1 .00 .00 .99 Help (B) 236.35 2.91 10 A x B 1 .05 .00 98 Error 1 87 81.22 Measurement Time (C) 1 12541.94 213.95 .0001 A x C 1 5.24 .09 .47 B x C 1 192.35 3.28 .074 A.x B x C 1 19.85 .34 .57 Error 2 84 58.62 193 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Help x Measurement Time for Personal Distress-l. Source g; MS 3 p.< Escape (A) 1 4.18 .32 .58 Help (B) 1 21.96 1.66 .21 A x B 1 11.22 .85 .36 Error 1 86 13.22 Measurement Time (C) 1 275.31 25.72 .0001 A x C 1 .10 .01 .93 B x C 1 2.54 .24 .63 A x B x C 1 7.04 .66 .42 Error 2 86 10.70 194 Study Two, Analysis of variance for Escape x Help x Measurement Time for Personal Distress-2. Source g; MS E p.< Escape (A) 1 15.29 .61 .44 Help (B) 1 8.59 .34 .56 A x B 1 23.53 .94 .34 Error 1 84 24.98 Measurement Time (C) 1 1411.80 63.60 .0001 .A x C 1 11.92 .54 .47 B x C 1 .44 .02 .89 .A x B x C 1 2 64 .12 74 Error 2 84 22.20 195 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Help x Sex for Change in Empathy (from pretest to posttest). Source Q MS. E p < f 2 < Escape (A) l .26 .00 .96 .00 .48 Help (B) 1 423.58 3.54 .06 1.88 .03 Sex (C) 1 22.01 .18 .67 .43 .33 A.x B 1 44.28 .37 .55 .60 .27 A.x C 1 11.34 .10 .76 .31 .38 B x C 1 127.12 1.06 .31 1.03 .15 A.x B x C 1. 96.09 .80 .37 .90 .19 Error 83 119.80 196 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms for Subjects' Understanding of Content of the News from the Personal Side Broadcast. Source g; MS E p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 .14 1.09 .30 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 .01 .11 .75 Escape (C) 1 .04 .31 .58 Sex (D) 1 .00 .02 .89 A x B 1 .02 .15 .71 A x C 1 .01 .07 .80 A x D l .01 .10 .76 B x C 1 .00 .00 .96 B x D 1 .03 .22 .64 C x D l .07 .57 .46 A x B x C 1 .24 1.96 .17 A x B x D l .08 .67 .42 A C x D .03 .22 .65 B x C x D l .00 .01 .93 A x B x C x D 1 23 1 86 18 Error 84 .12 197 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms for Response to the Question From the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "How Interesting was the Broadcast to you?" Source g; MS E p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 41.44 13.52 .0001 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 5.91 1.93 .17 Escape (C) 1 .18 .06 .82 Sex (D) 1 11.26 3.67 .06 A x B 1 .10 .03 .86 A x C 1 1.16 .38 .54 A x D 1 1.00 .33 .57 B x C 1 1.19 .39 .54 B x D 1 2.00 .65 .43 C x D 1 1.31 .43 .52 A x B x C l 1.96 .64 .43 A x B x D 1 .64 .21 .65 A x C x D 1 1.89 .62 .44 B x C x D 1 6.95 2.27 .14 A x B x C x D 1 1.11 .36 .55 (I) .3: (A) O O \1 Error 198 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms for Response to the Question From the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "HOW'MuCh did the Broadcast Affect You Emotionally?" Source g; MS E p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 66.41 24.27 .0001 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 13.32 4.87 .03 Escape (C) 1 .34 .12 .73 Sex (D) 1 11.78 4.31 .05 A x B 1 .66 .24 .63 A x C 1 .22 .08 .78 A.x D 1 2 61 .96 .34 B x C 1 .86 .32 .58 B x D 1 7.08 2.59 .12 C x D 1 l 13 .41 53 A x B x C 1 .06 .02 .89 A.x B x D 1 .53 .20 .66 .A x C x D 1 .39 .14 .71 B x C x D l 10.34 3.78 .055 A x B x C x D 1 2.27 .83 .37 Error 1 84 2.74 199 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms for Response to the Question From the News from.the Personal Side Evaluation.Form: "How Great is the Need of the Person Interviewed in the Broadcast?" Source g; MS 3 p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 30.34 12.81 .001 Responsibility Denial(B) 1 11.71 4.94 .03 Escape (C) 1 .94 .40 .54 Sex (D) 1 .00 .00 .98 .A x B 1 .87 .37 .55 A.x C 1 1.30 .55 .46 .A x D 1 1.78 .75 .39 B x C 1 1.03 .44 .51 B x D 1 6.64 2.81 .098 C x D 1 .58 .24 .63 A.x B x C 1 .14 .06 .82 A.x B x D 1 1.81 .76 .39 A x C x D 1 3.83 1.62 .21 B x C x D 1 .12 .05 .83 A.x B x C x D 1 2.25 .95 .34 (I) as Error 2.37 200 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms for Response to the Question From the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "In Your Opinion, how Likable was the Person Interviewed in the Broadcast?" Source g; MS 3 p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 35.49 11.60 .001 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 14.43 4.72 .04 Escape (C) 1 4.20 1.38 .25 Sex (D) 1 1.91 .62 .44 .A x B 1 1.63 .53 .47 .A x C 1 1.05 .34 .56 A.x D 1 1.96 .64 .43 B x C 1 .45 .15 .71 B x D 1 4.44 1.45 .24 C x D 1 .09 .03 .87 A.x B x C 1 2.15 .70 .41 .A x B x D 1 .07 .02 .89 .A x C x D 1 21 .07 .80 B x C x D 1 38 .12 .73 A.x B x C 1 9.18 3.00 .09 Error 00 uh 201 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial x Personal Nonms for Response to the Question From the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "How Worthwhile do You Feel Broadcasts of this Kind are?" Source g; MS S p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 35.70 10.18 .002 Responsibility Denial (B) l 6 77 1.93 17 Escape (C) 1 .59 .17 .69 Sex (D) 1 13.36 3.81 .054 .A x B 1 4.43 1.26 .27 A.x C 1 .54 .16 .70 .A x D 1 .55 .16 .70 B x C 1 3.64 1.04 .32 B x D 1 .63 .18 .68 C x D 1 .88 .25 .62 A.x B x C 1 .79 .23 .64 .A x B x D 1 5.48 1.56 .22 A x C x D l 1.74 .50 .49 B x C x D 1 1.04 .30 .59 A x B x C 1 20.15 5.74 .019 Error 83 3.51 202 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms for Response to the Question From the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "Should News from. the Personal Side be .Made a Regular Feature?" Source g; MS S p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 28.16 6.58 .02 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 19.27 4.50 .04 Escape (C) 1 .00 .00 .99 Sex (D) 1 29.08 6.79 .011 A x B 1 2.97 .69 .41 A.x C 1 .17 .04 .85 .A x D 1 1.15 .27 .61 B x C 1 5.29 1.24 .27 B x D 1 .22 .05 .83 C x D 1 .06 .02 .91 A x B x C l .53 .12 .73 A x B x D 1 .57 .13 .72 A x C x D l 3.17 .74 .40 B x C x D 1 3.02 .71 .41 A x B x C x D l 13.93 3.26 .08 m H H O H a) u: 4.28 203 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms for Response to the Question From the News from the Personal Side Evaluation Form: "While Listening, to What Extent did you Concentrate on Listening to the Information Presented in the Broadcast?" Source Sf MS E E-< Personal Norms (A) 1 27.08 10.32 .002 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 4.47 1.71 .20 Escape (C) 1 3.21 1.22 .28 Sex (D) 1 .12 .05 .84 .A x B 1 2.15 .82 .37 A.x C 1 3.99 1.52 .23 A.x D l .07 .03 .87 B x C l .05 .02 .90 B x D 1 .01 .01 .95 C x D 1 10.10 3.85 .053 A x B x C 1 .02 .01 .94 A.x B x D 1 .17 .06 .80 A.x C x D 1 10.12 3.86 .053 B x C x D 1 2.12 .81 .38 A.x B x C x D l 4.05 1.54 .22 .63 tr: H H O H a> o: R) 204 Study Two, Analysis of Variance for Escape x Sex x Responsibility Denial x Personal Norms for Response to the Question From the News from the Personal Side Evaluation.Form: "To What Extent did you Concentrate on Imagining how the Person Being Interviewed Felt?" Source g; MS E p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 61.09 22.12 .0001 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 18.73 6.78 .011 Escape (C) 1 4 46 .61 21 Sex (D) 1 .00 .00 .98 .A x B 1 .14 .05 .83 A x C 1 1 61 .58 45 .A x D 1 .26 .09 .77 B x C l .46 .17 .69 B x D 1 3 42 1.24 27 C x D 1 .01 .00 .96 A x B x C 1 2 10 .76 .39 A x B x D 1 .26 .09 .76 A x C x D l .03 .01 .92 B x C x D 1 .46 .17 .69 A x B x C x D 1 1.90 .69 .41 Error 83 2.76 APPENDIX F LOG-LINEAR ANALYSIS 206 Study Two, Log-Linear Analysis of Escape x Personal Norms x Responsibility Denial x Sex for VOlunteering to Help. Source g; x3 p.< Personal Norms (A) 1 10.22 .001 Responsibility Denial (B) 1 1.09 .30 Escape (C) 1 .12 .74 Sex (D) 1 11.68 .001 A x B 1 .04 .84 A x C 1 2.68 .11 A x D 1 1.48 .23 B x C 1 .00 .99 B x D 1 .51 .48 C x D 1 .05 .84 A x B x C 1 .29 .59 A x B x D 1 .03 .86 B x C x D l .69 .41 A x B x C x D 1 2 ll 15 LIST OF REFERENCES References Aderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. (1970). Observational set, empathy, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 141-148. Archer, R. L. (1984). The farmer and the cowman should be friends: An attempt at reconciliation with Batson, Coke, and Psych. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 709-711. Aronoff, J. & Wilson, J. P. (1985). Personality in the Process. Hillsdale, New Jersey, (pp. 1-376). Bachman, J. G. & O'Malley, P. M., (1984). Black—white differences in self-esteem: Are they affected by response styles? American Journal of Sociolo , 29(3), 624-639. Bachman, J.G. & O'Malley, P.M. (1984). Yea-saying, nay- saying, and going to extremes: Black-white differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly, AS, 491- 509. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. Barnett, M. A., Howard, J. A., King, L. M., & Dino, G. A. (1981). Helping behavior and the transfer of empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 125-132. Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (2), 290-302. Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy--altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, SS(1), 52-77. 208 209 Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Griffitt, C..A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J. R., Sprengelmeyer, P., & Bayly, M. J. (1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 922-933. Bonarius, J.C.J. (1971). Personal construct psychology and extreme response style: An interaction mgdel of meaningfulness. maladjustment and communication. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, N.V. Carlson, R. (1971). Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploration studies of agency and communion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 91(2), 267-277. Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 211-229. Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychologv, §2(4), 749-758. Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(7), 752-766. Davis, M. H. (1983). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personalit , 99(2), 167-184. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences of social categories: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender. American Psycholggist, 99(2), 105-116. Deaux, K., (1976). The behavior of women and men. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Inc. Eagly, A.H. & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 199(3), 283-308. Eisenberg, N. & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 100-131. 210 Eisenberg, N. & Miller, P. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119. Eisenberg, N., Schaller, M., Miller, P.A., Fultz, J., Fabes, R.A., & Shell, R. (1988). Gender-related traits and helping in a nonemergency situation. Sex Roles, 19(9- 10), 605-618. Elizur, A. (1985). An integrated-development model of empathy. Israeli Journal of Psychiatpy Relating to Science, 99(1-2), 29-39. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition. McGraw-Hill, Inc.:New York. Friedman, W. J., Robinson, A. B., & Friedman, B. L. (1987). Sex differences in moral judgments? A test of Gilligan's theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9;, 37-46. Fultz, J. , Batson, C. D., Fortenbach, v. A., McCarthy, P. M., & Varney, L. L. (1986). Social evaluation and the empathy--altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 761-769. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theopy and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Evepyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.:Doubleday. Hamilton, D. L. (1968). Personality attributes associated with extreme response style. Psychological Bulletin, Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Personality and social development. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 295-32 Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psycholo ical Bulletin, 99(4), 712- 722. Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 99, 307-316. Hornstein, H. A. Cruelty and kindness: A new look at aggression and altruism. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1976. 211 Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. VOlume 20 (pp. 239- 252). New York: Academic Press. Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of gersonality and Social PsychologV: 32(6). 1134-1146. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 91(4), 371-378. Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18(1), 57- 76. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority (pp.1-224). New York: Harper & Row. Miller, S. M. (1979). Interrelationships among dependency, empathy and sharing. Motivation and Emotion, 9(2), 183-199. Mills, R. S. L., Pedersen, J. & Grusee, J. E. (1989). Sex differences in reasoning and emotion about altruism. Sex Roles, 99(11/12), 603-621. Mitchell, C. L., (1987). Relationship of femininity, masculinity, and gender to attribution of responsibility. Sex Roles, 99(3/4), 151-163. Page, M.P. (1981). Demand Compliance in Laboratory Experiments. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 57-82). New York: Academic Press. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. W. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Peabody, D. (1962). Two components in bipolar scales: Direction and extremeness. Ps cholo ical Review, Pomazal, R. J. & Jaccard, J. J. (1976). An informational approach to altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 317-326. Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. 212 Rokeach, M. ((Ed.)). (1973). The nature of human values (pp. 1-428). New York: The Free Press. Schneider, D. J. (1981). Tactical Self-Presentations: Toward a Broader Conception. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theopy and social psychological research (pp. 23-40) New York: Academic Press. Schroeder, D. A., Dovidio, J., Sibicky, M. E., Matthews, L. L., & Allen, J. L. (1988). Empathic concern and helping behavior: Egoism or altruism? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 99, 333-353. Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1981). Qpestions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on guestion form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Ex erimental Social Ps cholo , _, 349-364. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221—278). New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1968a). Awareness of consequences and the influence of moral norms on interpersonal behavior. Sociometry, 99(4), 355-369. Schwartz, S. H. (1968b). Words, deeds, and the perception of consequences and responsibility in action situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 232-242. Schwartz, S. H. (1970). Elicitation of moral obligation and self-sacrificing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 283-293. Schwartz, S.H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 9, 349— 364. Schwartz, S. H. (1974). Awareness of interpersonal consequences, responsibility denial and volunteering. Journal of Personalit and Social Ps cholo , 99, 57- 63. 213 Schwartz, S. H. (1975). The justice of need and the activation of humanitarian norms. Journal of Social Issues, 99, 111-136. Schwartz, S. H. & Ames, R. E. (1977). Positive and negative referent others as sources of influence: A case of helping. Sociometry, 99(1), 12-21. Schwartz, S.H. & Ben David, A. (1976). Responsibility, and helping in an emergency: Effects of blame, ability and denial of responsibility. Sociometry, 99, 406-415. Schwartz, S. H. & Clausen, G. T. (1970). Responsibility, norms, and helping in an emergency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 299-310. Schwartz, S. H. & Howard, J. (1984). Internalized values as motivators of altruism. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), The development and maintenance of prosocial behavior: International perspectives on positive development (pp. 229-255). New York: Plenum Press. Schwartz, 5. H. & Tessler, R.C. (1972). A test of a model for reducing measured attitude-behavior discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 225- 236. Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and Behavior, (pp.3-20) New York: Academic Press. Spielberger, C. D. (1971). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theopy and research. New York: Academic Press. Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory studies of empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 4, pp. 271-313). New York: Academic Press. Tedeschi, J.T., Reiss, M. (1981). Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory research. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychology research (pp. 3-22) New York: Academic Press. Tilker, H. A. (1970). Socially responsible behavior as a function of observer responsibility and victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 95- 100. 214 Toi, M. & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 281-292. Underwood, B. & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1) 143-173. Van der Kloot, W.A., Kroonenberg, P.M., & Bakker, D. (1985). Implicit theories of personality: Further evidence of extreme response style. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 99, 369-387. Vinacke, W. E. (1980, November). Prosocial behavior. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 9, 259-286. Watts, B. L., Messé L. A. & Vallacher, R. R. (1982). Toward understanding sex differences in pay allocation: Agency, communion, and reward distribution behavior. Sex Roles, 9(12), 1175-1187. Zuckerman, M. & Reis, H. T. (1978). Comparison of three models for predicting altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social PsychologV. 36(5), 498-510. HICHIGRN STQTE UNI HH HIIHHIHHHIIHWll HI 1!; 1