Sympathy and Tenderness as Components of Dispositional Empathic Concern: Predicting Helping and Caring Behaviors
- 205 Downloads
Recently, empathic concern was separated into the components of sympathy and tenderness (Lishner et al. 2011). So far, these two emotional experiences have been assessed as episodic emotional responses, as the existent dispositional measures remain blind to such distinction. The aim of the present research is to develop and validate a dispositional measure that captures the personal disposition to feel sympathy, tenderness, and personal distress. This new scale is called Sympathy, Tenderness and Distress Dispositional Scale (SyTeD). In Study 1, we developed and tested the internal consistency and factor structure of the English version of the scale in the United States. In Study 2, we translated the scale into Spanish and tested its content and criterion validity in Spain. In Study 3, we tested the predictive validity of the sympathy-tenderness distinction within a helping vs. a care-based scenario in the United Kingdom (SyTeD-English version). In Study 4, we tested the predictive validity of the sympathy-tenderness distinction in a real helping situation in Spain (SyTeD-Spanish version). The results across these four studies suggest that the SyTeD is a useful measure of dispositional sympathy and tenderness that allows studying further different types of prosocial behavior (i.e., help vs. care).
KeywordsSympathy Tenderness Personal distress Care Help Questionnaire
This research was supported by grants AP2008-00065 and PSI 2014-53321P from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports. We would like to thank Dr. Daniel Batson and Dr. Michaela Gummerum for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This research was funded by grants AP2008–00065 and PSI 2014-53321P from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports.
Conflict of Interests
The authors do not have any conflict of interests.
The research conducted has obtained ethical approval from the authors’ institution and were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
The different studies have been carried after obtaining informed consent from the participants.
- Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in Humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1–9.Google Scholar
- Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
- Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1971). Love and hate. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Ferrando, P. J., & Chico, E. (2000). A Spanish version of the Marlowe and Crowne’s social desirability scale. Psicothema, 12, 383–389.Google Scholar
- Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzeg (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 233–265). New York: McGraw-hill.Google Scholar
- Lishner, D. A, Batson, C.D. &, Huss E. (2011). Tenderness and sympathy: Distinct empathic emotions elicited by different forms of need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 614–625.Google Scholar
- López-Pérez, B., Sanchez, J., & Parkinson, B. (2017). Perceived effect of other people’s emotion regulation on their vicarious emotional experience. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 113–121.Google Scholar
- Lorenz, K. (1971). Studies in animal and human behavior (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- McGrath, M., Cann, S., & Konopasky, R. (1998). New measures of defensiveness, empathy, and cognitive distortions for sexual offenders against children. Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 25–36.Google Scholar
- Oceja, L. V., López-Pérez, B., Ambrona, T., & Fernández, I. (2009). Measuring general dispositions to feel empathy and distress. Psicothema, 21, 171–176.Google Scholar
- Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. In J. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 147–163). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Pérez-Albéniz, A., de Paúl, J., Etxebarría, J., Montes, M. P., & Torres, E. (2003). Adaptación del Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) al español. Psicothema, 15, 267–272.Google Scholar
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.Google Scholar
- Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293–317). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar