Perspective taking instructions and self-other overlap: Different motives for helping

Abstract

In two studies (N’s = 57 and 115), we demonstrate that type of perspective-taking instruction (“imagine self” vs. “imagine other”) differentially affects two motives for helping: self-other overlap and empathic concern. Imagine-self instructions produce greater self-other overlap than imagine-target and objective instructions, while both types of perspective-taking instruction promote empathic concern relative to an objective condition. In Study 2, imagine-self instructions indirectly increased the likelihood of helping via empathic concern and self-other overlap, while imagine-target instructions led indirectly to greater helping only through empathic concern. We discuss how different perspective-taking instructions may implicate different emotional and motivational paths to increasing helping.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Although this condition has been called “objective” in the past literature, a practice we follow, researchers (Davis et al. 2004) have rightly pointed out that these instructions actually emphasize a detached state and thus are not a “control” condition in the traditional sense.

  2. 2.

    In Study 1, the measures of self-other overlap and empathic concern were correlated at r = .53. In Study 2, the correlation between these measures was r = .31.

  3. 3.

    Because the IOS and similarity questions were on different scales, they were standardized prior to aggregation. However, for descriptive purposes, we scaled the similarity question to be on the same metric as the IOS (i.e., a 7-point scale), aggregated the two measures, and present the M and SD within conditions here: Objective (M = 1.89, SD = 0.69); Imagine-Target (M = 2.29, SD = 1.24); Imagine-Self (M = 2.97, SD = 1.14).

  4. 4.

    For all reported contrast analyses throughout this paper, contrast SEs were constructed using the MSE term from the appropriate omnibus ANOVA term (see, e.g., Howell 2010). While the variances of the imagine-self and imagine-target conditions were quite different here, the pooled term is simply a descriptive estimate of the variance in empathic concern as a function of using any perspective taking instruction. For the critical (i.e., inferential) comparison in this case, the MSE from the omnibus test was used to construct the error term for the contrast. However, when conservatively using only the larger variance (i.e., from the imagine-other condition) to compute a standard error of this contrast, and using the Welch approximation (i.e., for unequal variances), the contrast remained significant, t(53) = 3.18, p < .01.

  5. 5.

    Originally, 118 participants were run in this study. Unfortunately, the helping data from three participants were lost because of experimenter error. Consequently, these three participants were removed from the study and we only used the data from the remaining 115 participants.

  6. 6.

    In Study 1, there were not enough males in each condition to examine participant gender as a factor. In Study 2, when including gender as a factor, no main or interactive effects involving gender emerged for any dependent variable, nor did any of the other factors change in their patterns of significance; thus, participant gender is not discussed further.

  7. 7.

    Again, for descriptive purposes, we present raw M and SD for the IOS and perceived similarity variables, aggregated after scaling similarity to be on a 7-point scale: Objective (M = 2.25, SD = 0.97); Imagine Target (M = 2.47, SD = 1.13); Imagine Self (M = 2.78, SD = 1.00).

  8. 8.

    Because the pattern of means across condition in both studies suggested that self-other overlap was linearly increasing from objective condition (lowest) to imagine other condition (moderate) to imagine self condition (highest), an additional exploratory test examined whether the effects of condition on likelihood of helping, through overlap, took on a linear form. This was done by creating a linear condition contrast (objective = −1, imagine-target = 0, imagine-self = 1), and using this contrast as a predictor of overlap and helping, with overlap also predicting helping. As with the test reported above, while the direct effect of the contrast on helping was not significant (p = .72), the effect of overlap on helping likelihood was significant (EXP[B] = 1.84, p = .02), and the indirect effect of the contrast on helping likelihood was significant, EXP(B) = 1.13, p < .05.

References

  1. Ames, D. R. (2004). Inside the mind reader’s tool kit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 340–353.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of others in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it every truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Batson, C. D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 413–426.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997a). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., et al. (1997b). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997c). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 752–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713–726.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis, M. H., Soderlund, T., Cole, J., Gadol, E., Kute, M., Myers, M., et al. (2004). Cognitions associated with attempts to empathize: How do we imagine the perspective of another? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1625–1635.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708–724.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gehlbach, H., & Brinkworth, M. E. (2012). The social perspective taking process: Strategies and sources of evidence in taking another’s perspective. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). The spyglass self: A model of vicarious self-perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 402–417.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analyses in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hedges, L. V. (1986). Advances in statistical methods for meta-analysis. In D. S. Cordray & M. W. Lipsey (Eds.), Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 11). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical method for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hodges, S. D., Clark, B. A. M., & Myers, M. W. (2011). Better living through perspective taking. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positive psychology as social change. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ickes, W. (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Karniol, R., & Shomroni, D. (1999). What being empathic means: Applying the transformation rule approach to individual differences in predicting the thoughts and feelings of prototypic and nonprototypic others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Laurent, S. M., & Myers, M. W. (2011). I know you’re me, but who am I? Perspective taking and seeing the other in the self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1316–1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., & Cialdini, R. (2002). The effect of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1601–1610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Myers, M. W., & Hodges, S. D. (2012). The structure of self-other overlap and its relationship to perspective taking. Personal Relationships, 19, 663–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Preston, S. D., & Hofelich, A. J. (2012). The many faces of empathy: Parsing empathic phenomena through a proximate, dynamic-systems view of representing the other in the self. Emotion Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1754073911421378.

  29. Richardson, D. R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., Gardner, W., & Signo, M. (1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Skorinko, J. L., Laurent, S. M., Bountress, K., Nyein, K. P., & Kuckuck, D. (in press). Effect of perspective taking on courtroom decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

  32. Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigation of empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271–313). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G, Jr, & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Colton Christian and Irina Kuzmina for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael W. Myers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Myers, M.W., Laurent, S.M. & Hodges, S.D. Perspective taking instructions and self-other overlap: Different motives for helping. Motiv Emot 38, 224–234 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9377-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Perspective taking
  • Instructions
  • Self-other overlap
  • Empathy
  • Helping