miller & eisenberg 1988 pb

Psychological Bulletin1988, Vol. 103, No. 3,324-344

Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0033-2909/88/J00.75

The Relation of Empathy to Aggressiveand Externalizing/Antisocial Behavior

Paul A. Miller and Nancy EisenbergArizona State University

A number of researchers have proposed that empathy, sympathy, or both, defined primarily in affec-tive terms, may inhibit aggressive and antisocial behaviors (N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach, 1982; S.Feshbach, 1970; Parke & Slaby, 1983). Apart from brief reviews, however, no systematic reviewof the research concerning the relation of empathy/sympathy to aggression and other antisocial,externalizing behaviors has been conducted. In this review, we organized the relation of empathy/sympathy to relevant negative behaviors principally by mode of assessing empathy (i.e., picture/story, questionnaire methods, facial/gestural reactions, and experimental inductions) and analyzedempirical findings with meta-analytic techniques. Empathic/sympathetic responding was negativelyrelated to aggression and antisocial, externalizing behaviors for questionnaire methods and nega-tively but nonsignificantly related for other indexes of empathy. Child abuse also was associated withlow levels of empathy/sympathy, as was the receipt of such abuse. Relations between the empathyindexes and aggression/externalizing behaviors were generally the same for male and female subjects,especially after controlling for sample size. We discuss conceptual issues related to the pattern offindings, as well as directions for future research.

Over the years, philosophers have debated the mechanismsunderlying or mediating prosocial and moral behavior. Kant(1788/1949), for example, proposed that moral principles andbehavior engendered by such principles are based on rationalprocesses and are influenced little by emotion. On the otherhand, Hume (1777/1966) argued that affective responses suchas sympathy and benevolence are primary motives underlyingindividuals' moral actions. More recently, some theorists havesought to integrate emotional and cognitive influences in theiranalyses of moral action (e.g., Blum, 1980; Hoffman, 1987).

The diversity of philosophical positions is reflected in the the-oretical and empirical approaches that psychologists have takenin their investigations of moral development. Until recently, thebulk of the research literature concerned the role of rationalmoral principles and social-cognitive skills such as perspectivetaking in moral reasoning and behavior (e.g., Blasi, 1980; Kohl-berg, 1981; Rest, 1983; Underwood & Moore, 1982). There isnow, however, a considerable body of research in which the roleof empathy or sympathy, denned primarily in affective terms,has been examined in relation to moral and positive social be-havior (e.g., Batson & Coke, 1981; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987;see Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987). Especially when one considers

This work was funded in part by National Institute of Mental HealthNational Research Service Award 1F32MH09263-01 to Paul A. Millerand National Science Foundation Award BNS-8509223 and NationalInstitute of Child Health and Development Career Development Award1 K04HD00717 to Nancy Eisenberg.

We would like to express our gratitude to William Stock for adviceregarding meta-analytic procedures.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to PaulA. Miller or Nancy Eisenberg, Department of Psychology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, Arizona 85287.

recent research, such affective processes appear to be positivelyassociated with moral development (see Eisenberg & Miller,1987; Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987).

It also has been suggested that sympathetic and empathic re-actions play an important function in the reduction or inhibi-tion of aggressive or antisocial actions toward others (N. D.Feshbach, 1978, 1987; N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach, 1982; S.Feshbach, 1970; Parke & Slaby, 1983). That is, individuals whovicariously experience the negative reactions of others that oc-cur because of their own aggressive behavior may be less in-clined to continue their aggression or to aggress in future inter-actions. Moreover, if sympathy and empathy inhibit negativesocial behaviors that have hurtful effects for others, includingaggressive behavior, lower levels of individuals' empathic capac-ity or its expression may be associated with delays, arrests, orother dysfunctions of sociomoral development. These may in-clude greater incidence of antisocial behaviors and other formsof externalizing psychopathology. Thus, one might expect indi-viduals from normal as well as clinical populations who expressaggressive, delinquent, and antisocial behavior to exhibit lessempathic responsiveness toward others than do other people.Indeed, a deficiency in the capacity to respond to others em-pathically may be a contributing factor to dysfunctions in socialinteraction that attain clinical levels (Gibbs, 1987).

The primary objectives of this review were to examine tworelated issues: (a) whether individuals who are relatively aggres-sive in their interactions with others also tend to be lower inempathic/sympathetic responsiveness or both and (b) whetherindividuals who exhibit antisocial and other forms of negativebehavior that have negative consequences for others (but are notsolely or clearly aggression per se) differ from other people inempathic responsiveness. Before reviewing the research, how-ever, we consider definitional issues regarding empathy and ag-

324

RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION 325

gression among clinical and nonelinical populations, as well astheoretical issues regarding the relation of empathy to aggres-sion and externalizing negative behaviors.

Definitional Issues

In the psychological literature, empathy has been denned asboth a cognitive and affective response. Moreover, the termssympathy and empathy have often been used interchangeably.For example, both sympathy (e.g., Cooley, 1902/1956; Mead,1934) and empathy (e.g., Hogan, 1969) have been defined asthe ability to identify others' emotional states or to assume theemotional role of the other, that is, to achieve a cognitive under-standing of the feelings of the other person. Others, however,have denned empathy (N. D. Feshbach, 1978; Hoffman, 1984;Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972; Stotland, 1969) and sympathy(Batson, in press; McDougall, 1908/1950; Smith, 1759/1948)mostly in affective terms, that is, as a vicarious emotional re-sponse to a person's affective state or situation that is similar toor at least congruent with that state. In the latter sense, sympa-thetic responses are not necessarily denned as matching theemotions of the other person; they are merely consistent withthe other's state. For example, a person may report feelings ofconcern regarding someone else's distress.

For the purposes of this review, empathy is denned as an emo-tional response evoked by the affective state or situation of theother person. This emotion may be either identical or similar tothe state of the other and involves at least a minimal degreeof self-other differentiation. Thus, empathy includes responsessuch as emotional matching and, in general, the vicarious expe-riencing of emotions consistent with those of others. Sympathy,on the other hand, is defined as an emotional response, elicitedby the emotional state or situation of the other person, that isnot identical to the other's emotion and involves feelings of con-cern or sorrow for the other person. Frequently, especially forindividuals mature enough to differentiate between their ownand others' internal states, empathy can be expected to lead tosympathy or to co-occur. In the literature, however, it often isnot possible to ascertain whether authors are referring to empa-thy, sympathy, or some combination. Therefore, for the sake ofsimplicity, in such cases we use the term empathy to refer toboth sympathy and empathy.

Most theorists believe that empathy, albeit characterized byits affective component, involves cognition as well as affect. Forexample, some have suggested that the ability to differentiateamong and identify others' affective states and the ability to takethe cognitive and affective perspective of others (i.e., role take)are prerequisites for empathizing with someone (Batson, inpress; N. D. Feshbach, 1978). Others have argued that less ad-vanced cognitive processes, such as classical conditioning, maybe all that are necessary for some modes of empathic respond-ing (Hoffman, 1984). Most likely, cognitive processes affectingempathic expression operate at levels consistent with normalcognitive-developmental processes, thus becoming more so-phisticated with age and more evident among older than youn-ger people (Hoffman, 1984).

A number of definitional issues are also related to the con-cepts of aggression and negative, externalizing behavior. As re-cent reviewers have indicated (Attili, 1985; Parke & Slaby,

1983), defining aggression has proven to be a controversial is-sue. In early research, the focus was on the injurious or hostileintent of the aggressive act wherein the goal was harmful or de-structive consequences to the person or object (e.g., Berkowitz,1962; Dollard, Dobb, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). Manyresearchers currently draw distinctions among aggressive be-haviors on the basis of intent, for example, distinctions amonginstrumental aggression used to claim an object or to gain sta-tus in a group (e.g., Campbell, Muncer, & Bibel, 1985; S. Fesh-bach, 1970; Parke & Slaby, 1983), retaliatory aggression in re-sponse to provocation, and aggressive behaviors used simply tosucceed in game playing (see Attili, 1985). Other researchershave included other social-cognitive criteria, in which the char-acteristics of the aggressor, social context, nature of the recipi-ent's response to the act, and observer perceptions determinewhether a behavior is aggressive (e.g., Bandura, 1973; Dodge,1980; Perry, Perry, & Rasmussen, 1986). In reviewing the litera-ture, however, it often was not possible to determine how re-searchers defined and operationalized aggressive behavior.Moreover, the types of aggression included in empirical studieshave varied considerably (e.g., from verbal remarks to physicalviolence). Thus, to provide a comprehensive assessment of therelation of aggression to empathy, we included in this review arange of behaviors defined as aggressive. Moreover, becauseother negative behaviors—such as cheating, lying, and steal-ing—frequently involve aggressive encounters and possible in-jury to others, we also examined the relations of such behaviorsto empathy and sympathy.

There also exist a number of systems for classifying psycho-pathological behavior, including antisocial behavior. An espe-cially promising approach has grown out of efforts to developbehaviorally based classification systems for psychopathology(see Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979; Quay& Parsons, 1971; Spivak, Swift, & Prewitt, 1971). With thesesystems, forms of psychopathology among children and adoles-cents are differentiated as a function of expressed, observablebehavior. In factor analytic research of relevant behaviors, in-vestigators have repeatedly identified two "broadband" clinicalgroups (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1984). These groups havebeen labeled "undercontrolled versus overcontrolled" or "inter-nalizing versus externalizing" (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979,1984).

Of relevance to this discussion is the category of externalizingbehavior. The negative behaviors of externalizing individualstend to be expressed outwardly and are likely to directly affectother people and society at large. Externalizing behaviors rangefrom threatening, attacking, and fighting with others to generaldisobedience and serious conduct disorders (see Achenbach &Edelbrock, 1979), behaviors that seemingly reflect less aware-ness of or concern for the affective consequences of one's behav-ior for others.

Because of the general recognition of this differentiation inclinical research (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1984) and the roleof aggression and other negative social behaviors in externaliz-ing conditions, we included externalizing behavior in our reviewof the relevant research. Although no equivalent behaviorallybased classification system exists for adults' behaviors, the Di-agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of theAmerican Psychiatric Association (1980) contains diagnostic

326 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG

categories for adults and children similar to the Achenbach(1978) classification system. Thus, when appropriate, we in-cluded samples of adults' externalizing behaviors in our review.

Theoretical Issues

As noted above, social and developmental psychologists haveused empathy to refer to the ability or tendency to be vicari-ously aroused by the affective state of another person. This vi-carious arousal often is assumed to engender sympathetic con-cern for the other, aversive arousal within the observer (labeledpersonal distress; see Batson & Coke, 1981), or both (Batson,in press; Hoffman, 1984). According to some theorists (e.g.,N. D. Feshbach, 1982; Hoffman, 1984), observation of others'expressions of distress or pain often results in the observer'sexperiencing similar distress by means of vicarious emotionalresponding. When the observers themselves are the instigatorsof aggression, they may vicariously experience the negativearousal induced by their own actions (i.e., they experience per-sonal distress). Reduction of aggressive behavior in interactionswith others would therefore be reinforcing for the aggressor be-cause it would result in less vicarious negative arousal (N. D.Feshbach, 1978; N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach, 1982). Sometheorists (e.g., Hoffman, 1984) further suggest that feelings of(or anticipation of) such distress will inhibit immoral behaviorprimarily when the individual feels responsible for the distressstate of the other person.

For those who experience sympathy rather than (or in addi-tion to) personal distress as a result of empathizing, one wouldalso expect a reduction in negative behavior because of the de-sire to improve the other's condition and to rectify any harm.Sympathy may evolve from a sense of connectedness with oth-ers and a positive valuing of others (Staub, 1986), both of whichshould preclude harming others. Moreover, the role-taking ac-tivities that often are part of sympathizing and mature empathyshould result in a reduction of misunderstandings, accompa-nied by a lessening of conflict and aggression (S. Feshbach &N. D. Feshbach, 1986).

Consistent with the aforementioned theorizing, such situa-tional factors as the immediacy and intensity of pain cues havebeen associated with lower levels of aggression (e.g., Baron,1971; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). These cues should evokeaversive personal distress reactions or sympathetic concern, ei-ther of which could inhibit aggression. In some research, how-ever, a victim's expression of pain has been associated with in-creased aggression, especially under conditions of prior angerarousal or strong provocation (S. Feshbach, Stiles, & Bitter,1967;Hartmann, 1969; Perry & Perry, 1974). Moreover, and ofparticular relevance to this review, the presence of cues indica-tive of pain appears to be associated with higher levels of aggres-sion in people with established histories of aggressiveness anddelinquency (Perry & Perry, 1974). Thus, aggressive individualsmay not respond vicariously to others' emotions or interpretothers' pain cues in the way that less aggressive individuals do.

Part of the reason for aggressive children's relative indiffer-ence to pain cues may lie in the fact that aggressive childrenmay make interpretations of others' behaviors in social interac-tions that differ from those made by less aggressive children(Dodge, 1980; Gouze, Rayais, & Bieber-Schneider, 1983). That

is, aggressive children appear to interpret social cues in waysthat are relatively likely to elicit feelings of personal distress,threat, or anger, resulting in behavior consistent with their inter-pretation of the situation rather than the affective state of theother person. Consistent with this view, Gough (1948) and Hare(1970) have suggested that a history of antisocial behavior isthe result of a deficiency in perspective taking, which would beexpected to be associated with lower levels of sympathy (S.Feshbach & N. D. Feshbach, 1986; Hoffman, 1984). Thus, therelation between empathy (and sympathy) and aggressive/anti-social behavior may occur for a variety of reasons, reasonslinked to both the cognitive and affective components of em-pathy.

A type of aggression of special note is serious aggression to-ward family members. Researchers have found that abusive par-ents, in comparison with nonabusive parents, tend to engage inmore negative, coercive interactions with their children (Bur-gess & Conger, 1978; Reid, 1986); respond less appropriately totheir children (Fontana & Robison, 1984); express more nega-tive affect; and use more punitive rearing strategies (Howes &Feshbach, 1986; Trickett & Kuczynski, 1983). Conversely,mothers' communication of concern and altruistic administra-tions to their children and others (called empathic caregiving)have been positively related to their use of reasoning (e.g., refer-ences to consequences for others or moral principles) and ex-pression of emotion in child-caused distress situations (Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979). Thus, it is reasonable tosuggest that abusive parents, in comparison with other parents,may be less sympathetically or vicariously aroused by their chil-dren's pain cues and negative emotional reactions (also seeN. D. Feshbach, 1987).

Moreover, to the extent that abused children's needs and feel-ings are not recognized or responded to appropriately in inter-actions with an abusive parent, they may have little experienceof empathic responding themselves or opportunity to learn toidentify and experience the affective cues and states of others.Furthermore, if Staub (1986) is correct that sympathetic re-sponding evolves from positive feelings toward others and feel-ings of interconnectedness with others, abused children shouldbe relatively unlikely to develop high levels of empathic/sympa-thetic responding. Consistent with this view, according to thelimited relevant data, the development of empathy in childrenappears to be enhanced by supportive parenting (Barnett, 1987;Zahn-Waxier et al., 1979). It is also possible, however, that theabused child, because of exposure to the strong negative emo-tions of the abusive parent, may become acutely sensitive toemotional cues portending punishment or stress (Squires,1979). In such cases, the abused child may show awareness ofothers' negative affect but express inappropriate social re-sponses to them, for example, defensiveness, rejection, or ag-gression as opposed to nurturant, positive social responses. Thismay be because abusing parents do not provide models of ap-propriate behavioral and emotional responding to others inneed and are likely to use child-rearing practices (e.g., physicalpunishment and unexplained prohibitions) that do not pro-mote empathic or prosocial responsiveness (N. D. Feshbach,1987;Zahn-Waxleretal., 1979).

On the basis of the theoretical considerations above, we hy-pothesized that aggressive behavior, including physical and ver-


bal aggression, as well as abusive behavior, should be negativelyrelated to empathy. We expected this relation to hold both fordispositional indexes of empathy and for situational measuresof empathy, that is, measures of both the trait of empathy andempathy toward the potential recipient of the person's aggres-sion. We hypothesized that dispositional empathy would be as-sociated with low levels of aggression because individuals whotend in general to empathize should be more likely to do so inany given situation. Moreover, we reasoned that other actionsincluded in the category of externalizing behaviors (e.g., lying,stealing, conduct disorders, and antisocial behavior), which aresomewhat different from or more inclusive than aggression,should be negatively related to empathy. We predicted this be-cause such behaviors have negative consequences for others,consequences that are similar to, if not often more serious than,those for aggression in general. Finally, we hypothesized thatvictims of abuse would exhibit relatively low levels of empathythemselves because of their socialization experiences. Prior toturning to our review, we must describe the data set and compu-tational procedures used to conduct our meta-analyses.

Methods of Analysis

Description of the Data Set

As far as we are aware, there are only two reviews of the relation ofempathy/sympathy to aggression, and these reviews are brief (N. D.Feshbach, 1978, 1987). Consequently, we conducted a comprehensivesearch of all relevant research—including published studies, unpub-lished manuscripts, and dissertations—using relevant documentsources (e.g., Social Sciences Citation Index, Educational Resources In-formation Center, Psychological Abstracts, recently published reviews,and so forth). Whenever necessary, we sent letters requesting relevantinformation from authors with unpublished or in-progress work. Theobjective of this wide search was to avoid the "file drawer" bias that canoccur because studies involving nonsignificant findings are less likely tobe obtained and included in reviews of research (Rosenthal, 1979).

The grouping of studies for the analyses was influenced by severaltheoretical and methodological issues in the empathy and aggressionliterature. In prior reviews of empathy and gender (Eisenberg & Len-non, 1983) and empathy and prosocial behavior (Eisenberg & Miller,1987), the significance of the relation of empathy to the criterion mea-sures was a function of the method used to assess empathy. Thus, in ourfirst grouping of studies, we examined the empathy-aggression relationaccording to the mode of measuring empathy. We identified four fre-quently used methods of empathy assessment for studies pertaining toaggression: (a) picture/story methods, wherein individuals' self-re-ported responses to hypothetical stories (e.g., narratives, slide stories,short films, or some combination) are scored in terms of the degree towhich their reported affect matches that of a story protagonist; (b) facialaffect/gestural reactions to others' emotions or states as depicted in filmsor picture/story stimuli; (c) individuals' self-reports on questionnairesor scales that assess empathic/sympathetic tendencies across events andsituations; and (d) experimental induction procedures designed to elicitempathic responses, principally through manipulations of observa-tional set or degree of perceived similarity with a purported victim.

To some extent, the empathy indexes have been used more or lesswith particular age groups. For example, picture/story measures havebeen used solely with very young and elementary-school children,whereas self-report questionnaires and induction procedures generallyhave been used with older children, adolescents, and adults. Measuresof facial affect and gestural responses, initially used with younger chil-dren as an alternative to picture/story methods, are just beginning to be

used with adults as indexes of empathic responsiveness (see Marcus,1987).

The definition of empathy also varies to some extent as a function ofthe method of assessment. In picture/story methods, empathy typicallyis operationalized as the matching of one's emotional response to thatof a story character. Self-report questionnaires and induction methodshave involved the assessment of sympathetic concerns as well as emo-tional matching and personal distress reactions in various situations.Similarly, facial/gestural methods may tap a range of affective reactions,including individuals' emotional matching, sympathetic responding,and personal distress reactions.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each method for assessingempathy (see Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987;Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987). Self-report indexes of empathy often mayreflect individuals' desire to conform with gender-role stereotypes (Ei-senberg & Lennon, 1983). Picture/story indexes seem to be particularlyvulnerable to demand characteristics and to confounding factors, suchas sex of the experimenter (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). Facial indexesare a promising mode of assessing empathy but may be ineffective forpeople who mask their emotions. In brief, no single measure of empathyis ideal; a multimethod approach to the assessment of empathy is desir-able but has seldom been used.

The second group of the research findings that were examined in-cluded externalizing behaviors (e.g., conduct disorders and antisocial orproblematic social behaviors) that were not explicitly or solely aggres-sive in nature. Studies were included in these analyses if they assessed(a) externalizing behaviors, classified as such by using standard clinicalindexes (e.g., Achenbach & Edelbrock's, 1979, system), or (b) problem-atic social behaviors typically associated with externalizing behaviors(e.g., acting out behaviors). We assessed the relation of empathy to exter-nalizing/antisocial behaviors by using actual or estimated measures ofassociation, derived in a number of cases by comparing the empathylevel of these groups with that of samples from the normal population.

In the third grouping of analyses, studies concerning individuals whowere either the victims or perpetrators of abuse were examined sepa-rately because of the distinctive familial context in which these external-izing behaviors occurred and the fact that abuse can include behaviorsin addition to overt aggression (e.g., neglect). We examined studies con-cerning the victims of abuse, all children in this case, independently ofdata concerning adult abusers. Generally, the expression of empathyamong each of these two groups was compared with normal or controlsamples.

Methods of Evaluation and Data Reduction

We analyzed the literature in the following manner: First, we com-puted meta-analyses for each grouping of studies. When relevant, analy-ses were conducted to address questions of conceptual import to a groupof studies. Finally, in some meta-analyses, we also reviewed the dataqualitatively.

In general, the term mela-analysis refers to statistical proceduresused to aggregate the results of independent studies relevant to testinghypothesized relations between variables. A variety of methods for com-puting meta-analyses have been used (e.g., Cooper, 1979; Hedges & Ol-kin, 1986). The steps that we followed in conducting the meta-analysesare outlined in more detail elsewhere (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Hedges& Olkin, 1986). Briefly, the procedure first involved converting all sta-tistics (e.g., F values, I values, and proportions) into indexes of associa-tion (see Ferguson, 1976; Stock, Okun, Haring, Kinney, & Miller, 1979,for formulas). Next, we transformed the estimated or actual correlationsinto z values by using r-to-z transformation tables available in a stan-dard statistics text. Third, we computed a frequency-weighted estimateof the common correlation (Z.,) with the formula z+ = Sf., [(«< - 3)(zi)}/(N — 3X), in which N = the total number of subjects across all


samples, n = the number of subjects in a given sample, and K - thenumber of samples (Hedges & Olkin, 1986). Then, to determinewhether the hypothesized relation among the variables (i.e., expressedas the common correlation) differed from 0, we computed the followingz statistic: z = z+ V(N- 3K), in which N = the total number of subjectsacross all samples. We then tested the significance of the effect by usingthe standard normal curve ( f o r p = .05 and z — 1 .96) and critical valuesfor a two-tailed test. We chose two-tailed tests to provide a more conser-vative test of the empathy-aggression relation because of the large Ns insome analyses (and because they have been used in determining thesignificance of analyses in the meta-analytic work of others, such asHedges & Olkin, 1986). We then calculated confidence intervals for thiseffect for the sample and population estimates of z+ (Hedges & Olkin,1986).

We also conducted tests of the homogeneity of the estimated com-mon correlations with the following formula: Q = 2 fc[(«;~ 3)z?) -

1 2 ("i ~ 3)z,- ) /2\;-i / (.1

'

i/ — 3A). The objective of this computation was to

test the assumption that the correlations reported in the samples for agiven meta-analysis came from a single underlying population (seeHedges & Olkin, 1986). If this assumption is not met, it suggests thatthe estimates of the common correlation from the samples may not fitthe model of a single underlying population correlation. Accordingly,the test for the homogeneity of the common correlations is reportedprior to testing for the significance of z+. However, we conducted testsof significance of the common correlation even when the estimates of rdid not meet the assumption of homogeneity. In such cases, we deemedthe outcomes of these tests important but viewed them with cautionbecause of the heterogeneous nature of the samples.

We encountered several issues in selecting samples to include in agiven meta-analysis. As described above, we organized data related tothe empathy-aggression relation by mode of assessing empathy (i.e.,self-report questionnaires and facial/gestural, picture/story, and induc-tion methods). Sometimes, more than one statistic concerning the rela-tion between empathy and aggression was reported in a single study. Toconform to the requirement that the data for each sample (not study orarticle) within a meta-analysis should represent an independent esti-mate of the empathy-aggression relation, we reviewed multiple empa-thy indexes in any given study separately, according to the mode of as-sessment (e.g., facial/gestural and picture/story measures).

When indexes obtained with the same method of assessing empathywere available for the same sample (e.g., two self-report questionnaires),we usually averaged the statistics and used the mean in the meta-analy-sis. For some samples, a composite score for empathy was reported (e.g.,a composite of responses to several picture/story vignettes). We usedthis composite score in the analysis if either (a) no other statistic wasavailable or (b) the composite score was deemed the most adequate anddid not mask potentially significant patterns of association (e.g., age orgender differences). Moreover, if a given measure of association exhib-ited considerable variation across subgroups (e.g., sex or age), then wetreated the subgroups as separate samples. In general, we reported allavailable measures of a given relation in the tables (unless there weremany) but averaged these estimates and used mean values when com-puting the meta-analyses.

Because relatively few studies concerning externalizing behavior wereavailable, we first combined the modes of assessing empathy (e.g., self-report questionnaires and facial/gestural methods) in the analysis of therelation between empathy and externalizing/antisocial behavior andabuse. We computed additional analyses, however, for each commonlyused method of assessing empathy (i.e., picture/story and questionnairemethods) for exploratory purposes.

The procedure for combining different modes of assessing empathyraises the possibility that indexes for two different modes of assessing

empathy would have to be averaged in a single sample (e.g., picture/story and self-report on questionnaire measures). There were no cases,however, in which a researcher used two different modes of assessingempathy with the same sample. When multiple empathy measures wereused, they were of the same type (e.g., self-report on questionnaires;Lee, 1983). In this case, we averaged the data by using procedures de-scribed previously.

Finally, in a number of the studies, specific statistics on the relationof empathy to the relevant behaviors were not provided. Sometimes, allthat was reported was that a particular comparison was significant ornonsignificant. At other times, the results of comparisons were not re-ported at all, leaving one to infer that they were nonsignificant. Whenthe findings were reported as significant, we assumed them to be so at aprobability value of .05 for a two-tailed test. We used the assumption ofa two-tailed test because it is commonly used among researchers andbecause it was the criterion that we used to assess the significance of theresults of our meta-analyses. When merely nonsignificance was re-ported, we could not estimate a precise index of association becausethere was no means for determining the p value. In such cases, we as-sumed that the nonsignificant findings averaged out, across studies, toa correlation of 0 (see Cooper, 1979).

In summary, we organized the analysis of the relation of empathy toaggression according to the method used to assess empathy. We orga-nized the analyses of the relation of empathy to externalizing/antisocialbehaviors first independently of the mode of assessment of empathy andthen by the two predominant modes of assessing empathy found (i.e.,picture/story and questionnaire methods). We collapsed studies rele-vant to the relation of empathy and abuse across measures of empathyfor children and adults. The computation of the various meta-analysesincluded (a) a test of the homogeneity of the estimates of the commoncorrelation, (b) computation of a weighted estimate of the common cor-relation (z+), (c) a test of the significance of the common correlationusing the standard normal curve, (d) computation of confidence inter-vals for z+, and (e) computation of estimates of the population valuesfor z+ and its confidence intervals (see Hedges & Olkin, 1986).

Review of the Empirical Research

Relation of Empathy to Aggression

Picture/story assessments of empathy. Picture/story meth-ods have been the most commonly used procedure for assessingchildren's empathy. The most popular of these has been N. D.Feshbach & Roe's (1968) Affective Situations Test for Empathy.With procedures of this sort, children typically are presentedwith narratives (accompanied by visual stimuli) depicting otherchildren in emotion-eliciting situations (e.g., the story protago-nist loses her dog). After listening to each story, the child isasked to report how he or she feels. A response is consideredempathic if it is identical or similar to the emotion that the storycharacter is likely to have experienced.

In early research of this type (N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach,1969; N. D. Feshbach & Roe, 1968), children were required toverbally describe their feeling state in response to story events.More recently, because of concerns about confounding chil-dren's verbal ability with their actual experience of emotion, anumber of researchers have added nonverbal methods for as-sessing empathy (e.g., lannotti, 1975). With this approach, chil-dren are asked to point to pictures of facial expressions depict-ing different emotions to indicate their response to story events.

Some researchers have modified the original procedure orhave scored empathy differently. Specifically, they have coded


intensity of affective response (N. D. Feshbach, 1980,1982) oremotional responses to different aspects of the story situation(lannotti, 1975; lannotti & Pierrehumbert, 1985) or havescored both empathy and sympathy (Staub & Feinberg, 1980).

Researchers have noted other problems with picture/story as-sessments of empathy. Principally, these problems have in-volved (a) the effect of sex of experimenter on boys' versus girls'responding (children score higher if interviewed by same-sexexperimenters; Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983), (b) the problem ofrepeated elicitations of different emotions in a very short periodof time, and (c) the use of short hypothetical events that may notevoke much emotion (Hoffman, 1982). Furthermore, Eisenbergand Miller (1987) found this mode of assessing empathy to beunrelated to indexes of prosocial behavior. Thus, there is reasonto believe that many picture/story measures are less valid thanother indexes of empathy.

Having discussed some of the issues that researchers havefaced with this assessment method, we turn to the results ofstudies concerning the relation of aggression to picture/storyindexes of empathy. We located 11 relevant studies (including18 samples). (See Table 1.) These samples were homogeneouswith regard to their estimate of the common correlation, x2(l 7,JV = 18) = 20.61, /is. The common correlation (z+) was -.06(z = 1.33); thus, the trend was in the predicted direction, but itwas not significant. The confidence interval at the 95th percen-tile for z+ was -.14 to .03. The population estimate for z+ was—.06, and its high and low confidence interval values were —.14and .03, respectively.

The association between picture/story indexes of empathyand aggression appeared more consistent with expectations forthe older age groups. When we omitted preschool samples fromthe analysis, the estimates of the common correlation for thesamples of the older groups were homogeneous, x2(8, N = 9) =7.26, ns. The estimate of the common correlation was signifi-cant and in the predicted direction (z+ = -. 13; z - 2.52, p <.02) for nine samples. The sample confidence interval rangedfrom -.24 to -.03. The corresponding population estimate forz+ also was —.13, and its associated confidence interval matchedthe sample values.

One possible reason for the low correlation between empathyand picture/story indexes is that picture/story indexes often in-clude the assessment of empathy with others' positive as well asnegative emotions. Empathy with positive emotions has beenpositively related to boys' aggression, whereas empathy withdysphoric emotions has been negatively related (N. D. Fesh-bach, 1982). Moreover, adult males' empathizing with positiveemotions has been associated with cognitive role-taking skills,whereas empathizing with negative emotions has been associ-ated with empathic concern (i.e., sympathy; Davis, Hull,Young, & Warren, 1987). Thus, it is possible that the relationof picture/story indexes to aggression would be more consistentif researchers would separate findings for empathy according topositive and negative emotions.

Self-report on questionnaires. Questionnaire indexes of em-pathy have been used primarily with older children and withadults. Generally, questionnaires reflect the assumption that thetrait of empathy is being assessed because individuals reporttheir emotional reactions to others across a broad set of situa-tions.

The Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) scale of emotional ten-dency is the most frequently used index of empathy for olderadolescents and adults. Bryant (1982) developed a modified ver-sion of this scale for use with children 6 years of age and older.Both scales tap a variety of individuals' emotional reactions,including (a) susceptibility to emotional contagion, (b) under-standing of the feelings of familiar or unfamiliar people, (c)emotional responsiveness to others' emotions, and (d) sympa-thetic feelings toward others. It is likely, however, that someitems also assess the tendency to experience personal distress,as well as other types of emotional or social-cognitive reactionsor both.

Indexes of aggression for adults in studies involving question-naire indexes of empathy frequently have been measures of re-actions in laboratory situations. For example, aggression oftenhas been operationalized as the frequency or intensity of noiseor shocks supposedly administered to another person during alearning task or as ratings of individuals' aggression toward oth-ers in simulated interactions (e.g., Aleksic, 1976; Gaines, Kir-win, & Gentry, 1977). For children, indexes of aggression moreoften have been based on observational measures or ratings byparents, teachers, or peers.

Questionnaire studies concerning the relation of empathy toaggression are presented in Table 2. We located nine studies,including 15 samples. The samples were not homogeneous re-garding their estimates of the common correlation, x2(14, N =15) = 23.72,p < .05. The common correlation was —.18, whichwas highly significant (z = 4.90, p < .001); the confidence inter-val for z+ was -.11 to -.25. The estimates of the populationcorrelation and associated confidence intervals were identical.Moreover, when we inspected the individual samples, the nega-tive relation appeared to be consistent across the entire range ofages of the samples, from middle childhood to adulthood, aswell as for subgroups varying in level of aggression (e.g., Aleksic,1976; Hoppe & Singer, 1976).

Facial/gestural indexes of empathy. The use of facial/ges-tural indexes is a relatively new methodology for the assessmentof empathic responsiveness. Consequently, the number of avail-able studies is quite limited, and all involve younger children,for whom the technique was originally designed. This methodwas developed, at least in part, to offset the problem of requiringchildren to report their emotions verbally.

We located five studies, involving 10 samples (Table 3). Thesamples were homogeneous regarding their estimate of thecommon correlation, x2(9, N = 10) = 3.64, ns. The commoncorrelation (z+) was -.06, ns(z = .84, ns), and the confidenceinterval was -.20 to .08. The population estimates for the com-mon correlation and the corresponding confidence intervalwere -.06 and -.21 to .08, respectively.

In a previous analysis of the relation between facial affectmeasures of empathy and prosocial behavior (Eisenberg &Miller, 1987), type of empathy stimuli affected the estimate ofthe common correlation. (The relation was stronger for filmsthan for slide stories.) We therefore recomputed the analyseswith slide stories removed. The estimate of the common corre-lation, however, remained nonsignificant (for films only, z+ =-.07,z = .92).

In several studies, measures of children's positive as well asnegative facial affect were used. Conceptually, however, the rela-


Table 1Relation of Picture/Story Indexes of Empathy to Aggression

Study

Bazar(1976/1977)

N. D. Feshbach(1980, 1982)

N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach(1969)

Howard(1983)

Huckabay(1971)

lannotti(1975)

lannotti & Pierrehumbert(1985)

Marcus, Roke, & Bruner(1976)

Nielsen(1976)

Staub ( 1 986) and Staub andFeinberg(1980)

Age, sex, and N

4-5 years

M,;v=36

F,tf=36

G3-G4

M,N=50<

F,N=501

4-5 yearsM,JV=24F,AT=24

6-7 yearsM, N = 20F,JV=20

4 years

M , J V = 1 7

F,N= 18

GlandG3,MandF,N=60

K and 03,M,N=60

2 years(retested at 5years forempathy),M and F,N =44

3-6 yearsM,Ar=21F,N-n

Latency andadolescence, M

G3-G4

M,JV=20F,N=26

Measure of empathy

Affect matching

Videotape affect-matching task

Affect matchingEuphoric affectDysphoric affect

Affect Matching XAffect Intensity

Euphoric affect

Dysphoric affectAffect matching'Affect Matching XAffect Intensity'

PASTE

Affect matching

PASTE

Affect matchingEmotional matching*Situational matching"

Affect matching

Emotional matching*Situational matching11

Affect matching

Affect matching

Parallel matching affect'Parallel matching affectSympathetic affect

Measure of aggression

Teachers' ratings ofchildren

TeasingPhysical force in disputesWildness in gamesTeasingPhysical force in disputesWildness in games

Peers', teachers' and self-ratings of aggression

Ratings in general

Teachers' ratingsPeers' ratingsSelf-ratingsRatings in generalRatings in generalRatings in general

Teachers' ratings of peer-directed verbal and physicalaggression

Observers' ratings of peer-directed aggression

PhysicalNonphysicalPhysicalNonphysical

Teachers' ratings of overtphysical and verbalaggression

Self-report of aggression inhypothetical situations

Observers' ratings of peer-directed aggression

Teachers' ratings of peer-directed physical and verbalaggression

Teachers' ratings

Observers' ratings of peer-directed hostile andinstrumental aggression(verbal and physical)

Estimateofr

NR"NR'NRa

NR"NR"

.24"

nsns

MR'.28=.28'

-.28=-.28°-.28'

.43°.10=

-.44=.24=

-.24.00.22.19

-.26

.06-.23

-.52.21

.14

.39

S1

usnsns

Relation tohypothesis

00000-

00

0—-+++

-—

+-

+0—-

+

—+

+-

--

+

000


Table 1 (Continued)

Study

Steinman(1979)

Age, sex, and N

GlandG3,M,AT=72

Measure of empathy

PASTE


Disrupting peers' winning agame in an experimentalsituation

Estimateofr

-.09


+

Note. M = male; F = female; G = grade; K = kindergarten; PASTE = N. D. Feshbach and Roe (1968) Affective Situation Test of Empathy; Affectmatching = empathy was assumed if the participants' reported affect matched that of the hypothetical other; NR = not reported; + = negativerelation between measure of empathy and aggression; - = positive relation; 0 = no relation." Assumed to be 0. b The correlation was Kendall's tau. c Estimate of r was computed from the Mann-Whitney U statistic. d The author didnot report the sample size by sex. Therefore, an equal number of subjects was assigned to each sex. • Estimated from the report ofsignificance. f The author reported negative correlations between empathy and aggression for girls, regardless of type or intensity of empathicaffect. Therefore, we combined euphoric and dysphoric empathic affects in the table. 8 Matching of one's own affect to the facial cues of another iffacial and situational cues are incongruent. " Matching of one's own affect to situational rather than facial cues if facial and situational cues areincongruent. ' Although the results were significant (S), the sample size could not be obtained for computing the estimate of r. Therefore, weomitted this study from the meta-analysis. ' No boys reported sympathetic reactions.

tion between sad or negatively toned facial affect and lower lev-els of aggression is clearer than the relation of positive facialaffect to aggression. Positive affect could reflect an individual'senjoyment of the anguish of the "victim" (leading to a positiverelation with aggression) or their discomfort or social anxiety(which would be expected to result in less aggression). However,recomputation of the analyses relating only negative facialaffect to aggression proved nonsignificant (z+ = -.01).

Experimental inductions of empathy. A common strategy forstudying the relation of empathy to other personality character-istics has been to experimentally induce empathy and thencompare individuals' subsequent behavior (e.g., aggression)with that of individuals in a control group. Such studies gener-ally have involved adults, although we did locate one study con-ducted with adolescents. In all the relevant studies, empathywas manipulated with one of two approaches: (a) manipula-tions of individuals' beliefs that they were similar to anotherperson or (b) manipulations of individuals' observational setsby means of encouraging them either to imagine how anotherfelt or to objectively observe them. Manipulations that increaseperceptions of similarity are believed to enhance empathic re-sponding because people seem to empathize more with peoplelike themselves (see N. D. Feshbach, 1978; Krebs, 1975; Staub,1986). Similarly, instructions to imagine how another feels areassumed to increase role taking and, consequently, empathicresponding, whereas instructions simply to observe another areexpected to decrease the likelihood of individuals doing so (seeBatson, in press; Stotland, 1969).

We located five studies, involving six samples (Table 4). Thesamples were homogeneous, x2(5, N = 6) = 4.20, ns. The esti-mate of the common correlation (z+) was —.08 (z = 1.37, ns),and the confidence interval was —. 19 to .03. The estimate of thepopulation correlation —.08, and its corresponding confidenceinterval was-. 19 to .03.

The lack of a relation between aggression and experimentalmanipulations of empathy did not seem to be due to ineffectivemanipulations; in five of the six studies, the inducements of sim-ilarity or perspective taking were effective. It is possible, how-ever, that the manipulations did not always affect individuals'empathic reactions per se, even if they did alter their perspectivetaking or feelings of similarity. It should also be noted that the

relation between empathy and aggression was negative and,thus, in the predicted direction for four of the five samples.

Sex differences in the research concerning aggression. Re-searchers have frequently noted gender differences in the enact-ment of aggressive behaviors (Eagly & Steffen, 1986). Moreover,Eisenberg and Lennon (1983) observed sex differences as afunction of the type of empathy measure. Consequently, we ex-amined the relation of empathy to aggression for each sex bycomputing analyses within and across the three modes of mea-suring empathy (i.e., picture/story, facial/gestural, and ques-tionnaire methods). (We omitted experimental induction stud-ies because empathic responding was inferred rather than as-sessed directly.)

Across the three modes of empathy assessment, there were16 studies, including 23 samples for males. The estimate of theassociation between empathy and aggression was homoge-neous, X2(22, N = 23) = 32.58, ns (z+ = -.09, z = 2.58, whichwas significant, p < .01). The confidence interval was from -.16to —.02. Population estimates of z+ and its associated confi-dence interval were identical.

For females, there were 13 studies, involving 15 samples. Theestimates of the association between empathy and aggressionmet the assumption of a common underlying population corre-lation, x2(14, N= 15) = 14.95, ns. The estimate of the commoncorrelation (z+) was -.06 (z = 1.10), which was nonsignificant,and the associated confidence interval for z+ was -.15 to .04.The population estimate for z+ and its confidence interval werethe same as the sample estimates.

When we examined the relation between aggression and em-pathy separately for different indexes of empathy, the relationswere nonsignificant for both sexes for picture/story and facial/gestural measures. For questionnaire methods, there was a non-significant trend (z+ = — .11, p < .15) for females in the pre-dicted direction, whereas for males, the relation was significant(z+ = -.16, z = 3.24, p < .003). In summary, the estimatesof z+ were approximately equal for males and females for thedifferent modes of assessing empathy: However, only the resultsfor males were significant for questionnaire methods (whichmay have been due, at least in part, to the considerably largersample size for males).

Empathy training and aggression. Another approach to ex-


Table 2Relation of Questionnaire Indexes of Empathy to Aggression

Study

Aleksic(1976)

Bryant(1982)

Gaines, Kirwin, &Gentry(1977)

Hoppe & Singer(1976)

Hunter(1984/1985)

Letourneau(1981)

Mehrabian &Epstein(1972)

Polk (1976)

Rein (1974)

Age, sex, and N

14- 16 years,incarcerateddelinquents,M,JV = 80

GlU,N= 14

F,JV= 12G4

M,N = 54F, N = 57

G7M,N = 41F,N=52

College students,M,N= 17

Patients atpsychiatrichospital forcriminaloffenders,M,,V= 115

14- 18 years,incarcerateddelinquents,M,;V=59

Abusive andnonabusivemothers, F,N=60

Study 1: Collegestudents, MandF

N=44

N=44Study 2: College

students,M&F,

College students,M,A'=45

College students,M,N= 67)

Measure ofempathy

M & E

Bryant scale(1982)

Self-report ofempathicmotivationb

M & E

M&E

M & E

M&E

M & E

M & E

ModifiedM&E


Administration of noise in alearning task

Intensity X Duration"

Teachers' ratings of peer-directed physical andverbal aggression

Administration of shock ina learning task

Criminal offenses varying inaggression

Number of aggressiveincidents

Aggressive responses in role-playing situations


Immediate condition (cansee victim)

Nonimmediate conditionQuestionnaire measure of

aggression

Administration of noise in alearning task


DurationMean intensityMaximum intensity

Estimateofr

-.25

-.57

.19

-.45.07

-.01-.14-.46C

ns

-.27

-.30

-.29"

ns-.31

-.03

.00-.23-.14


+

+

—

+-

+++

0

+

+

+

0+

_

0++

Note. M = male; F = Female; G = grade; M & E = Mehrabian and Epstein's (1972) scale; Bryant scale = Index of Empathy for Children andAdolescents (Bryant, 1982); + = negative relation between measure of empathy and aggression; - = positive relation; 0 = no relation.• The Intensity X Duration index was deemed a better overall measure of aggression, although separate intensity and duration measures were alsoavailable. b Obtained in a postexperiment interview. c The authors only reported significant F ratios for univariate analyses in which the meanaggression scores for both the empathy and fear motivation groups were similar and lower than the means for other experimental groups. Becauseno separate comparisons were reported between empathy and fear and other experimental groups, we derived the estimate of r on the basis of a p =.05 significance level, even though the reported univariate p levels were more significant. d Estimated from the report of significance.


Table 3Relation Between Children's Facial/Gestural Indexes Qf Empathy and Am ression

Study

Ekman, Liebert, Friesen,Harrison, Zlatchin,Malmstrom, &Baron (1972)

Howard (1983)

Age, Sex, and TV Measure of empathy

5-6 years Facial reactions" toaggressive films

M,/V=15 PleasantInterestHappyPainSad

F,7V=15 PleasantInterestHappyPainSad

4 years Facial reactions duringadministration ofpicture/storymeasure


Aggressive game and play behaviorin experimental situations

Observers' ratings of peer-directedaggression

Estimateofr

.18-.22

.40-.10-.10

nsnsns.08ns


+b

_b

+b

-f+

ob

ob

0_-

0

Marcus, Roke, & Bruner(1985)

Solomon (1985)

Steinman(1979)

M,JV= 17

F,JV = 18

3-7 years

M,N=2\F,N= 11

K, G2, G4, G6

F,/V=43

6-8 years, M

G5,N=25

Facial reactions duringadministration ofpicture/storymeasure

Facial reactions'tofilms of childrenin negativesituations

PleasureSadnessPleasureSadness

Facial reactions to filmof two young menfighting

PainJoyPainJoy

PhysicalNonphysicalPhysicalNonphysical

Teachers' ratings of physical andverbal peer-directedaggression

Teachers' ratings of verbal hostile,and physical aggressiontoward peers

Intensity by duration of aggressiontoward peer in experimentalgame

-.10-.01.04.32

-.13-.12

-.37

.36"

.13"-.36"

.13d

0"00"

Note. M = male; F = female; K = kindergarten; G = grade; + = negative relation between empathy (exhibiting the same emotion as the other orexhibiting sympathy) and aggression; — = positive relation; 0 = no relation.1 We included the affective reactions that seemed most relevant to the issue at hand. Therefore, arousal (undifferentiated), anger, and surprise wereomitted. b A positive relation between positive affective reactions to aggressive films and aggressive behavior is consistent with the hypothesis of anegative relation between empathy and aggression. c Because it was difficult to determine whether children's anger responses to the film situationswere in behalf of (i.e., empathic) or against the protagonist, we omitted anger reactions from the analyses. d We computed the estimate of r byaveraging children's facial affect during pain cue and high-action-violence scenes in which actors' facial pain expressions were shown in one conditionand not visible in a second condition.

amining the relation of empathy to aggression is to determinewhether training in empathy could (a) reduce individuals' ag-gressive behaviors, (b) improve their social interactions withothers, or (c) both. Consequently, we reviewed literature on em-pathy training and aggression. (See also Goldstein & Michaels,1985, for a review of empathy training methods.) We found,however, that the focus of many of the training programs has

been to enhance cognitive role taking and problem-solvingstrategies rather than affective empathy (e.g., Chandler, 1973;Goldstein & Michaels, 1985; lannotti, 1978; Spivak & Shure,1974). Generally, the results of these efforts have been inconsis-tent; some researchers have reported decreases in delinquentbehavior (Chandler, 1973) and a greater capacity to role take inconflict situations (Berlin, 1978), whereas others have found no


Table 4Relation of Experimental Inductions of Empathy to Aggression

Study

Aleksic(1976)

Eliasz(1980)

Age, Sex, and N

Study 1: 14-16years,incarcerateddelinquents,M,AT=80

Study 2: 14- 17years,incarcerateddelinquents,M,AT=20

17-19 years,Polish, F,N=9Q

Type of experimentalmanipulation

Observationaland directexperience setsversus no set"

Similarity of feelingsto other person's

Observe other'sthoughts andfeelings versus noset


Delivery of noxious noise inlearning experiment

Intensiy by duration"

Delivery of noxious noise in alearning experiment

DurationIntensity

Intensity of shock delivered in alearning task

Duration of shock delivered

Estimateofr

-.13°

ns-.71C

.08"

-.04


+

0+

_

+

Polk (1976)

Rein (1974)

College students,M

College students,

Imagine self as otherversus no set

Focus on selfe versusno set

Similarity ofpersonalitymanipulated

Delivery of noxious noise in alearning experiment

Administration of shock in alearning task

DurationMaximum intensityMean intensity

-.36

ns

.01-.12-.10

Note. M = male; F = female; + « negative relation between the experimental manipulation of empathy and measure of aggression; - = positiverelation; 0 - no relation." Data were insufficient for comparison of observational set conditions separately. However, all the empathic observation conditions had lower meanscores than the no-set (control) condition. " The Intensity X Duration index was deemed a better measure of aggression, although intensity andduration measures also were available. ' We computed the estimate of r from the analysis of variance F value reported for the comparison of theexperimental and control groups. d The no-set (control) group was used for comparison with the two observational set conditions. ' The focus-on-self condition was included because a positive relation between empathic inhibition (as self-focus would be expected to elicit) and aggression isconsistent with the hypothesis of a negative relation between empathy and aggression.

change between empathy training and control groups aftertreatment (Bigler-Williams, 1984; lannotti, 1978) or have ob-tained mixed results (Kameya, 1976).

One possible reason for these inconsistent findings is that ex-periences relevant to the enhancement of the affective compo-nent of empathy are necessary for reducing aggressive or antiso-cial behavior toward others. One research effort that has em-phasized affective (as well as cognitive) empathy training hasshown that the participants, in comparison with a controlgroup, reduced their aggressive behavior toward others (N. D.Feshbach, 1980, 1982; N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach, 1982).Although this effect was also found for a group of children whoreceived training in social problem-solving strategies, it is con-sistent with previous research to expect aggressive behavior tobe mediated by social-cognitive factors as well as empathy (seeDodge, 1980; Parke & Slaby, 1983; Perry et al., 1986). More-over, children who received training in affective empathy alsoexhibited more prosocial behavior, which was not observed forthe cognitive problem-solving control group (N. D. Feshbach& S. Feshbach, 1982). This, too, is consistent with theory andresearch suggesting that affective empathy may mediate proso-cial and other, related social behaviors (see Batson & Coke,

198 l;Eisenberg& Miller, 1987;Hoffman, 1984). Thus, trainingof the affective components of empathy may promote the reduc-tion of negative social behaviors as well as improve individuals'prosocial interactions with others.

Relation of Empathy to Psychopathologyand Physical Abuse

In this section, we examine data for samples in which individ-uals' behaviors were antisocial or could reasonably be catego-rized as belonging to an externalizing condition. Moreover, wereview data relevant to physical abuse.

Externalizing and antisocial negative behavior. We identifieda variety of behaviors as externalizing for the purpose of thisreview. These included negative behaviors that were assessed byusing (a) other-ratings of problem behaviors that were thenplaced into diagnostic categories by using behaviorally basedclassification systems; (b) observations/ratings of behavior bypeers, teachers, adults, or correctional staff that were catego-rized on the basis of relevant problem behaviors but withoutusing behaviorally based systems; (c) experimental paradigmsin which relevant behaviors were the focus of investigation; and


(d) self-report scales of psychopathology or related behaviors(Table 5). To determine whether a particular self-report scaleactually measured behaviors of an externalizing nature (e.g.,H. J. Eysenck & S. B. G. Eysenck, 1976), we compared scaleitems with the behaviors described in other behaviorally basedclassification systems (see Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979).

One problem encountered when computing analyses withthese studies was statistical. In computing our meta-analyses,estimates of the common correlation for individual studies wereweighted according to the size of the sample. Thus, the resultsof especially large studies could strongly affect the estimate ofthe correlation when combined with the results of smaller stud-ies. In the analyses of data related to the association betweenexternalizing behavior and empathy, there were two studies inwhich self-report data were obtained from a large number ofsubjects (i.e., S. B. G. Eysenck, 1981; Saklofske & Eysenck,1983). Because these two studies may have had an overwhelm-ing effect on the results of the analyses, we computed two setsof analyses, one including these two large studies and one ex-cluding them.

We located 13 studies, including 19 samples. The sampleswere heterogeneous with regard to a common underlying popu-lation correlation, x2(18, N = 19) = 56.83, p < .001. The esti-mate of the common correlation was highly significant (z+ =-.24, i = 11.85, p < .001) and in the predicted direction. Theconfidence interval for the sample estimate ranged from -.20to -.28. The population estimate of the common correlationwas —.23, and its corresponding confidence interval rangedfrom-.19 to-.27.

When we excluded the two studies (including 4 samples) withthe large sample sizes from the analysis, the resulting test for thehomogeneity of these samples was met, x2( 14, N= 15)= 15.66,ns. The estimate of the common correlation (z+) was —.13,which, although smaller, remained highly significant (z = 4.20,p < .001), with a confidence interval ranging from -. 19 to -.07.The population estimate of the common correlation and its con-fidence interval were the same as sample values. Thus, the con-sistent pattern of negative association in both analyses supportsthe notion that lower levels of empathic responsiveness are asso-ciated with externalizing negative behaviors.

We further analyzed the relation of externalizing/antisocialbehaviors to empathy by breaking the empathy indexes into twogroups: those involving picture/story indexes of empathy andthose involving questionnaire indexes. (All but one study fellinto these two groups; see Table 5.) For the three studies (fivesamples) involving picture/story indexes, the common correla-tion was -.06 (z = .86, ns). The confidence interval ranged from.07 to -. 19. Population values were quite similar. These studieswere homogeneous in their estimate of the common correlation,X2(4, N=5) = 4.36, ns.

For the 10 studies (and 14 samples) involving questionnaireindexes of empathy, the common correlation was —.26 (z =12.14, p < .001). The confidence interval for the sample rangedfrom -.21 to -.29. The population estimates for z+ and its con-fidence intervals were nearly identical. This group of studieswas not homogeneous, %2(13, N = 14) = 44.96, p < .001. Fi-nally, when we omitted data from the two self-report studieswith large samples sizes (leaving 8 studies with 10 samples), thecommon correlation was -. 15 (z = 4.28, p < .001) and the con-

fidence interval was -.21 to -.08. This group of studies washomogeneous in their estimate of the relation, x2(9, N = 10) =10.265, ns. Overall, then, questionnaire but not picture/storyindexes of empathy were negatively related to externalizing andto aggressive behaviors.

Finally, the pattern of common correlations revealed a con-sistently negative relation between empathy and externalizing/antisocial behavior for both males and females. There were nodiscernible differences between the sexes across mode of assess-ing empathy, especially when we omitted the two questionablestudies.

Physical abuse. We located relatively few studies concerningthe level of affective empathy among physically abusive parentsor children who had been the victims of physical abuse. Thus,although we computed meta-analyses with these samples, wealso reviewed them qualitatively.

The analysis of the relation of empathy to physically abusiveparental behavior was based on four studies (Table 6). Thesestudies were not homogeneous with regard to their estimates ofthe degree of association, x2(3, N = 4) = 9.78, p < .025. Thecommon correlation (z+) was -.09 (z = 1.71), which was mar-ginally significant and in the predicted direction (p <. 10). Con-fidence intervals for the sample ranged from -.20 to .01. Thepopulation estimate of z+ and its corresponding confidence in-terval were the same as for sample estimates.

In reviewing these studies, it was difficult to interpret thefindings of the Disbrow study (Stotland, Mathews, Sherman,Hansson, & Richardson, 1978). In this study, significantly lowerlevels of empathy were found among abusive families in a pre-liminary analysis, but subsequent results were nonsignificant(but were unreported in the chapter). In addition, Stotland etal. indicated that a composite derived from the empathy scaleswas one of a number of variables that significantly discrimi-nated abusive from nonabusive families. Because unreportednonsignificant results were assigned a correlation of 0, incorpo-rating the results of this large sample (N = 175) with unclearfindings may have diluted the overall estimate of the effect. Con-sequently, we discarded the Disbrow study and recomputed theanalysis. As before, the assumption concerning the homogene-ity of the samples was not met, x2(2, JV = 3) = 6.87, p < .05.This time z+ was —.18, which was significant (z = 2.41, p < .02),and the confidence interval ranged from -.33 to -.03. Popula-tion estimates for z+ and its corresponding confidence intervalwere -.18 and -.32 to -.03, respectively. Thus, though onlya few studies are available, there appears to be some basis forconcluding that lower levels of empathic responsiveness may bea characteristic of parents who have histories of physically abu-sive behavior toward their children. Given the small number ofstudies and the omission of the Disbrow study (Stotland et al.,1978), however, these results should be considered tentative.

In contrast, the relation between the experience of physicalabuse and the capacity for empathy was stronger (Table 7). Theestimate of the degree of association was heterogeneous for thethree relevant studies, x2(2, N = 3) = 7.34, p < .05. The estimateof the common correlation (z+) was -.46 (z = 3.82), which wassignificant (p < .001). The confidence interval for z+ rangedfrom -.22 to -.69. Corresponding population estimates for z+and its confidence interval were -.43 and -.22 to -.60. In twostudies, researchers found high negative relations between the


Table 5Relation of Empathy to Externalizing Negative Behaviors

Study

Bazar (1976/1977)

Bryant(1984; per-sonal com-munica-tion, March21, 1986)

S. B. G. Eysenck(1981)

N. D. Feshbach(1980, 1982)

Hoppe & Singer(1976)

Huckabay(1971)

Hunter (1984/1985)

Age, sex, and N

4-5 years

M,W=36

F,JV=36

Cohorts at 7 and 10years, M and F

7-year-olds retestedat 10 yearsfor exter-nalizingbehaviors,JV=67

10-year-olds retestedat 14 yearsfor external-izing behav-iors, N = 73

13-14 years, British

M,N= 101

F,;v=306

G3-G4

M,7V=50

F.A^SO

Adult

M psychiatricoffenders,N= 115; Col-lege students,N= 101

6-8 years, M and F,JV = 60

14-18 years, incar-cerated delin-quents, Af= 59

Measure of empathy

Picture/story measure

Affect matching"Sympathetic affectAffect matchingSympathetic affect

Bryant scale

Junior 16 Questionnaire

Empathy Scale

Empathy Scale

Videotaped affect-matching task

Affect matchingEuphoric affectDysphoric affect

Affect Matching XAffect Intensity

Euphoric effect

Dysphoric affectAffect matching'Affect Matching X

Affect Intensity

M&E


M&E

Measure ofexternalizing behavior

Teachers' ratings ofpeer-directedbehavior

Under-control scale

Mothers' ratings of chil-dren's externaliz-ing behavior"

Self-report of

Psychoticism0

Antisocial behaviorPsychoticismc

Antisocial behavior

Teachers', peers', andself-ratings of anti-social behavior

Ratings in general

Peers' ratingsSelf-ratingsTeachers' ratingsRatings in generalRatings in generalRatings in general

Criminal offense classi-fication

Behaviors in an experi-mental situation

CheatingLyingLack of resistance to

temptation

Number of seriousviolent offenses

Estimateoff

.10

.08

.09-.08

-.03

-.04

-.37-.29-.29-.18

MR'NR"

NR<NR"

.28NRf

-,28s

-.28

-.08"''

-.06-.13-.16

-.10


---+

+

-

++++

00

00_

0-+

+

+++

+


Table 5 (Continued)

Study

Hunter (1984/1985)

Kurtz & Eisenberg(1983)

Lee (1983)

Marks, Penner, &Stone (1982)

Rushton,Chrisjohn,&Fekken(1981)

Saklofske &Eysenck(1983)

Watson, Grisham,Trotter, &Biderman

Age, sex, and N

1 4- 18 years, incar-cerated M de-linquents, N =59

G3, M and F, AT = 86

Adolescent M psy-chopathic de-linquents, N =12

Control group,JV=18

Study 1: College stu-dents, M, N =40

Study 2: College stu-dents, M, N =20

College students, MandF,iV= 135"

7-15 years, Cana-dian

M, N = 542F, N = 508

College students,17-38 years, MandF,AT= 160

Measure of exteraaliz-Measure of empathy ing behavior

M & E Conduct-disorderscore'

Psychopathic delin-quency scorek

Self-report of psycho-pathic delin-quency1

M & E Behaviors in an experi-mental situation

Resistance to devia-tion composite (la-tency, frequency,and duration)

Davis IRI™, M&E Correctionalstaff ratingspsychopathic-de-linquent

Self-report of empathic Self-report of sociopa-anxiety to modeled thydistress

Classification of sever-ity of sotiopathy

M&E Self-report of level ofMachiavellianism

Stotland FE Scale

Junior 16 Questionnaire Self-report of psychoti-cism"

Empathy Scale

M & E Pathological narcis-sism0

Estimate Relation toofr hypothesis

-.13 +

-.38 +

-.30 +

-.23 +

.10'-.18' +

-.36 +

-.47 +

-.34 +

.09

-.43 +-.20 +

-.20 +

(1984)Pathological narcis-

sism0-.25

Note. M = male; F = female; G = grade; Picture/story measure = self-report of feelings that match emotions depicted in picture/story stimuli;Bryant scale = Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents (Bryant, 1982); Junior 16 Questionnaire = Junior Impulsiveness Questionnaire-Empathy Scale (S. B. G. Eysenck, 1981; S. B. G. Eysenck, Easting, & Pearson, 1984); M & E = Mehrabian and Epstein's (1972) scale; Davis IRI =Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1979); Stotland FE Scale = Fantasy Empathy Scale (Stotland, Mathews, Sherman, Hansson, & Richardson,1978); NR = not reported; -I- = negative relation between measure of empathy and externalizing negative behavior; - = positive relation; 0 = norelation."Only accurate, congruent affective reactions were included here, although the author also assessed congruent but inaccurate empathicreactions. " A profile of externalizing behaviors derived from the Child Behavior Checklist (cf. Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock,1979). " A subscale of the Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (H. J. Eysenck & S. B. G. Eysenck, 1976). * The author reported results bysex but only a total sample size. Therefore, the sample size was divided evenly by sex. ' Assumed to be 0. f The author reported negative corre-lations between empathy and antisocial behavior for girls, regardless of type or intensity of empathic effect. Therefore, we combined euphoric anddysphoric empathic affects in the table. * We computed the estimate of r from the report of significance. h For this comparison, the author usedthe male norming sample reported by Mehrabian and Epstein (1972). 'We determined the sign of the estimate of r and the relation to the hypothesisby comparing the mean scores of the psychiatric and control groups. ' A profile of behaviors derived from the Behavior Problem Checklist (Quay,1966; Quay & Peterson, 1975). kThe Analysis of Life History Checklist rates individuals' psychopathic delinquent behaviors on the basis ofreported background information (Quay, 1964, 1966). 'The Personal Opinion Inventory is a self-report measure of psychopathic delinquency(Quay & Parsons, 1971). "° The relation between empathy and externalizing behavior may have been attenuated somewhat because total Davis IRIscores were reported, rather than the empathic concern scale scores alone. " The actual sample size for this comparison was not reported. Weestimated N conservatively on the basis of the lowest sample size reported for related measures. " Two different scales of psychopathologic narcissismwere used.


Table 6Relation of Empathy to Physical Abuse: Abusing Versus Nonabusing Groups

Study

Gynn-Orenstein (1981)

Howes, Feshbach, Gilly,&Espinosa(1985)

Letourneau(1981)

Stotland, Mathews,Sherman,Hansson, &Richardson (1978),or Disbrow study

Measure ofAge, sex, and N empathy

Adult, F M & E

Physicallyabusive,N= 17

Control group,JV = 17

Adult, F P&PEmpathyPhysically Measure

abusive, EmpathicN=26 Distress

Control group, Scale

Adult, F M& EPhysically

abusive,N=30

Control group,JV=30

Adult, M Stotland FE ScaleandF,matchedcouples andmatchedsingleparents,JV=179

EstimateType of abuse ofr

Court-defined physically -.20"abusive behavior

Clinic-defined physically -.20"*abusive behavior

Physically abusive behavior —.34"defined by social serviceagency

Physically abusive/neglectful iw°versus control families


_

+

+

0

Note. F = female; M = male; M & E = Mehrabian and Epstein's (1972) scale; P & P Empathy Measure = Parent and Partner Empathy Measure-Empathic Distress Scale (N. D. Feshbach & Caskey, 1985); Stotland FE Scale = Fantasy Empathy Scale (Stotland, Mathews, Sherman, Hansson, &Richardson, 1978). + = negative relation between measure of empathy and abusive behavior; - = positive relation; 0 = no relation." We determined the signs of the estimate of r and the relation to the hypothesis by comparing the mean scores of the nonabusive and abusivegroups. b We computed the estimate of r from the report of significance, assuming p < .05, two-tailed test. ° This finding was based on analysesusing all five Stotland empathy scales. A latter analysis showed that a composite of items drawn from these scales effectively discriminated abusingfrom nonabusing parents.

expression of empathy toward others and the experience ofabuse. In a third study, Squires (1979) obtained a slightly posi-tive association. The latter finding may have been due, at least inpart, to two factors. First, the abused children may have scoredhigher in empathy because they were a full year older on theaverage than the nonabused children. (Lennon and Eisenberg,1987, showed that scores on picture/story assessments of empa-thy generally relate positively with age.) Second, the author'sdefinition of abuse included much less serious forms of inter-personal aggression than in the former studies. Moreover,Howes and Eldredge (1985) obtained results consistent withthese overall findings in a study of five abused (mean age = 20months) and nine nonmaltreated children (mean age = 20months). These children's responses to peers' distresses wereobserved in free and structured play situations. In free play,abused children responded to peers' distresses at greater thanchance levels with aggression, whereas nonmaltreated childrenresponded with prosocial behavior. In addition, in the struc-tured situations abused children responded (at greater thanchance levels) with aggression and failed to respond (at greaterthan chance levels) with prosocial behaviors, whereas nonmal-

treated children responded at greater than chance levels withprosocial behaviors.

The latter result raises the possibility that the abused childrenwere generally higher in aggression than nonabused peers,which might account for their lower levels of empathic respon-siveness. Inspection of the foregoing studies revealed no differ-ences in level of aggression between abused and nonabusedgroups in two samples but did reveal differences in the range ofnegative and affective reactions assessed, not all of which couldbe considered aggressive (e.g., fear and anger as well as physical/nonphysical aggression in the third sample). Thus, more clearlyoperationalized measures of aggression may be needed to fullyaddress this possibility.

Summary and Conclusions

The results of our review indicate that empathy is negativelyrelated to aggression, externalizing and antisocial behaviors,and enactment and receipt of physical abuse. However, esti-mates of the common correlation (z+) were in the low-to-mod-erate range (-.06 to -.46) for these associations. In addition,


Table?Relation of Empathy to Physical Abuse: Abused Versus Nonabused Children

Study

Main & George(1985)

Squires (1979)

Straker&Jacobson(1981)

Age, sex, and If

1 -3 years, M and FPhysically abused,

Ar=9Control group,

N=9

4-9 years, FPhysically abused,

AT- 13Control group,

ff-10

5- 10 years, M and FPhysically abused,

N= 19Control group,

N= 19

Measure of empathy

Expression of concern todistressed peer in anursery setting



Type of abuse

Physical injuries inflictedby parent/caregiver

Physical injuries dennedby regional medicalcenter

Physical injuries inflictedby parent/caregiver

Estimate Relation toofr hypothesis

-.62"'b +

.05"'c

-.56"" -t-

Note. M = male; F = female; Picture/story measure = self-report of matching affect to picture/story stimuli; + = negative relation between measureof empathy and abuse; - = positive relation; 0 = no relation." We determined the signs of the estimate of r and the relation to the hypothesis by comparing group means of abused and nonabused children. b Wecomputed the estimate of r on the basis of the proportions of abused and nonabused children's expression of empathic concern for others'distresses. c The positive relation found here may be due, at least in part, to the fact that age and empathy were significantly related and the factthat the abused group children were more than a year older on the average than the normally reared children. Moreover, extent of physical abusewas not as severe as reported in the other samples. d The authors reported N = 19 for control and abused groups but, when comparing groups onempathy scores, reported a (ft. of 17, which resulted in an extremely high estimate of r (.70). It seemed appropriate to estimate r more conservativelyon the basis of the stated sample size of 38; thus we used a <ft of 36 in the calculations.

the significance of several of these estimates was influenced byage, mode of assessing empathy, or method of assessing negativebehaviors.

Specifically, we found a significant negative relation betweenempathy and aggression when empathy was assessed with ques-tionnaires and negative but nonsignificant relations for facialaffect, experimental induction, and picture/story methods. Agedifferences appeared to influence the results for picture/storymethods; the relation between these indexes and aggression wassignificant only when we excluded preschoolers from the analy-ses. Overall, then, our analyses provide modest but not entirelyconsistent support for the notion that empathic responsivenessmay be an inhibitor of aggression. Several factors may accountfor the pattern of findings.

First, questionnaire methods of assessing empathy differfrom picture/story and facial affect methods in several poten-tially important ways. The story stimuli involved in picture/story procedures clearly involve hypothetical events. The affec-tive content of the stimuli (i.e., sadness, happiness, fear, andanger) changes from story to story, sometimes requiring rapidchanges in state if one is to be responsive to the stimuli. Also,children are asked to report their feelings to an adult experi-menter, which may make this procedure more susceptible todemand characteristics than other empathy indexes (see Ei-senberg & Lennon, 1983;Hoffman, 1982). In addition, picture/story methods have been used exclusively with younger chil-dren, who generally may be less consistent in self-report of em-pathic responses. Finally, researchers who have used this mea-sure of empathy often have not differentiated between empa-thizing with positive and negative emotions.

Facial/gestural indexes of empathy have also been used withpicture/story methods and with films, both of which frequentlyinvolve stimuli that are clearly hypothetical. Although assessingchildren's facial affect responses to these stimuli may minimizethe influence of demand characteristics, the presentation ofmultiple emotional stimuli still requires them to change theiraffective state somewhat rapidly if they are to respond empathi-cally. Perhaps of most importance, because facial affect mea-sures of empathy were developed, in part, to minimize youngchildren's reliance on verbal report of feelings, this mode of as-sessing empathy has been used only with children.

In contrast to picture/story and facial/gestural measures ofempathy, questionnaire methods contain many items andtherefore tap individuals' responses to a wide variety of situa-tions. Questionnaire methods of assessment also do not requirea direct empathic response to others in specific hypothetical sit-uations; individuals are merely asked to report their generalstyle of emotional responsiveness to others in personally rele-vant events (e.g., "It makes me sad to see a girl who can't findanyone to play with"). Finally, questionnaire methods havebeen used with an older age group; respondents have beenadults, adolescents, and school-age children. Given that the re-lation of empathy to other modes of behavior (e.g., prosocialbehavior; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987) has been found to be lessconsistent for younger children than for adolescents or adults,one might expect a similar pattern of findings for aggression. Itwas not possible, however, to determine on the basis of our anal-ysis whether the inconsistent results are due to differences inmethods of assessing empathy for the age groups or representactual age differences in the relation between empathy and ag-


gression. Thus, the moderating effect of age on the relation be-tween empathy and aggression is an important issue for futureresearch.

The results of the meta-analysis concerning the relation ofempathy to both externalizing and antisocial behaviors gener-ally are consistent with those pertaining to aggression. Empathyand externalizing/antisocial negative behaviors were signifi-cantly negatively related for questionnaire but not picture/storymeasures of empathy. This pattern of relations did not appearto be affected by method of classifying negative behaviors. If oneassumes that externalizing behaviors often represent relativelyextreme or problematic forms of antisocial behavior, these re-sults can be viewed as providing additional support for the viewthat empathic responding often may inhibit aggressive and anti-social behavior.

It is quite possible that the results of our meta-analyses mayunderestimate the degree of association between empathy andaggression or antisocial behavior. This is possible for several rea-sons. First, the indexes of empathy often included empathic re-actions to both positive and negative affective states or situa-tions of others (e.g., "Some songs make me happy" and "Anoth-er's laughter is not catching for me"). The clearest currenttheorizing concerns the regulatory role of empathy in responseto others' negative affective states and corresponding levels ofaggression, but it is much less apparent that individuals' empa-thy to positive affective reactions would be expected to influ-ence their aggressive acts toward others. Thus, if individuals'empathic reactions to others' negative affective states were as-sessed separately from reactions to others' positive affective re-actions, the relation of empathy to aggression might be ex-pected to be stronger.

We also found considerable variation in the criterion mea-sures of aggression (e.g., rating scales, shock and aversive noiseadministrations, game disruption, and role-playing responses)and externalizing behavior (e.g., conduct disorders, lying/steal-ing, and ratings of antisocial behavior). It is questionablewhether some of these measures of aggression could reasonablybe expected to be influenced by individuals' empathic respon-siveness. For example, game disruption was used as an index ofaggression in some research, but how it might be mediated byempathic responsiveness is not clear. Game playing may be in-fluenced more by existing normative rules and modeled com-petitive behavior than by concern for others' feelings or vicari-ous responsiveness to those feelings. In fact, in situations inwhich empathic reactions should conceptually be more likelyto influence aggressive behavior (e.g., during the administrationof aversive noise or shock accompanied by the victim's paincues), the relation of empathy to aggression was somewhat moreconsistent with expectations.

It is also likely that the inhibition of aggressive and antisocialreactions often is mediated by factors other than empathic re-sponding. If this is so, the correlation between empathy and ag-gression will be lowered by the inclusion of studies in whichfactors other than empathy influenced the inhibition of aggres-sion. For example, Dodge (1980) found that aggressive boyswere more likely than nonaggressive boys to interpret the otherperson's behavior as aggressive or hostile, especially when theother's intent was ambiguous. Thus, individuals inclined to re-spond aggressively may do so as a result of inappropriate inter-

pretation of others' behavior in emotionally arousing situationsrather than as a consequence of a deficit in their capacity torespond empathically to others' feelings. To the extent that indi-viduals' cognitions influence their vicarious affective responsestoward others, their (mis)perception of the situation may pre-clude empathic responding without necessarily implying anylack of capacity for empathy.

Although gender differences have been noted either in re-search on aggression or in some indexes of empathy (see Eagly& Steffen, 1986; Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Parke & Slaby,1983), we observed few differences in the relation of empathyto aggression. Overall, relations of empathy to aggression andexternalizing behaviors were of similar magnitude and in thepredicted (negative) direction for both males and females. How-ever, the results were sometimes slightly higher and more sig-nificant for males. Because the common correlations were ofsimilar magnitude, these differences appeared to be due, at leastin part, to the larger sample sizes for males. Generally, thesedata are consistent with the idea that empathic responsiveness isan inhibitor of aggression regardless of the sex of the individual.

An important issue that has not been addressed in any of therelevant research is the role of sympathy versus personal dis-tress reactions in the inhibition of aggression and antisocial be-havior. It is logical to assume that these two different types ofreactions would inhibit aggression for different reasons, oneegoistic and the other altruistic. Individuals who experiencepersonal distress in reaction to another's distress should inhibittheir aggression as a means of reducing their own aversive inter-nal state. In contrast, people who experience sympathy (i.e.,empathic concern) should inhibit their negative behaviors be-cause of concern for the other's feelings or physical state. More-over, experiencing these two different reactions could be associ-ated with different attributions about the victim. For example,people who feel personal distress may be more likely than thosewho experience a preponderance of sympathy to derogate orblame the victim in an attempt to distance themselves from theother and reduce their own distress (see Hoffinan, 1984). Theseattributions concerning the controllability of the other's statusas a victim might then be expected to affect the potential aggres-sor's future prosocial and antisocial responding (Eisenberg,1986;Weiner, 1986).

Another issue that has been inadequately examined is the de-gree to which the purely cognitive aspects of empathizing (e.g.,perspective taking) and the affective component of empathydiffer in their relation to aggressive and antisocial behavior.Some data are consistent with the argument that the relationbetween empathy and aggression cannot be solely accountedfor by the relation of role-taking abilities to aggression (e.g.,N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach, 1969, 1982; lannotti & Pierre-humbert, 1985). However, role-taking abilities have been nega-tively related with aggressive behavior in some research (e.g.,Letourneau, 1981; see S. Feshbach & N. D. Feshbach, 1986).Unfortunately, to our knowledge, no one has explicitly testedwhether perspective-taking skills mediate (Baron & Kenny,1986) the effects of empathy on aggressive and antisocial re-sponding. An empirical test of this issue could be computed ifresearchers would obtain indexes of both empathy constructs(i.e., affective and cognitive) as well as aggression, preferably in


a situation in which the individual empathized with and thenhad an opportunity to aggress against the target person.

In some theoretical conceptions of the relation between em-pathy and aggression, situational experiencing of empathy, notdispositional empathy, has been stressed. Cues of the other'sdistress are viewed as eliciting distress in the observer, whichinhibits further aggression (e.g., N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach,1982). In our review, however, the relation between empathyand aggressive behavior was not strong in those studies in whichboth empathy toward a given person and aggression toward thesame individual were assessed (i.e., the experimental inductionstudies). Rather, the relations were strongest between question-naire indexes of dispositional empathy and aggressive or exter-nalizing behavior. This general pattern of findings suggests thatthe tendency to experience another's distress may moderate(Baron & Kenny, 1986) the relation between affective responsiv-ity in a given situation and behavior in that situation. Thedifferential roles that situational and dispositional empathymay play in inhibiting negative behaviors are intriguing but arevirtually unexplored.

We obtained two important findings concerning the relationof empathy to the receipt or enactment of physical abuse. Abu-sive parents scored lower on indexes of empathic responsivenessthan did mothers from the "normal" population. Moreover,children who were victims of abuse exhibited less empathy thandid nonabused children. Overall, these results are quite consis-tent both with researchers' predictions (e.g., N. D. Feshbach,1987; Squires, 1979) and with previous research on the deleteri-ous effects of abusive rearing practices on children's social in-teractions and emotional attachments with others (e.g., George& Main, 1979).

Specifically, abusing parents, in comparison with other par-ents, have been found to be relatively more negative in theirrelationships with their children, to use more coercive and pu-nitive socialization practices, and to express relatively higherlevels of negative affect after children's social transgressions(e.g., Burgess & Conger, 1978; Reid, 1986; Trickett & Kuczyn-ski, 1983). In turn, children with histories of parental abuseexhibit long-term problems in social adjustment, aggressive andantisocial behavior, and difficulties in maintaining relationshipswith others. (See reviews by Lamphear, 1985; Wolfe, 1985.) Itis likely that abusive parents' relative inability to respond in asupportive and empathic manner to their children is related totheir children's social and emotional difficulties. That is, abu-sive parents may be less likely than other parents to (a) identifyor understand their children's feelings, especially in distress orother situations involving their children's needs; (b) adopt theirchildren's emotional/cognitive perspective; (c) respond vicari-ously to their children's affective states (N. D. Feshbach, 1987;Howes & Feshbach, 1986); and (d) encourage their children toreact positively (i.e., emotionally and behaviorally) toward oth-ers. Thus, it seems reasonable to find deficiencies in empathicresponsiveness associated with less adequate parenting.

Consistent with this reasoning, N. D. Feshbach (1987), in astudy of a nonclinical sample, found that maternal and paternalempathy were negatively related to children's externalizing andinternalizing behavior and to inconsistencies in parental disci-pline practices. Moreover, Howes and Feshbach (1986) foundthat abusive parents showed less investment, involvement, and

affect in interacting with their children on a task and that thesebehaviors were significantly and positively related to parentalempathy. Thus, abusive parents' interactions with their chil-dren may be characterized by a lack of empathy—a lack thathas long-term negative consequences for children's socioemo-tional development.

In conclusion, empathic and sympathetic responding appearto be linked to a number of negative behaviors that affect indi-viduals' functioning in a variety of interpersonal realms. Theprocesses underlying these relations need further explication,however. There is a need to attend to differentiations in type ofvicarious responding (e.g., sympathetic versus personal dis-tress) and to possible differences in the nature of empathy inrelation to positive versus negative emotions. In addition, in-dexes of empathy clearly do not always assess similar con-structs. When distinctions of these sorts (as well as among typesof aggression) are considered, models of the relation of empathyto antisocial behavior should be conceptually clearer, and theresults of empirical work on these models should be more con-sistent than they are currently. Nonetheless, we obtained initialrelatively clear evidence of a modest negative relation betweenempathy and aggressive and antisocial behavior. Thus, it seemsappropriate for practitioners and researchers interested in theinhibition of individuals' aggressive and antisocial behavior to-ward others to pay greater attention to the construct of empathyin their work.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1978). The Child Behavior Profile: I. Boys aged 6-I I . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 478-488.

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbroek, C. S. (1979). The Child Behavior Pro-file: II. Boys aged 12-16 and girls aged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 47,223-233.

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbroek, C. S. (1984). Psychopathology of child-hood. Annual Review of Psychology, 35,227-256.

Aleksic, P. M. (1976). A study of empathic inhibition of aggression injuvenile delinquents. (Doctoral dissertation, Miami University, Mi-ami, OH, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 4675B.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of menial disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Attili, G. (1985). Concomitants and factors influencing children's ag-gression. Aggressive Behavior. 11,291-301.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bamett, M. A. (1987). Empathy and related responses in children. InN. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp.146-162). New York: Cambridge Univereity Press.

Baron, R. A. (1971). Magnitude of victim's pain cues and level of prioranger arousal as determinants of adult aggressive behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 17, 236-243.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator vari-able distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strate-gic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Batson, C. D. (in press). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic?In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.New York: Academic Press.

Batson, C. D., & Coke, J. S. (1981). Empathy: A source of altruisticmotivation for helping? In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality, and developmen-tal perspectives (pp. 167-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Bazar, J. W. (1977). An exploration of the relationship of affect aware-ness, empathy, and interpersonal strategies to nursery school chil-dren's competence in peer interactions (Doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of California, Berkeley, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional, 37, 5691A.

Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Berlin, R. J. (1978). Teaching acting-out adolescents prosocial conflictresolution through structured learning training of empathy. Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 39, 970B. (University Microfilms No.7811634)

Bigler-Williams, C. A. (1984). The effectiveness of prosocial treatmentwith federal engenders (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State Univer-sity, Terre Haute, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45,3089B.

Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A criticalreview of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1-45.

Blum, L. A. (1980). Friendship, altruism and morality. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bryant, B. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents.Child Development, 53,413-425.

Bryant, B. (1984, August). Self-criticism of the Bryant (1982) empathyindex. In R. Lennon, The construct and assessment of empathy. Sym-posium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychologi-cal Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Burgess, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (1978). Family interaction in abusive,neglectful and normal families. Child Development, 49, 1163-1173.

Campbell, A., Muncer, S., & Bibel, D. (1985). Taxonomies of aggressivebehavior. Aggressive Behavior, 11, 217-222.

Chandler, M. J. (1973). Egocentrism and antisocial behavior The as-sessment and training of social perspective-taking skills. Developmen-tal Psychology, 9,326-332.

Cooley, C. H. (1956). Two major works: Social organization and humannature and the social order. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original workpublished 1902)

Cooper, J. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: Ameta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 37, 131-146.

Davis, M. H. (1979). Individual differences in empathy: A multidimen-sional approach (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin,1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40,3480B.

Davis, M. H., Hull, J. C., Young, R. D., & Warren, G. G. (1987). Emo-tional reactions to dramatic film stimuli: The influence of cognitiveand emotional empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 52, 126-133.

Dodge, K. (1980). Social cognition and children's aggressive behavior.Child Development, 51, 162-170.

Dollard, J., Dobb, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. (1939). Frus-tration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: Ameta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 100, 309-330.

Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic cognition, emotion, and behavior. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy andrelated capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100-131.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to proso-cial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101,91-119.

Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (Eds.). (1987). Empathy and its develop-ment. New \brk: Cambridge University Press.

Ekman, P., Liebert, R. M., Friesen, W. V., Harrison, R., Zlatchin, C,Malmstrom, E. ]., & Baron, R. A. (1972). Facial expressions of emo-tion while watching televised violence as predictors of subsequent ag-gression. In G. A. Comstock, E. A. Rubenstein, & J. P. Murray (Eds.),

Television and social behavior (Tech. rep., Vol. i, pp. 22-43). Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Eliasz, H. (1980). The effect of empathy, reactivity, and anxiety on inter-personal aggression intensity. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 11, 169-178.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimensionof personality. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Eysenck, S. B. G. (1981). Impulsive and antisocial behavior in children.Current Psychological Research, I, 31-37.

Eysenck, S. B. G., Easting, G., & Pearson, P. R. (1984). Age norms forimpulsiveness, venturesomeness, and empathy in children. Personal-ity and Individual Differences, 5, 315-321.

Ferguson, G. A. (1976). Statistical analyses in psychology and education(4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Feshbach, N. D. (1978). Studies of empathic behavior in children. InB. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol.8, pp. 1-47). New York: Academic Press.

Feshbach, N. D. (1980, May). The psychology of empathy and the empa-thy of psychology. Presidential address presented at the annual meet-ing of the Western Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.

Feshbach, N. D. (1982). Sex differences in empathy and social behaviorin children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial be-havior (pp. 315-338). New York: Academic Press.

Feshbach, N. D. (1987). Parental empathy and child adjustment/mal-adjustment. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its de-velopment (pp. 271-291). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feshbach, N. D., &Caskey, N. (1985).^ new scale for measuring parentempathy and partner empathy: Factorial structure, correlates andclinical discrimination. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cali-fornia, Los Angeles.

Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (1969). The relationship between em-pathy and aggression in two age groups. Developmental Psychology,1,102-107.

Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (1982). Empathy training and the regu-lation of aggression: Potentialities and limitations. Academic Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 4, 399-413.

Feshbach, N. D., & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in six- and seven-year-olds. Child Development, 39,133-145.

Feshbach, S. (1970). Aggression. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael'smanual of child psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 159-259). New York: Wiley.

Feshbach, S., & Feshbach, N. D. (1986). Aggression and altruism: Apersonality perspective. In C. Zahn-Waxier, E. M. Cummings, & R.lannotti (Eds.), Altruism and aggression: Biological and social ori-gins (pp. 189-217). Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Feshbach, S., Stiles, W. B., & Bitter, E. (1967). The reinforcing effect ofwitnessing aggression. Journal of Experimental Research in Personal-ity, 2, 133-139.

Fontana, V. J., SRobison, E. (1984). Observing child abuse. BehavioralPediatrics, 105, 655-660.

Gaines, T., Kirwin, P. M., & Gentry, W. D. (1977). The effect of descrip-tive anger expression, insult, and no feedback on interpersonal aggres-sion, hostility, and empathy motivation. Genetic Psychology Mono-graphs, 95, 349-367.

George, C, & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abusedchildren: Approach, avoidance and aggression. Child Development,50, 306-318.

Gibbs, J. C. (1987). Social processes in the causation and treatment ofdelinquency: The need to facilitate empathy as well as sociomoralreasoning. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Social interac-tion and sociomoral development (pp. 301 -321). New York: Wiley.

Goldstein, A. P., & Michaels, G. Y. (1985). Empathy: Development,training, and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Gough, H. G. (1948). A sociological theory of psychopathy. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 53, 359-366.

Gouze, K., Rayais, M., & Bieber-Schneider, R. (1983, August). Cogni-tive correlates of aggression in second-grade children. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,Anaheim, CA.

Gynn-Orenstein, J. (1981). The relationship between moral reasoning,locus of control, emotional empathy, and parenting profile in physi-cally abusing mothers (Doctoral dissertation, California School ofProfessional Psychology, Los Angeles, 1981). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 42, 2056B.

Hare, R. D. (1970). Psychopathy: Theory and research. New York:Wiley.

Hartmann, D. P. (1969). Influence of symbolically modeled instrumen-tal aggression and pain cues on aggressive behavior. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 11,280-288.

Hedges, L. V., &Olkiri, I. (1986). Statistical methods for meta-analyses.New York: Academic Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1982). The measurement of empathy. In C. E. Izard(Ed.), Measuring emotions in infants and children (pp. 279-296).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy.In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition,and behavior (pp. 103-131). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (1987). The contribution of empathy to justice andmoral judgment. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy andits development (pp. 47-80). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307-316.

Hoppe, C. M., & Singer, R. D. (1976). Overcontrolled hostility, empathyand egocentric balance in violent and nonviolent psychiatric offend-ers. Psychological Reports, 39,1303-1308.

Howard, J. A. (1983). Preschoolers' empathy for specific affects andtheir social interaction (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State Univer-sity, Manhattan). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3954B.

Howes, C, & Eldredge, R. (1985). Responses of abused, neglected andnonmaltreated children to the behaviors of their peers. Journal of Ap-plied Developmental Psychology, 6, 261-270.

Howes, C., & Feshbach, N. D. (1986). Compliance and self control inyoung children from varying family contexts: Relationships with par-ent empathy, stress and social support. Unpublished manuscript, Uni-versity of California, Graduate School of Education, Los Angeles.

Howes, C., Feshbach, N. D., Gilly, J., & Espinosa, M. (1985, August).Compliance and self control in young children from varying familycontexts: Relationships with parent empathy, stress and social sup-port. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycho-logical Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Huckabay, L. M. D. (1971). A developmental study of the relationshipof negative moral-social behaviors to empathy, to positive social be-haviors and to cognitive moral judgment (Doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of California, Los Angeles). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional, 32, 1337A.

Hume, D. (1966). Enquiries concerning the human understanding andconcerning the principles of morals (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Cla-renden Press. (Original work published 1777)

Hunter, E. E. (1985). An examination of the relationships among di-mensions of psychopathology, prosocial behavior, prosocial moralreasoning, and empathy within a population of juvenile delinquents(Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 1984). Dis-sertation Abstracts International, 45, 3943B.

lannotti, R. J. (1975, April). The effect of role-taking experiences onrole-taking, altruism, empathy, and aggression. Paper presented at

the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop-ment, Denver, CO.

lannotti, R. J. (1978). Effect of role-taking experiences on role taking,empathy, altruism, and aggression. Developmental Psychology, 14,119-124.

lannotti, R. J., & Pierrehumbert, B. (1985, April). The development ofempathy in early childhood. Paper presented at the biennial meetingof the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto, Ontario,Canada.

Kameya, L. I. (1976). The effect of empathy level and role-taking train-ing upon prosocial level. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37,3151B. (University Microfilms No. 76-29,321)

Kant, I. (1949). Critique of practical reasoning (L. W. Beck, Trans.).Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1788)

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moralstages and the idea of justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 32,1134-1146.

Kurtz, C. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1983). Role-taking, empathy, and resis-tance to deviation in children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,142, 85-95.

Lamphear, V. S. (1985). The impact of maltreatment on children's psy-chosocial adjustment: A review of the research. Child Abuse and Ne-glect, 9, 251-263.

Lee, M. (1983). The relationship of empathy, role taking and moralreasoning to dimensions of juvenile delinquency (Doctoral disserta-tion, University of Texas, Austin, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 37, 1032B.

Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in em-pathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathyand its development (pp. 195-217). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Letourneau, C. (1981, September). Empathy and stress: How they affectparental aggression. Social Work, pp. 383-389.

Main, M., & George, C. (1985). Responses of abused and disadvantagedtoddlers to distress in agemates: A study in the day care setting. Devel-opmental Psychology, 21,407-412.

Marcus, R. F. (1987). Somatic indices of empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J.Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 374-379). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Marcus, R. F., Roke, E. J., & Bruner, C. (1985). Verbal and nonverbalempathy and prediction of social behavior of young children. Percep-tual and Motor Skills, 60, 299-309.

Marks, E. L., Penner, L. A., & Stone, A. V. W. (1982). Helping as afunction of empathic responses and sociopathy. Journal of Researchin Personality, 16, 1-20.

McDougall, W. (1950). An introduction to social psychology (30th ed.).London: Methuen. (Original work published 1908)

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. A. (1972). A measure of emotional empa-thy. Journal of Personality, 40, 523-543.

Nielsen, K. A. (1976). Aggression, empathy, and self esteem in latencyaged and adolescent males living in a residential treatment center foremotionally disturbed children. Dissertation Abstracts International,37, 10A, 6374.

Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development of aggression. InE. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Manual of child psychology. Vol. 4. Social-ization, personality, and social development (pp. 549-641). NewYork: Wiley.

Perry, D. G., & Perry, L. C. (1974). Denial of suffering in the victim asa stimulus to violence in aggressive boys. Child Development, 45,55-62.


Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive sociallearning mediators of aggression. Child Development, 57, 700-711.

Polk, W. M. (1976). Perceptual orientation, empathy, and the inhibitionof aggression (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University,Raleigh, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37,4225B.

Quay, H. C. (1964). Personality dimensions in delinquent males as in-ferred from the factor analysis of behavior ratings. Journal of Re-search in Crime and Delinquency, 1, 33-37.

Quay, H. C. (1966). Personality patterns in preadolescent delinquentboys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 26,99-110.

Quay, H. C, & Parsons, L. B. (1971). The differential behavioral classi-fication of the juvenile offender (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Bu-reau of Prisons.

Quay, H. C, & Peterson, D. R. (1975). Manual for the Behavior ProblemChecklist (Rev, ed.). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami.

Reid, J. B. (1986). Social-interactional patterns in families of abusedand nonabused children. In C. Zahn-Waxler, E. M. Cummings, & R.lannotti (Eds.), Altruism and aggression: Biological and social ori-gins (pp. 238-255). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rein, B. A. (1974). The effects of empathy, similarity, and attraction onlevel of aggression (Doctoral dissertation, University of California,Riverside, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35,1395B.

Rest, J. R. (1983). Morality. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Manual of child psy-chology (Vol. 3, pp. 556-629). New York: Wiley.

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for nullresults. Psychological Bulletin, 86,638-641.

Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., &Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruisticpersonality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Indi-vidual Differences, Z 1-11.

Saklofske, D. H., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1983). Impulsiveness and ven-turesomeness in Canadian children. Psychological Reports, 52,147-152.

Smith, A. (1948). The theory of moral sentiment. In H. Schneider (Ed.),Adam Smith's moral and political philosophy (pp. 7-280). New York:Hafner. (Original work published 1759)

Solomon, J. (1985, April). The relationship between affective empathyand prosocial behavior in elementary school children. Paper pre-sented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Spivak.G., &Shure, M. B. (1974). Social adjustment in young children:A cognitive approach to solving real problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spivak, G., Swift, M., & Prewitt, M. A. (1971). Syndromes of disturbedclassroom behavior: A behavioral diagnostic system for elementaryschools. Journal of Special Education, 5,269-292.

Squires, M. F. (1979). Empathic, nurturant and abusive behavior of nor-mally and abnormally reared girls (Doctoral dissertation, IndianaUniversity, Bloomington, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional, 40, 937B.

Staub, E. (1986). A conception of the determinants and development ofaltruism and aggression: Motives, the self, and the environment. InC. Zahn-Waxler, E. M. Cummings, & R. lannotti (Eds.), Altruismand aggression: Biological and social origins (pp. 135-164). Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Staub, E., & Feinberg, H. K. (1980, September). Regularities in peerinteraction, empathy, and sensitivity to others. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Mon-treal, Quebec, Canada.

Steinman, D. R. (1979). Moderators of the effects of television violenceon boys' aggressive behavior: Explicitness of consequences and emo-tional reactions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin,1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 1343B.

Stock, W. A., Okun, M. A., Haring, M. J., Kinney, C., & Miller, W.(1979). Codebookfor deriving and coding data points in meta-analy-sis: The sample case of subjective well-being. Unpublished manu-script, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory studies in empathy. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271-314). New York: Academic Press.

Stotland, E., Mathews, K. E., Sherman, S. E., Hansson, R. O., & Rich-ardson, B. E. (1978). Empathy, fantasy, and helping. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Straker, G., & Jacobson, R. S. (1981). Aggression, emotional maladjust-ment, and empathy in the abused child. Developmental Psychology,17, 762-765.

Trickett, P., & Kuczynski, L. (1983, August). Children's misbehaviorsand parental discipline in abusive and nonabusivefamilies. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Associa-tion, Anaheim, CA.

Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism.Psychological Bulletin, 91,143-173.

Watson, P. J., Grisham, S. Q, Trotter, M. V., & Biderman, M. D. (1984).Narcissism and empathy: Validity evidence for the Narcissistic Per-sonality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 301-305.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion.New York: Springer-Verlag.

Wolfe, D. A. (1985). Child-abusive parents: An empirical review andanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97,462-482.

Zahn-Waxler, C, Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. A. (1979). Child rear-ing and children's prosocial initiations toward victims of distress,Child Development, 50, 319-330.

Received October 7,1986Revision received September 22, 1987

Accepted November 9, 1987

miller & eisenberg 1988 pb

Documents

moral behavior

moral reasoning

antisocial behaviors

moral principles andbehavior

relation of empathysympathy

theiranalyses of moral

research literature

future research