close relationships paper
Emotional Closeness 1
Running head: EMOTIONAL CLOSENESS, THE SELF-OTHER OVERLAP
Emotional Closeness, The Self-Other Overlap, and Empathy-Induced Altruism
Emotional Closeness 2
Emotional Closeness, The Self-Other Overlap and Empathy-Induced Altruism
Self-interest has long been considered the driving force behind even the most generous or compassionate acts of humanity (Batson, 2009). Dishearteningly, this makes the idea of any occurrence of real altruism seem more like a myth. Batson (2010) explains how definitional complications and issues of interpreting intent make deciphering genuine instances of altruism a deeply painstaking process. However, research continues to question whether humans can ever care about others for their sake instead of merely for their own. Considering the inescapably social nature of our species, it seems reasonable to believe that different constituents of relationship closeness could have a significant impact on instances of empathy-induced altruism.
Batson (2010) asserted that there are four different ways in which altruism has been interpreted in the literature thus far. More specifically, he argued that many results were not on par with the true definition of altruism when used in experiments in which the researchers interpreted it as either helping behavior (with no focus of intent), acting morally, or helping in order to gain internal rather than external rewards. He further exemplified that the evolutionary definition of altruism focused on behaviors that reduce one’s reproductive fitness, while psychological altruism is motivation with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare (Batson, 2010).
Although it is important to note the distinction between evolutionary altruism and psychological altruism, it is our evolutionary roots that may shed the most light on the development of our empathy-induced capacities. Empathic concern is thought to have evolved as part of the parental instinct among higher mammals, especially humans (de
Emotional Closeness 3
Waal, 1996.) The human parental instinct not only goes well beyond nursing, but further includes certain goal-directed motives and appraisal-based emotions, as when a mother can pick out the meaning behind a wide range of emotive reactions by her child (Scherer, 1984). Outside of a parental context, the extension of this capacity is also evident in the empathic behaviors humans have shown to extend to a wide range of targets, including even nonhumans (Batson, 1991).
Our ability to extend empathy in this manner is usually attributed to a cognitive generalization taking place whereby one "adopts" the target, making it possible to evoke empathic concern and altruistic motivation whenever the target is in need (Batson, 1987).
The capacity to “adopt” or make a cognitive generalization is currently thought to be facilitated by two factors. These include the influences of human cognitive capacity (including symbolic thought) and the lack of evolutionary advantage with regard to restricting empathy in early human hunter-gatherer groups. In other words, early hunter-gatherer bands did not uphold a strict limitation of their extensions of empathic concern and parental nurturance. The survival of one's genes was tightly tied to the welfare even of those who were not considered to be close or direct kin (Sober &Wilson, 1998). While we still maintain and enact this same capacity to “adopt” a target today, the motivations behind this behavior remain under scrutiny. With regard to an interest in the welfare of others, current research aims to untangle discrepancies regarding to what extent we adopt a target into our sense of self when extending help, and furthermore, if our motives to do so should be interpreted as more altruistic or egoistic.
Depending on its motives, behaviors that appear altruistic may often have egoistic
Emotional Closeness 4
intentions. Examples of this can be found in morality-based altruism and certain prosocial motivations. These may be instrumental means to achieving the egoistic ultimate goal of (a) maintaining a positive self-concept or (b) avoiding guilt (Batson, 1991). With regard to this egoistic motivation, Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan, Arps, Fultz, and Beaman (1987) argue that the often-observed increased rate of helping by empathic individuals is motivated not by an altruistic desire to relieve the victim's distress but by "an entirely egoistic reason: personal mood management" (p. 750). This theory is also referred to as the negative-state relief explanation.
Cialdini et al. (1987) sought to test their negative-state relief explanation for the empathy-helping relationship by conducting two experiments. The researchers hypothesized that an observer's heightened empathy for a sufferer brings with it increased personal sadness in the observer and that it is the egoistic desire to relieve the sadness, rather than the selfless desire to relieve the sufferer, that motivates helping. In the first experiment, they introduced a perspective-taking instruction to induce empathy and mood-enhancing experiences (either payment or praise) to provide negative-state relief. In the second experiment, enhanced sadness was again associated with empathy for a victim. As expected, empathic orientation to a victim increased personal sadness.
While the researchers definitively interpreted their results as providing support for an egoistically based interpretation of helping (under conditions of high empathy), Batson (2010) argued that their findings were neither very strong nor consistent. This was because Cialdini et al. (1987) used money or other incentives for showing concern, which may lead individuals to interpret their motivation as egoistic even when they are not (e.g.,
Emotional Closeness 5
Batson, Coke, Jasnoski, & Hanson, 1978; Stukas, Snyder, & Clary, 1999). For example, even if one’s intentions while helping were originally sincere, as soon as money is involved, people reevaluate and misattribute their own gestures. This sort of approach has been viewed as inefficient in that it creates a self-perpetuating norm of self-interest (Miller, 1999).
Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, and Neuberg (1997) later conceded that empathic emotion evokes a motivation to increase the welfare of another, and not only as a means of simply increasing one’s own welfare. Their hypothesis goes on to discern a self-other distinction, however: “Without a distinct self and other and without distinct motivations to aid the self or other, it is not possible to detach altruism from egoism.” This conclusion was drawn from Aron and Aron’s (1986) theory that this inclusion of others in the self is motivated by our need for self-expansion. In other words, people attempt to expand their potential efficacy by expanding their social resources, perspectives and identities through their interpersonal relationships. In this way, by including other entities into our conceptions of self, we are able to further facilitate the achievement of certain desired goals.
To continue with their prior claim for egoistic motivation, the Cialdini et al. (1997) argued that empathy-induced helping was actually enforced by self-other distinctiveness, and not by altruism. They proposed that the conditions which typically lead to empathic concern (e.g., kinship, familiarity, perspective taking), could also lead people to see parts of their selves in others. Through this perspective, the possibility exists, then, that empathy-associated helping is not selfless but is instead rooted in the
Emotional Closeness 6
(often implicit) desire to help the part of the self that is located in the other.
In their first study, the researchers asked participants to focus and write details about a particular individual who, depending on condition, was a near stranger, an acquaintance, a good friend, or a family member (preferably a sibling) in a need situation. Participants rated the extent to which they would be willing to help and then answered questions regarding their level of empathic concern, personal distress, emotional sadness, and the extent to which they experienced 'oneness' using the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale by Aron & Aron (1986). The second study was identical to the first, with the exceptions of the need situation and the consequent helping options as the individual written about was now to be imagined dead (and money was asked to be donated to the person's children or that they be taken in). A third study combined the former two experiments and added a lesser need situation. Overall, the researchers concluded that their findings consistently suggested that participants’ perceptions of oneness predicted helping behavior more so than their level of empathic concern.
Batson et al. (1997) attempted to replicate these results, but found no support. The researchers had participants listen to a tape that was ostensibly for a radio show about a college undergraduate named Katie who currently had to raise her brother and sister due to her parents’ sudden death. Katie would be described as attending either the participants' university or a rival university. Afterwards, a questionnaire investigated the emotional and empathic impact of the tape. This also included the IOS scale and a personality measure of nonrelevant and relevant attributes (overburdened, carefree, fearful) to investigate the individual participants further. The personality measure was
Emotional Closeness 7
included because need-relevant attributes of the target of empathy were believed to be most likely to be included in the self (e.g., Aron & Aron [1986] suggested that when feeling empathy, “individuals personally experience at least the suffering of another”). Katie was also rated for these attributes. Finally, participants were told that Katie reluctantly agreed to write a letter to listeners regarding her need situation (calling for volunteers to address and stuff envelopes) and given the option to mark down a time commitment before ancillary measures.
The empathy-merging hypothesis in the Cialdini et al. (1997) experiment predicted greater merging of self and other in the high-empathy condition than in the low; it further predicted that if the effects on merging were taken into account, a direct effect of empathy on helping would no longer be found. In contrast, the Batson (1997) empathy-altruism hypothesis predicted that even after taking any effects on merging into account, a direct effect of empathy on helping would remain, an effect that could not be attributed to merging. While marginally higher IOS scores appeared in the high-empathy condition, a path analysis revealed that IOS scores did not account for the empathy-helping relationship. Batson (1997) believed these results to mean that either the conditions evoking empathy led to self-other merging, or that some participants may have used the IOS measure to report degree of felt care for Katie. With a low IOS mean, the researchers further concluded little merging was taking place. They suspected that in the present context, the IOS scale was measuring not merging but something else, perhaps care. A second experiment which was mostly identical save for a final question
Emotional Closeness 8
regarding care replicated the results found in the first experiment.
Batson (2010) has currently concluded that in any given helping situation, the strength of empathy-induced altruistic motivation (relative to the strength of other motivations, including egoistic motives associated with the costs of helping), determines its effect on behavior. While Cialdini et al. (1997) viewed altruistic motivation as fueled by a self-other distinction, Batson (2010) has brought the focus more toward the strength and type of motivation encouraging the individual to help. Although pro-social motives of both the egoistic and the more altruistic variety are present in his experiments, he still indicates that in instances stemming from a more empathic motivation (which may be derived from perspective-taking), in the right conditions, one may still perform helping behavior in an altruistic manner. Implications of this conclusion further suggest that Cialdini et al. (1997)’s belief in a necessary self-other distinction may need to be reexamined.
The specific nature of the mechanisms which lead humans to be willing to act more altruistically towards close others rather than distant others remains unknown. It is possible that these mechanisms are fueled, in part, by emotional closeness (Cunningham, 1997). This emotional closeness provides a sense of concern, trust, and caring for another and enjoyment of the relationship with that individual (Lee, Mancini, & Maxwell, 1990). People are usually more willing to provide assistance to friends than they are acquaintances or strangers (Clark & Mills, 1993). That being said, altruistic motives may stem from the emotional closeness of the empathizer to the target he or she is trying to
Emotional Closeness 9
adopt, as well as from how much of a self-other overlap is cognitively taking place.
Maner and Gailliot (2007) presented findings which suggested that the link between helping and empathic concern are more pronounced in the context of kinship. In specific need-situations modeled after the Cialdini et al. experiment (1997), participants expressed their willingness to either help a kin member or a stranger. After controlling for egoistic motivators (negative affect, oneness with regards to the self-other distinction), empathic concern was linked to participants’ willingness to help a kin-member, but not a stranger. The researchers believed that these results suggested that like many forms of interpersonal action, the nature of prosocial behavior may depend on the type of relationship that exists between the provider and the recipient of help.
While helping among strangers seemed to have a more egoistic influence, the researchers in the Maner and Gailliot(2007) experiment still posited that the helping which was occurring among the close relationships had altruistic influences. With regard to a close other in need, empathic concern predicted willingness to help above other egoistic motivators (Maner & Gailliot, 2007). Altruistic motives are not necessarily rooted in the self-interested motives based off of Aron and Aron’s (1986) self-expansion model. Merging of self and other into a psychological “one” does not seem to be the core reason empathy can increase helping, and may not be relevant at all (Batson, 1997). Instead, it appears that empathy and emotional closeness consistently show signs of playing a significant role in our exhibition of altruistic helping behaviors. Degree of emotional closeness may be a better predictor of altruism than the extent to which one symbolically represents the other within oneself. We propose that emotional closeness is
Emotional Closeness 10
an important cause of altruism in that it at least partially mediates the relationship between the self-other overlap and altruism. It is the aim of the present research to investigate this claim.
Method
Participants. Participants would be haphazardly selected students attending a college in Southwest Florida. There would be a pooled total of approximately 60 students. Of these 60 participants, 20 would be male, and 40 would be female. Using a randomized block procedure, we would assign 10 women and 5 men to each cell of the 2 (empathy) × 2 (group membership) design.
Procedure. Participation was by individual appointment, taking place in a private dormitory. The procedure was modeled after Batson et al.'s (1997) and Cialdini et al. (1997)'s designs. We assured participants that their responses would remain anonymous in order to discourage stated helping on the basis of social approval pressures.
In a study said to be investigating impression formation, participants were asked to focus on a particular individual who, depending on condition, was either a) an acquaintance or near stranger, or, b) someone who was very emotionally close to them (preferably a friend or romantic partner). To instantiate their focus, participants described in writing, as best they could, the individual's physical characteristics, personality traits, interests, values, and attitudes. Next, they were asked to consider a need situation in which the described individual had recently lost a sibling as well as an apartment/place to live, and to concentrate on that situation based on the empathy condition they would be placed in. Participants were also asked to indicate the level of aid they would be willing
Emotional Closeness 11
to provide him or her in that situation. Finally, they rated the amount of empathic concern, oneness, and emotional closeness they were feeling toward the described individual.
Group Manipulation. We manipulated relationship closeness by instructing participants to think about and one of two kinds of persons: a) an acquaintance or near stranger, or, b) someone who was very emotionally close to them (suggesting either a close friend or romantic partner). Participants in the near stranger condition described “a man/woman you don't really know...someone you would recognize from class, but not say ‘hello’ to if you passed each other on campus.” Participants in the emotionally close condition described “your closest male/female friend, lover, or family member, a sibling if possible.”
Empathy Manipulation. The writing perspective instructions were used to manipulate empathy. Participants in the low-empathy condition were instructed "to try to be as objective as possible about what has happened to the person you are writing about and how it has affected his or her life. To remain objective, do not let yourself get caught up in imagining what this person has been through and how he or she feels as a result. Just try to remain detached as you write about him or her."
Participants in the high-empathy condition were instructed "to try to imagine how
his or her life. Try not to concern yourself with attending to all the information presented. Just concentrate on trying to imagine how the person you are writing about feels about what has happened."
Self-reported emotional reaction to stranger or close other's need. After writing,
Emotional Closeness 12
participants completed the initial questionnaire packet. The first questionnaire was an emotional response scale, which listed 26 adjectives describing different emotional states. For each adjective, participants indicated how much they had experienced that emotion while listening to the tape (1 = not at all , 7 = extremely). The list included 6 adjectives that had been used in much previous research to assess feelings of empathy: sympathetic, softhearted, warm, compassionate, tender, and moved (see Batson, 1991, for review).
Helping measure. All participants were asked to consider that the described person “just lost a sibling, and, consequentially, was evicted from his/her apartment.” Participants were then asked to indicate the level of help (if any) they would be willing to give the evicted person by choosing one of seven increasingly costly helping options: nothing, give him or her an apartment guide/any known suggestions, offering/helping him or her find a new place to live by driving him or her around for a few hours, offer to have him or her come stay with you for a couple of days (provided you had space), offer to have him or her come stay with you for a week (provided you had space), offer to have him or her come stay with you until he or she found a new place (provided you had space), and offer to let him or her come live with you rent-free (provided you had space).
Mediational measures. Participants rated the extent to which they felt emotionally close with the evicted person by responding to four questions. The first item asked participants to "Rate how emotionally you are feeling towards close this person." The final three, "How strongly do you feel moved for this person?" "How strongly do you feel affectionate towards this person?" and "How strongly do you feel intimate towards this
Emotional Closeness 13
person?"
Participants rated the extent of oneness they felt with the evicted person by responding to two items that were combined in all analyses to form a oneness index. The first item incorporated the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale used by Aron et al. (1992) to measure perceived self-other boundary overlap. It consisted of a set of seven pairs of increasingly overlapping circles. Participants selected the pair of circles that they believed best characterized their relationship with the evicted person. The second item asked participants to indicate on a 7-point scale the extent to which they would use the term we to describe their relationship with the evicted person. For purposes of counterbalancing, the oneness index items appeared either immediately after participants engaged in their description of the target person or after all other measures were taken.
Discussion and Implications
The proposed study will test the hypothesis that emotional closeness partially mediates the effect of the self-other overlap on willingness to act altruistically. This study was designed to further the empathy-altruism research investigation. It is our belief that
the extent to which a target is adopted may pertain to its closeness to the empathizer, and that feelings of emotional closeness are what strengthen and incite empathic helping.
Previous theories do not sufficiently address the underlying mechanisms that cause the overall patterns of empathic helping behavior to occur (Cunningham, 1997). Former well-intentioned appeals to self-interest have backfired by undermining other prosocial motives (Batson, 2010). The present study may increase understanding of altruistic behavior by providing evidence that elaborates on the mechanism by which this
Emotional Closeness 14
helping behavior is taking place. It will shed light on the often rallying effect a sense of emotional closeness seems to inspire within us, as well as provide a more complete understanding of close relationships more generally.
It would benefit the social ties and consequentially the species for humans to pick up on the intent of other humans as altruistic and sincere in order to enable a sense of tightened security through the increased trust they would then experience in their relationships. Humans are amazingly adept at picking apart the goal-motivations of others; ergo the development of this empathy-induced altruism would be best suited as genuine. Although the lens of evolutionary theory focuses on altruism as a means of encouraging and perpetuating inclusive fitness, people can not so easily be reduced to mere calculators of costs and rewards. They experience powerful consequences of emotional closeness in their relationships, and the far-reaching effects of this need be investigated further. It is the hope of this study to show how concern (and other feelings of emotional closeness) may provide a more comprehensive explanation for why the phenomenon of altruistic helping might still be possible.
Emotional Closeness 15
References
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as the expansion of self- Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New 'York: Hemisphere.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.
Batson, C. D. (1997). Self-other merging and the empathy-altruism hypothesis: Reply to Neuberg et al. (1997). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 517-522.
Batson, C. D., Coke, J. S., Jasnoski, M. L, & Hanson, M. (1978). Buying kindness:
Effect of an extrinsic incentive for helping on perceived altruism. Personality and Social Psychobgy Bulletin, 4, 86-91.
Batson, C. D., O'Quin, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, M., & Isen, A. (1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 706-718.
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495-509.
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107-122.
Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 124-126.
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L. (1987).
Emotional Closeness 16
Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 749-758.
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481-494.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and what it is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684-691.
Cunningham, M. R., Druen, P. B., & Barbee, A. P. (1997). Angels, mentors, and friends: Trade-offs among evolutionary, social, and individual variables in physical appearance. In J.A. Simpson & D.T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 109-140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Citation
de Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, T. R., Mancini, J. A., & Maxwell, J. W. (1990). Sibling relationships in adulthood: Contact patterns and motivations. Journal of Marriage & Family, 52, 431-440.2001-05384-012.
Maner, J. K., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Altruism and egoism: Prosocial motivations for helping depend on relationship context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 347-358.
Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053-1060.
Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process
Emotional Closeness 17
approach. In K. R. Scherer &. P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293-317). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of "mandatory volunteerism" on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10, 59-64.