See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/19867384

The Relation of Empathy to Aggressive and Externalizing/Antisocial

Behavior

Article  in  Psychological Bulletin · June 1988

DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.324 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

720 8,654

2 authors:

Paul A. Miller Nancy Eisenberg

Arizona State University Arizona State University
19 PUBLICATIONS   3,731 CITATIONS    514 PUBLICATIONS   38,578 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stress, Coping, and Adaptation View project

Nancy Eisenberg View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nancy Eisenberg on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychological Bulletin Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1988, Vol. 103, No. 3,324-344 0033-2909/88/J00.75

The Relation of Empathy to Aggressive

and Externalizing/Antisocial Behavior

Paul A. Miller and Nancy Eisenberg

Arizona 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 review
of 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 analyzed
empirical findings with meta-analytic techniques. Empathic/sympathetic responding was negatively
related 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 with
low levels of empathy/sympathy, as was the receipt of such abuse. Relations between the empathy
indexes 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 of
findings, as well as directions for future research.

Over the years, philosophers have debated the mechanisms
underlying or mediating prosocial and moral behavior. Kant
(1788/1949), for example, proposed that moral principles and
behavior engendered by such principles are based on rational
processes and are influenced little by emotion. On the other
hand, Hume (1777/1966) argued that affective responses such
as sympathy and benevolence are primary motives underlying
individuals' moral actions. More recently, some theorists have
sought to integrate emotional and cognitive influences in their
analyses 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 taken
in their investigations of moral development. Until recently, the
bulk of the research literature concerned the role of rational
moral principles and social-cognitive skills such as perspective
taking in moral reasoning and behavior (e.g., Blasi, 1980; Kohl-
berg, 1981; Rest, 1983; Underwood & Moore, 1982). There is
now, however, a considerable body of research in which the role
of 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 Health
National Research Service Award 1F32MH09263-01 to Paul A. Miller
and National Science Foundation Award BNS-8509223 and National
Institute of Child Health and Development Career Development Award
1 K04HD00717 to Nancy Eisenberg.
We would like to express our gratitude to William Stock for advice
regarding meta-analytic procedures.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul
A. Miller or Nancy Eisenberg, Department of Psychology, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona 85287.
recent research, such affective processes appear to be positively
associated 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 who
vicariously 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 negative
social behaviors that have hurtful effects for others, including
aggressive behavior, lower levels of individuals' empathic capac-
ity or its expression may be associated with delays, arrests, or
other dysfunctions of sociomoral development. These may in-
clude greater incidence of antisocial behaviors and other forms
of externalizing psychopathology. Thus, one might expect indi-
viduals from normal as well as clinical populations who express
aggressive, delinquent, and antisocial behavior to exhibit less
empathic 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 social
interaction that attain clinical levels (Gibbs, 1987).
The primary objectives of this review were to examine two
related issues: (a) whether individuals who are relatively aggres-
sive in their interactions with others also tend to be lower in
empathic/sympathetic responsiveness or both and (b) whether
individuals who exhibit antisocial and other forms of negative
behavior that have negative consequences for others (but are not
solely or clearly aggression per se) differ from other people in
empathic responsiveness. Before reviewing the research, how-
ever, we consider definitional issues regarding empathy and ag-

324
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION
gression among clinical and nonelinical populations, as well as
theoretical issues regarding the relation of empathy to aggres-
sion and externalizing negative behaviors.
Definitional Issues
In the psychological literature, empathy has been denned as
both a cognitive and affective response. Moreover, the terms
sympathy 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 as
the ability to identify others' emotional states or to assume the
emotional 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 to
or at least congruent with that state. In the latter sense, sympa-
thetic responses are not necessarily denned as matching the
emotions of the other person; they are merely consistent with
the other's state. For example, a person may report feelings of
concern 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 the
other person. This emotion may be either identical or similar to
the state of the other and involves at least a minimal degree
of self-other differentiation. Thus, empathy includes responses
such 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, elicited
by the emotional state or situation of the other person, that is
not identical to the other's emotion and involves feelings of con-
cern or sorrow for the other person. Frequently, especially for
individuals mature enough to differentiate between their own
and others' internal states, empathy can be expected to lead to
sympathy or to co-occur. In the literature, however, it often is
not possible to ascertain whether authors are referring to empa-
thy, sympathy, or some combination. Therefore, for the sake of
simplicity, in such cases we use the term empathy to refer to
both sympathy and empathy.
Most theorists believe that empathy, albeit characterized by
its affective component, involves cognition as well as affect. For
example, some have suggested that the ability to differentiate
among and identify others' affective states and the ability to take
the cognitive and affective perspective of others (i.e., role take)
are prerequisites for empathizing with someone (Batson, in
press; N. D. Feshbach, 1978). Others have argued that less ad-
vanced cognitive processes, such as classical conditioning, may
be all that are necessary for some modes of empathic respond-
ing (Hoffman, 1984). Most likely, cognitive processes affecting
empathic expression operate at levels consistent with normal
cognitive-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,
325
1983), defining aggression has proven to be a controversial is-
sue. In early research, the focus was on the injurious or hostile
intent 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). Many
researchers currently draw distinctions among aggressive be-
haviors on the basis of intent, for example, distinctions among
instrumental 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 to
succeed in game playing (see Attili, 1985). Other researchers
have 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 determine
whether 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 studies
have varied considerably (e.g., from verbal remarks to physical
violence). Thus, to provide a comprehensive assessment of the
relation of aggression to empathy, we included in this review a
range of behaviors defined as aggressive. Moreover, because
other 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 behaviors
to 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 develop
behaviorally based classification systems for psychopathology
(see Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979; Quay
& Parsons, 1971; Spivak, Swift, & Prewitt, 1971). With these
systems, forms of psychopathology among children and adoles-
cents are differentiated as a function of expressed, observable
behavior. In factor analytic research of relevant behaviors, in-
vestigators have repeatedly identified two "broadband" clinical
groups (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1984). These groups have
been labeled "undercontrolled versus overcontrolled" or "inter-
nalizing versus externalizing" (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979,
1984).
Of relevance to this discussion is the category of externalizing
behavior. The negative behaviors of externalizing individuals
tend to be expressed outwardly and are likely to directly affect
other people and society at large. Externalizing behaviors range
from threatening, attacking, and fighting with others to general
disobedience 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 in
clinical research (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1984) and the role
of aggression and other negative social behaviors in externaliz-
ing conditions, we included externalizing behavior in our review
of the relevant research. Although no equivalent behaviorally
based classification system exists for adults' behaviors, the Di-
agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the
American 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 have
used 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 (labeled
personal 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's
experiencing similar distress by means of vicarious emotional
responding. When the observers themselves are the instigators
of aggression, they may vicariously experience the negative
arousal induced by their own actions (i.e., they experience per-
sonal distress). Reduction of aggressive behavior in interactions
with 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). Some
theorists (e.g., Hoffman, 1984) further suggest that feelings of
(or anticipation of) such distress will inhibit immoral behavior
primarily when the individual feels responsible for the distress
state of the other person.
For those who experience sympathy rather than (or in addi-
tion to) personal distress as a result of empathizing, one would
also 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 which
should preclude harming others. Moreover, the role-taking ac-
tivities that often are part of sympathizing and mature empathy
should 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 have
been associated with lower levels of aggression (e.g., Baron,
1971; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). These cues should evoke
aversive 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 anger
arousal or strong provocation (S. Feshbach, Stiles, & Bitter,
1967;Hartmann, 1969; Perry & Perry, 1974). Moreover, and of
particular 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 and
delinquency (Perry & Perry, 1974). Thus, aggressive individuals
may not respond vicariously to others' emotions or interpret
others' 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 children
may 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 ways
that 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 the
other person. Consistent with this view, Gough (1948) and Hare
(1970) have suggested that a history of antisocial behavior is
the result of a deficiency in perspective taking, which would be
expected to be associated with lower levels of sympathy (S.
Feshbach & N. D. Feshbach, 1986; Hoffman, 1984). Thus, the
relation between empathy (and sympathy) and aggressive/anti-
social behavior may occur for a variety of reasons, reasons
linked 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 in
more negative, coercive interactions with their children (Bur-
gess & Conger, 1978; Reid, 1986); respond less appropriately to
their 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 to
suggest 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 see
N. 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 experience
of empathic responding themselves or opportunity to learn to
identify 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 should
be relatively unlikely to develop high levels of empathic/sympa-
thetic responding. Consistent with this view, according to the
limited relevant data, the development of empathy in children
appears to be enhanced by supportive parenting (Barnett, 1987;
Zahn-Waxier et al., 1979). It is also possible, however, that the
abused child, because of exposure to the strong negative emo-
tions of the abusive parent, may become acutely sensitive to
emotional cues portending punishment or stress (Squires,
1979). In such cases, the abused child may show awareness of
others' negative affect but express inappropriate social re-
sponses to them, for example, defensiveness, rejection, or ag-
gression as opposed to nurturant, positive social responses. This
may be because abusing parents do not provide models of ap-
propriate behavioral and emotional responding to others in
need and are likely to use child-rearing practices (e.g., physical
punishment 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-
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION
bal aggression, as well as abusive behavior, should be negatively
related to empathy. We expected this relation to hold both for
dispositional indexes of empathy and for situational measures
of empathy, that is, measures of both the trait of empathy and
empathy 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 who
tend in general to empathize should be more likely to do so in
any given situation. Moreover, we reasoned that other actions
included in the category of externalizing behaviors (e.g., lying,
stealing, conduct disorders, and antisocial behavior), which are
somewhat 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 that
victims of abuse would exhibit relatively low levels of empathy
themselves because of their socialization experiences. Prior to
turning 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 of
empathy/sympathy to aggression, and these reviews are brief (N. D.
Feshbach, 1978, 1987). Consequently, we conducted a comprehensive
search of all relevant research—including published studies, unpub-
lished manuscripts, and dissertations—using relevant document
sources (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 relevant
information from authors with unpublished or in-progress work. The
objective of this wide search was to avoid the "file drawer" bias that can
occur because studies involving nonsignificant findings are less likely to
be obtained and included in reviews of research (Rosenthal, 1979).
The grouping of studies for the analyses was influenced by several
theoretical and methodological issues in the empathy and aggression
literature. 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 our
first grouping of studies, we examined the empathy-aggression relation
according to the mode of measuring empathy. We identified four fre-
quently used methods of empathy assessment for studies pertaining to
aggression: (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 to
which their reported affect matches that of a story protagonist; (b) facial
affect/gestural reactions to others' emotions or states as depicted in films
or picture/story stimuli; (c) individuals' self-reports on questionnaires
or scales that assess empathic/sympathetic tendencies across events and
situations; and (d) experimental induction procedures designed to elicit
empathic 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 less
with particular age groups. For example, picture/story measures have
been used solely with very young and elementary-school children,
whereas self-report questionnaires and induction procedures generally
have been used with older children, adolescents, and adults. Measures
of facial affect and gestural responses, initially used with younger chil-
dren as an alternative to picture/story methods, are just beginning to be
327
used with adults as indexes of empathic responsiveness (see Marcus,
1987).
The definition of empathy also varies to some extent as a function of
the method of assessment. In picture/story methods, empathy typically
is operationalized as the matching of one's emotional response to that
of a story character. Self-report questionnaires and induction methods
have 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 assessing
empathy (see Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987;
Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987). Self-report indexes of empathy often may
reflect individuals' desire to conform with gender-role stereotypes (Ei-
senberg & Lennon, 1983). Picture/story indexes seem to be particularly
vulnerable to demand characteristics and to confounding factors, such
as sex of the experimenter (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). Facial indexes
are a promising mode of assessing empathy but may be ineffective for
people who mask their emotions. In brief, no single measure of empathy
is 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 or
problematic 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 clinical
indexes (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 of
association, derived in a number of cases by comparing the empathy
level of these groups with that of samples from the normal population.
In the third grouping of analyses, studies concerning individuals who
were 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 behaviors
in addition to overt aggression (e.g., neglect). We examined studies con-
cerning the victims of abuse, all children in this case, independently of
data concerning adult abusers. Generally, the expression of empathy
among each of these two groups was compared with normal or control
samples.
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 group
of studies. Finally, in some meta-analyses, we also reviewed the data
qualitatively.
In general, the term mela-analysis refers to statistical procedures
used to aggregate the results of independent studies relevant to testing
hypothesized 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-analyses
are 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 correlations
into z values by using r-to-z transformation tables available in a stan-
dard statistics text. Third, we computed a frequency-weighted estimate
of the common correlation (Z.,) with the formula z+ = Sf., [(«< - 3)
(zi)}/(N — 3X), in which N = the total number of subjects across all
328 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG
samples, n = the number of subjects in a given sample, and K - the
number of samples (Hedges & Olkin, 1986). Then, to determine
whether the hypothesized relation among the variables (i.e., expressed
as the common correlation) differed from 0, we computed the following
z statistic: z = z+ V(N- 3K), in which N = the total number of subjects
across all samples. We then tested the significance of the effect by using
the standard normal curve ( f o r p = .05 and z — 1 .96) and critical values
for 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 in
some analyses (and because they have been used in determining the
significance of analyses in the meta-analytic work of others, such as
Hedges & Olkin, 1986). We then calculated confidence intervals for this
effect 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?) -
i/ — 3A). The objective of this computation was to
1 2 ("i ~ 3)z,- ) /2
\;-i / (.1
'
test the assumption that the correlations reported in the samples for a
given meta-analysis came from a single underlying population (see
Hedges & Olkin, 1986). If this assumption is not met, it suggests that
the estimates of the common correlation from the samples may not fit
the model of a single underlying population correlation. Accordingly,
the test for the homogeneity of the common correlations is reported
prior to testing for the significance of z+. However, we conducted tests
of significance of the common correlation even when the estimates of r
did not meet the assumption of homogeneity. In such cases, we deemed
the outcomes of these tests important but viewed them with caution
because of the heterogeneous nature of the samples.
We encountered several issues in selecting samples to include in a
given meta-analysis. As described above, we organized data related to
the 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. To
conform to the requirement that the data for each sample (not study or
article) 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 empathy
were 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 used
this composite score in the analysis if either (a) no other statistic was
available or (b) the composite score was deemed the most adequate and
did not mask potentially significant patterns of association (e.g., age or
gender differences). Moreover, if a given measure of association exhib-
ited considerable variation across subgroups (e.g., sex or age), then we
treated the subgroups as separate samples. In general, we reported all
available measures of a given relation in the tables (unless there were
many) but averaged these estimates and used mean values when com-
puting the meta-analyses.
Because relatively few studies concerning externalizing behavior were
available, we first combined the modes of assessing empathy (e.g., self-
report questionnaires and facial/gestural methods) in the analysis of the
relation between empathy and externalizing/antisocial behavior and
abuse. We computed additional analyses, however, for each commonly
used method of assessing empathy (i.e., picture/story and questionnaire
methods) for exploratory purposes.
The procedure for combining different modes of assessing empathy
raises 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 assessing
empathy with the same sample. When multiple empathy measures were
used, 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 relation
of empathy to the relevant behaviors were not provided. Sometimes, all
that was reported was that a particular comparison was significant or
nonsignificant. At other times, the results of comparisons were not re-
ported at all, leaving one to infer that they were nonsignificant. When
the findings were reported as significant, we assumed them to be so at a
probability value of .05 for a two-tailed test. We used the assumption of
a two-tailed test because it is commonly used among researchers and
because it was the criterion that we used to assess the significance of the
results of our meta-analyses. When merely nonsignificance was re-
ported, we could not estimate a precise index of association because
there was no means for determining the p value. In such cases, we as-
sumed that the nonsignificant findings averaged out, across studies, to
a correlation of 0 (see Cooper, 1979).
In summary, we organized the analysis of the relation of empathy to
aggression according to the method used to assess empathy. We orga-
nized the analyses of the relation of empathy to externalizing/antisocial
behaviors first independently of the mode of assessment of empathy and
then 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 empathy
for children and adults. The computation of the various meta-analyses
included (a) a test of the homogeneity of the estimates of the common
correlation, (b) computation of a weighted estimate of the common cor-
relation (z+), (c) a test of the significance of the common correlation
using the standard normal curve, (d) computation of confidence inter-
vals for z + , and (e) computation of estimates of the population values
for 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 assessing
children'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 presented
with narratives (accompanied by visual stimuli) depicting other
children in emotion-eliciting situations (e.g., the story protago-
nist loses her dog). After listening to each story, the child is
asked to report how he or she feels. A response is considered
empathic if it is identical or similar to the emotion that the story
character 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 to
verbally 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, a
number 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 or
have scored empathy differently. Specifically, they have coded
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION
intensity of affective response (N. D. Feshbach, 1980,1982) or
emotional responses to different aspects of the story situation
(lannotti, 1975; lannotti & Pierrehumbert, 1985) or have
scored 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-sex
experimenters; Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983), (b) the problem of
repeated elicitations of different emotions in a very short period
of time, and (c) the use of short hypothetical events that may not
evoke much emotion (Hoffman, 1982). Furthermore, Eisenberg
and Miller (1987) found this mode of assessing empathy to be
unrelated to indexes of prosocial behavior. Thus, there is reason
to believe that many picture/story measures are less valid than
other indexes of empathy.
Having discussed some of the issues that researchers have
faced with this assessment method, we turn to the results of
studies concerning the relation of aggression to picture/story
indexes of empathy. We located 11 relevant studies (including
18 samples). (See Table 1.) These samples were homogeneous
with 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 it
was 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 —.14
and .03, respectively.
The association between picture/story indexes of empathy
and aggression appeared more consistent with expectations for
the older age groups. When we omitted preschool samples from
the analysis, the estimates of the common correlation for the
samples 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 ranged
from -.24 to -.03. The corresponding population estimate for
z+ also was —.13, and its associated confidence interval matched
the sample values.
One possible reason for the low correlation between empathy
and picture/story indexes is that picture/story indexes often in-
clude the assessment of empathy with others' positive as well as
negative emotions. Empathy with positive emotions has been
positively related to boys' aggression, whereas empathy with
dysphoric emotions has been negatively related (N. D. Fesh-
bach, 1982). Moreover, adult males' empathizing with positive
emotions 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 relation
of picture/story indexes to aggression would be more consistent
if researchers would separate findings for empathy according to
positive and negative emotions.
Self-report on questionnaires. Questionnaire indexes of em-
pathy have been used primarily with older children and with
adults. Generally, questionnaires reflect the assumption that the
trait of empathy is being assessed because individuals report
their emotional reactions to others across a broad set of situa-
tions.
329
The Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) scale of emotional ten-
dency is the most frequently used index of empathy for older
adolescents 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 some
items also assess the tendency to experience personal distress,
as well as other types of emotional or social-cognitive reactions
or 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 often
has been operationalized as the frequency or intensity of noise
or shocks supposedly administered to another person during a
learning 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 more
often have been based on observational measures or ratings by
parents, teachers, or peers.
Questionnaire studies concerning the relation of empathy to
aggression 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, which
was highly significant (z = 4.90, p < .001); the confidence inter-
val for z+ was -.11 to -.25. The estimates of the population
correlation 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 of
ages of the samples, from middle childhood to adulthood, as
well 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 assessment
of 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 method
was developed, at least in part, to offset the problem of requiring
children to report their emotions verbally.
We located five studies, involving 10 samples (Table 3). The
samples were homogeneous regarding their estimate of the
common correlation, x2(9, N = 10) = 3.64, ns. The common
correlation (z+) was -.06, ns(z = .84, ns), and the confidence
interval was -.20 to .08. The population estimates for the com-
mon correlation and the corresponding confidence interval
were -.06 and -.21 to .08, respectively.
In a previous analysis of the relation between facial affect
measures of empathy and prosocial behavior (Eisenberg &
Miller, 1987), type of empathy stimuli affected the estimate of
the common correlation. (The relation was stronger for films
than for slide stories.) We therefore recomputed the analyses
with 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 as
negative facial affect were used. Conceptually, however, the rela-
330 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG

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

Estimate Relation to
Study Age, sex, and N Measure of empathy Measure of aggression ofr hypothesis

Bazar 4-5 years Affect matching Teachers' ratings of

(1976/1977) children
M,;v=36 Teasing NR" 0
Physical force in disputes NR' 0
Wildness in games NRa 0
F,tf=36 Teasing NR" 0
Physical force in disputes NR" 0
Wildness in games .24" -
N. D. Feshbach G3-G4 Videotape affect- Peers', teachers' and self-
(1980, 1982) matching task ratings of aggression
M,N=50< Affect matching
Euphoric affect Ratings in general ns 0
Dysphoric affect ns 0
Affect Matching X
Affect Intensity
Euphoric affect Teachers' ratings MR' 0
Peers' ratings .28= —
Self-ratings .28' -
Dysphoric affect Ratings in general -.28= +
F,N=501 Affect matching' Ratings in general -.28° +
Affect Matching X Ratings in general -.28' +
Affect Intensity'

N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach 4-5 years PASTE Teachers' ratings of peer-

(1969) M,JV=24 directed verbal and physical .43° -
F,AT=24 aggression .10= —
6-7 years
M, N = 20 -.44= +
F,JV=20 .24= -
Howard 4 years Affect matching Observers' ratings of peer-
(1983) directed aggression
M,JV=17 Physical -.24 +
Nonphysical .00 0
F,N= 18 Physical .22 —
Nonphysical .19 -

Huckabay GlandG3, PASTE Teachers' ratings of overt -.26 +

(1971) MandF, physical and verbal
N=60 aggression

lannotti K and 03, Affect matching Self-report of aggression in

(1975) M,N=60 Emotional matching* hypothetical situations .06 —
Situational matching" -.23 +

lannotti & Pierrehumbert 2 years Affect matching Observers' ratings of peer-

(1985) (retested at 5 directed aggression
years for
empathy),
M and F,N = Emotional matching* -.52 +
44 Situational matching11 .21 -

Marcus, Roke, & Bruner 3-6 years Affect matching Teachers' ratings of peer-
(1976) M,Ar=21 directed physical and verbal .14 -
F,N-n aggression .39 -

Nielsen Latency and Affect matching Teachers' ratings S1 +

(1976) adolescence, M

Staub ( 1 986) and Staub and G3-G4 Observers' ratings of peer-

Feinberg(1980) directed hostile and
instrumental aggression
(verbal and physical)
M,JV=20 Parallel matching affect' us 0
F,N=26 Parallel matching affect ns 0
Sympathetic affect ns 0
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION 331

Table 1 (Continued)

Estimate Relation to
Study Age, sex, and N Measure of empathy Measure of aggression ofr hypothesis

Steinman GlandG3, PASTE Disrupting peers' winning a -.09 +

(1979) M,AT=72 game in an experimental
situation

Note. M = male; F = female; G = grade; K = kindergarten; PASTE = N. D. Feshbach and Roe (1968) Affective Situation Test of Empathy; Affect
matching = empathy was assumed if the participants' reported affect matched that of the hypothetical other; NR = not reported; + = negative
relation 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 did
not report the sample size by sex. Therefore, an equal number of subjects was assigned to each sex. • Estimated from the report of
significance. f The author reported negative correlations between empathy and aggression for girls, regardless of type or intensity of empathic
affect. Therefore, we combined euphoric and dysphoric empathic affects in the table. 8 Matching of one's own affect to the facial cues of another if
facial and situational cues are incongruent. " Matching of one's own affect to situational rather than facial cues if facial and situational cues are
incongruent. ' Although the results were significant (S), the sample size could not be obtained for computing the estimate of r. Therefore, we
omitted 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 facial
affect to aggression. Positive affect could reflect an individual's
enjoyment of the anguish of the "victim" (leading to a positive
relation 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 facial
affect to aggression proved nonsignificant (z+ = -.01).
Experimental inductions of empathy. A common strategy for
studying the relation of empathy to other personality character-
istics has been to experimentally induce empathy and then
compare 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, empathy
was manipulated with one of two approaches: (a) manipula-
tions of individuals' beliefs that they were similar to another
person or (b) manipulations of individuals' observational sets
by means of encouraging them either to imagine how another
felt or to objectively observe them. Manipulations that increase
perceptions of similarity are believed to enhance empathic re-
sponding because people seem to empathize more with people
like themselves (see N. D. Feshbach, 1978; Krebs, 1975; Staub,
1986). Similarly, instructions to imagine how another feels are
assumed to increase role taking and, consequently, empathic
responding, whereas instructions simply to observe another are
expected to decrease the likelihood of individuals doing so (see
Batson, in press; Stotland, 1969).
We located five studies, involving six samples (Table 4). The
samples 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 the
population correlation —.08, and its corresponding confidence
interval was-. 19 to .03.
The lack of a relation between aggression and experimental
manipulations of empathy did not seem to be due to ineffective
manipulations; 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 perspective
taking 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 a
function of the type of empathy measure. Consequently, we ex-
amined the relation of empathy to aggression for each sex by
computing 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 were
16 studies, including 23 samples for males. The estimate of the
association between empathy and aggression was homoge-
2
neous, X (22, N = 23) = 32.58, ns (z+ = -.09, z = 2.58, which
was significant, p < .01). The confidence interval was from -.16
to —.02. Population estimates of z+ and its associated confi-
dence interval were identical.
For females, there were 13 studies, involving 15 samples. The
estimates of the association between empathy and aggression
met the assumption of a common underlying population corre-
lation, x2(14, N= 15) = 14.95, ns. The estimate of the common
correlation (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 were
the same as the sample estimates.
When we examined the relation between aggression and em-
pathy separately for different indexes of empathy, the relations
were 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 estimates
of z+ were approximately equal for males and females for the
different modes of assessing empathy: However, only the results
for males were significant for questionnaire methods (which
may have been due, at least in part, to the considerably larger
sample size for males).
Empathy training and aggression. Another approach to ex-
332 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG

Table 2
Relation of Questionnaire Indexes of Empathy to Aggression

Measure of Estimate Relation to

Study Age, sex, and N empathy Measure of aggression ofr hypothesis

Aleksic 14- 16 years, M&E Administration of noise in a -.25 +

(1976) incarcerated learning task

delinquents, Intensity X Duration"
M,JV = 80

Bryant Gl Bryant scale Teachers' ratings of peer- -.57 +

(1982) U,N= 14 (1982) directed physical and

verbal aggression
F,JV= 12 .19 —
G4
M,N = 54 -.45 +
F, N = 57 .07 -
G7
M,N = 41 -.01 +
F,N=52 -.14 +
Gaines, Kirwin, & College students, Self-report of Administration of shock in -.46C +
Gentry M,N= 17 empathic a learning task
(1977) motivationb

Hoppe & Singer Patients at M&E Criminal offenses varying in ns 0

(1976) psychiatric aggression
hospital for
criminal
offenders,
M,,V= 115

Hunter(1984/ 14- 18 years, M&E Number of aggressive -.27 +

1985) incarcerated incidents

delinquents,
M,;V=59

Letourneau Abusive and M&E Aggressive responses in role- -.30 +

(1981) nonabusive playing situations
mothers, F,
N=60
Mehrabian & Study 1: College M&E Administration of shock in
Epstein students, M a learning task
(1972) andF
N=44 Immediate condition (can -.29" +
see victim)
N=44 Nonimmediate condition ns 0
Study 2: College M&E Questionnaire measure of -.31 +
students, aggression
M&F,

_
Polk (1976) College students, M&E Administration of noise in a -.03
M,A'=45 learning task

Rein (1974) College students, Modified Administration of shock in

M,N= 67) M&E a learning task
Duration .00 0
Mean intensity -.23 +
Maximum intensity -.14 +
Note. M = male; F = Female; G = grade; M & E = Mehrabian and Epstein's (1972) scale; Bryant scale = Index of Empathy for Children and
Adolescents (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 also
available. b Obtained in a postexperiment interview. c The authors only reported significant F ratios for univariate analyses in which the mean
aggression scores for both the empathy and fear motivation groups were similar and lower than the means for other experimental groups. Because
no 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.
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION 333

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

Estimate Relation to
Study Age, Sex, and TV Measure of empathy Measure of aggression ofr hypothesis

Ekman, Liebert, Friesen, 5-6 years Facial reactions" to Aggressive game and play behavior
Harrison, Zlatchin, aggressive films in experimental situations
Malmstrom, &
Baron (1972)
M,/V=15 Pleasant .18 +b
_b
Interest -.22
Happy .40 +b
Pain -.10 -f
Sad -.10 +
F,7V=15 Pleasant ns obb
Interest ns o
Happy ns 0
Pain .08 _-
Sad ns 0
Howard (1983) 4 years Facial reactions during Observers' ratings of peer-directed
administration of aggression
picture/story
measure
M , J V = 17 Physical -.10
Nonphysical -.01
F,JV = 18 Physical .04
Nonphysical .32
Marcus, Roke, & Bruner 3-7 years Facial reactions during Teachers' ratings of physical and
(1985) administration of verbal peer-directed
picture/story aggression
measure
M,N=2\ -.13
F,N= 11 -.12

Solomon (1985) K, G2, G4, G6 Facial reactions'to Teachers' ratings of verbal hostile,
films of children and physical aggression
in negative toward peers
situations
Pleasure 0"
Sadness 0
F,/V=43 Pleasure 0"
Sadness -.37

Steinman(1979) 6-8 years, M Facial reactions to film Intensity by duration of aggression

of two young men toward peer in experimental
fighting game
Pain .36"
Joy .13"
G5,N=25 Pain -.36"
Joy .13d

Note. M = male; F = female; K = kindergarten; G = grade; + = negative relation between empathy (exhibiting the same emotion as the other or
exhibiting 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 were
omitted. b A positive relation between positive affective reactions to aggressive films and aggressive behavior is consistent with the hypothesis of a
negative relation between empathy and aggression. c Because it was difficult to determine whether children's anger responses to the film situations
were in behalf of (i.e., empathic) or against the protagonist, we omitted anger reactions from the analyses. d We computed the estimate of r by
averaging children's facial affect during pain cue and high-action-violence scenes in which actors' facial pain expressions were shown in one condition
and not visible in a second condition.

amining the relation of empathy to aggression is to determine
whether training in empathy could (a) reduce individuals' ag-
gressive behaviors, (b) improve their social interactions with
others, 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-solving
strategies 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 delinquent
behavior (Chandler, 1973) and a greater capacity to role take in
conflict situations (Berlin, 1978), whereas others have found no
334 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG

Table 4
Relation of Experimental Inductions of Empathy to Aggression

Type of experimental Estimate Relation to

Study Age, Sex, and N manipulation Measure of aggression ofr hypothesis

Aleksic(1976) Study 1: 14-16 Observational Delivery of noxious noise in -.13° +

years, and direct learning experiment
incarcerated experience sets Intensiy by duration"
delinquents, versus no set"
M,AT=80
Study 2: 14- 17 Similarity of feelings Delivery of noxious noise in a
years, to other person's learning experiment
incarcerated Duration ns 0
delinquents, Intensity -.71C +
M,AT=20

Eliasz(1980) 17-19 years, Observe other's Intensity of shock delivered in a .08" _

Polish, F, thoughts and learning task
N=9Q feelings versus no Duration of shock delivered -.04 +
set

Polk (1976) College students,

M
Imagine self as other Delivery of noxious noise in a -.36
versus no set learning experiment
Focus on selfe versus ns
no set

Rein (1974) College students, Similarity of Administration of shock in a

personality learning task
manipulated Duration .01
Maximum intensity -.12
Mean intensity -.10

Note. M = male; F = female; + « negative relation between the experimental manipulation of empathy and measure of aggression; - = positive
relation; 0 - no relation.
" Data were insufficient for comparison of observational set conditions separately. However, all the empathic observation conditions had lower mean
scores than the no-set (control) condition. " The Intensity X Duration index was deemed a better measure of aggression, although intensity and
duration measures also were available. ' We computed the estimate of r from the analysis of variance F value reported for the comparison of the
d
experimental and control groups. 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 is
consistent with the hypothesis of a negative relation between empathy and aggression.

change between empathy training and control groups after
treatment (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 has
shown that the participants, in comparison with a control
group, 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 who
received training in social problem-solving strategies, it is con-
sistent with previous research to expect aggressive behavior to
be mediated by social-cognitive factors as well as empathy (see
Dodge, 1980; Parke & Slaby, 1983; Perry et al., 1986). More-
over, children who received training in affective empathy also
exhibited more prosocial behavior, which was not observed for
the cognitive problem-solving control group (N. D. Feshbach
& S. Feshbach, 1982). This, too, is consistent with theory and
research suggesting that affective empathy may mediate proso-
cial and other, related social behaviors (see Batson & Coke,
198 l;Eisenberg& Miller, 1987;Hoffman, 1984). Thus, training
of 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 Psychopathology
and 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, we
review data relevant to physical abuse.
Externalizing and antisocial negative behavior. We identified
a variety of behaviors as externalizing for the purpose of this
review. These included negative behaviors that were assessed by
using (a) other-ratings of problem behaviors that were then
placed into diagnostic categories by using behaviorally based
classification systems; (b) observations/ratings of behavior by
peers, teachers, adults, or correctional staff that were catego-
rized on the basis of relevant problem behaviors but without
using behaviorally based systems; (c) experimental paradigms
in which relevant behaviors were the focus of investigation; and
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION
(d) self-report scales of psychopathology or related behaviors
(Table 5). To determine whether a particular self-report scale
actually measured behaviors of an externalizing nature (e.g.,
H. J. Eysenck & S. B. G. Eysenck, 1976), we compared scale
items with the behaviors described in other behaviorally based
classification systems (see Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979).
One problem encountered when computing analyses with
these studies was statistical. In computing our meta-analyses,
estimates of the common correlation for individual studies were
weighted according to the size of the sample. Thus, the results
of especially large studies could strongly affect the estimate of
the correlation when combined with the results of smaller stud-
ies. In the analyses of data related to the association between
externalizing behavior and empathy, there were two studies in
which self-report data were obtained from a large number of
subjects (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 sets
of analyses, one including these two large studies and one ex-
cluding them.
We located 13 studies, including 19 samples. The samples
were 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. The
confidence interval for the sample estimate ranged from -.20
to -.28. The population estimate of the common correlation
was —.23, and its corresponding confidence interval ranged
from-.19 to-.27.
When we excluded the two studies (including 4 samples) with
the large sample sizes from the analysis, the resulting test for the
homogeneity 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 supports
the notion that lower levels of empathic responsiveness are asso-
ciated with externalizing negative behaviors.
We further analyzed the relation of externalizing/antisocial
behaviors to empathy by breaking the empathy indexes into two
groups: those involving picture/story indexes of empathy and
those involving questionnaire indexes. (All but one study fell
into these two groups; see Table 5.) For the three studies (five
samples) 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 studies
were homogeneous in their estimate of the common correlation,
X2(4, N=5) = 4.36, ns.
For the 10 studies (and 14 samples) involving questionnaire
indexes of empathy, the common correlation was —.26 (z =
12.14, p < .001). The confidence interval for the sample ranged
from -.21 to -.29. The population estimates for z+ and its con-
fidence intervals were nearly identical. This group of studies
was not homogeneous, %2(13, N = 14) = 44.96, p < .001. Fi-
nally, when we omitted data from the two self-report studies
with large samples sizes (leaving 8 studies with 10 samples), the
common correlation was -. 15 (z = 4.28, p < .001) and the con-
335
fidence interval was -.21 to -.08. This group of studies was
homogeneous in their estimate of the relation, x2(9, N = 10) =
10.265, ns. Overall, then, questionnaire but not picture/story
indexes of empathy were negatively related to externalizing and
to 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 no
discernible differences between the sexes across mode of assess-
ing empathy, especially when we omitted the two questionable
studies.
Physical abuse. We located relatively few studies concerning
the level of affective empathy among physically abusive parents
or children who had been the victims of physical abuse. Thus,
although we computed meta-analyses with these samples, we
also reviewed them qualitatively.
The analysis of the relation of empathy to physically abusive
parental behavior was based on four studies (Table 6). These
studies were not homogeneous with regard to their estimates of
the degree of association, x2(3, N = 4) = 9.78, p < .025. The
common 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. The
population 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 the
findings of the Disbrow study (Stotland, Mathews, Sherman,
Hansson, & Richardson, 1978). In this study, significantly lower
levels 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 et
al. indicated that a composite derived from the empathy scales
was one of a number of variables that significantly discrimi-
nated abusive from nonabusive families. Because unreported
nonsignificant results were assigned a correlation of 0, incorpo-
rating the results of this large sample (N = 175) with unclear
findings may have diluted the overall estimate of the effect. Con-
sequently, we discarded the Disbrow study and recomputed the
analysis. 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 interval
were -.18 and -.32 to -.03, respectively. Thus, though only
a few studies are available, there appears to be some basis for
concluding that lower levels of empathic responsiveness may be
a characteristic of parents who have histories of physically abu-
sive behavior toward their children. Given the small number of
studies 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 physical
abuse and the capacity for empathy was stronger (Table 7). The
estimate of the degree of association was heterogeneous for the
three relevant studies, x2(2, N = 3) = 7.34, p < .05. The estimate
of the common correlation (z+) was -.46 (z = 3.82), which was
significant (p < .001). The confidence interval for z+ ranged
from -.22 to -.69. Corresponding population estimates for z+
and its confidence interval were -.43 and -.22 to -.60. In two
studies, researchers found high negative relations between the
336 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG

Table 5
Relation of Empathy to Externalizing Negative Behaviors

Measure of Estimate Relation to

Study Age, sex, and N Measure of empathy externalizing behavior off hypothesis

Bazar (1976/1977) 4-5 years Picture/story measure Teachers' ratings of

peer-directed
behavior
M,W=36 Affect matching" Under-control scale .10 -
Sympathetic affect .08 -
F,JV=36 Affect matching .09 -
Sympathetic affect -.08 +

Bryant(1984; per- Cohorts at 7 and 10 Bryant scale Mothers' ratings of chil-

sonal com- years, M and F dren's externaliz-
munica- ing behavior"
tion, March
21, 1986)
7-year-olds retested -.03 +
at 10 years
for exter-
nalizing
behaviors,
JV=67
10-year-olds retested -.04 -
at 14 years
for external-
izing behav-
iors, N = 73
S. B. G. Eysenck 13-14 years, British Junior 16 Questionnaire Self-report of
(1981)
M,N= 101 Empathy Scale Psychoticism0 -.37 +
Antisocial behavior -.29 +
F,;v=306 Empathy Scale Psychoticismc -.29 +
Antisocial behavior -.18 +

N. D. Feshbach G3-G4 Videotaped affect- Teachers', peers', and

(1980, 1982) matching task self-ratings of anti-
social behavior
M,7V=50 Affect matching
Euphoric affect Ratings in general MR' 0
Dysphoric affect NR" 0
Affect Matching X
Affect Intensity
Euphoric effect Peers' ratings NR< 0
Self-ratings NR" 0
_
Teachers' ratings .28
Dysphoric affect Ratings in general NRf 0
F.A^SO Affect matching' Ratings in general -,28s -
Affect Matching X Ratings in general -.28 +
Affect Intensity

Hoppe & Singer Adult M&E Criminal offense classi- -.08"'' +

(1976) fication
M psychiatric
offenders,
N= 115; Col-
lege students,
N= 101

Huckabay(1971) 6-8 years, M and F, Picture/story measure Behaviors in an experi-

JV = 60 mental situation
Cheating -.06 +
Lying -.13 +
Lack of resistance to -.16 +
temptation

Hunter (1984/ 14-18 years, incar- M&E Number of serious -.10 +

1985) cerated delin- violent offenses
quents, Af= 59
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION 337

Table 5 (Continued)

Measure of exteraaliz- Estimate Relation to

Study Age, sex, and N Measure of empathy ing behavior ofr hypothesis

Hunter (1984/ 1 4- 18 years, incar- M&E Conduct-disorder -.13 +

1985) cerated M de- score'
linquents, N =
59
Psychopathic delin- -.38 +
quency scorek
Self-report of psycho- -.30 +
pathic delin-
quency1
Kurtz & Eisenberg G3, M and F, AT = 86 M&E Behaviors in an experi-
(1983) mental situation
Resistance to devia- -.23 +
tion composite (la-
tency, frequency,
and duration)

Lee (1983) Adolescent M psy- Davis IRI™, M&E Correctional .10'

chopathic de- staff ratings -.18' +
linquents, N = psychopathic-de-
12 linquent
Control group,
JV=18

Marks, Penner, & Study 1: College stu- Self-report of empathic Self-report of sociopa- -.36 +
Stone (1982) dents, M, N = anxiety to modeled thy
40 distress
Study 2: College stu- Classification of sever- -.47 +
dents, M, N = ity of sotiopathy
20
Rushton, College students, M M&E Self-report of level of -.34 +
Chrisjohn, andF,iV= 135" Machiavellianism
&Fekken
(1981)
Stotland FE Scale .09
Saklofske & 7-15 years, Cana- Junior 16 Questionnaire Self-report of psychoti-
Eysenck dian cism"
(1983)
M, N = 542 Empathy Scale -.43 +
F, N = 508 -.20 +

Watson, Grisham, College students, M&E Pathological narcis- -.20 +

Trotter, & 17-38 years, M sism0
Biderman andF,AT= 160
(1984)
Pathological narcis- -.25
sism0

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 = no
relation.
"Only accurate, congruent affective reactions were included here, although the author also assessed congruent but inaccurate empathic
reactions. " 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 by
sex 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 and
dysphoric empathic affects in the table. * We computed the estimate of r from the report of significance. h For this comparison, the author used
the male norming sample reported by Mehrabian and Epstein (1972). 'We determined the sign of the estimate of r and the relation to the hypothesis
by 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). k The Analysis of Life History Checklist rates individuals' psychopathic delinquent behaviors on the basis of
reported 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 IRI
scores were reported, rather than the empathic concern scale scores alone. " The actual sample size for this comparison was not reported. We
estimated N conservatively on the basis of the lowest sample size reported for related measures. " Two different scales of psychopathologic narcissism
were used.
338 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG

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

Measure of Estimate Relation to

Study Age, sex, and N empathy Type of abuse ofr hypothesis
_
Gynn-Orenstein (1981) Adult, F M&E Court-defined physically -.20"
abusive behavior
Physically
abusive,
N= 17
Control group,
JV = 17

Howes, Feshbach, Gilly, Adult, F P&PEmpathy Clinic-defined physically -.20"* +

&Espinosa(1985) Physically Measure abusive behavior

abusive, Empathic
N=26 Distress
Control group, Scale

Letourneau(1981) Adult, F M&E Physically abusive behavior —.34" +

Physically defined by social service
abusive, agency
N=30
Control group,
JV=30

Stotland, Mathews, Adult, M Stotland FE Scale Physically abusive/neglectful iw° 0

Sherman, andF, versus control families
Hansson, & matched
Richardson (1978), couples and
or Disbrow study matched
single
parents,
JV=179

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 abusive
groups. b We computed the estimate of r from the report of significance, assuming p < .05, two-tailed test. ° This finding was based on analyses
using all five Stotland empathy scales. A latter analysis showed that a composite of items drawn from these scales effectively discriminated abusing
from nonabusing parents.

expression of empathy toward others and the experience of
abuse. In a third study, Squires (1979) obtained a slightly posi-
tive association. The latter finding may have been due, at least in
part, to two factors. First, the abused children may have scored
higher in empathy because they were a full year older on the
average 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's
definition of abuse included much less serious forms of inter-
personal aggression than in the former studies. Moreover,
Howes and Eldredge (1985) obtained results consistent with
these overall findings in a study of five abused (mean age = 20
months) and nine nonmaltreated children (mean age = 20
months). These children's responses to peers' distresses were
observed in free and structured play situations. In free play,
abused children responded to peers' distresses at greater than
chance levels with aggression, whereas nonmaltreated children
responded with prosocial behavior. In addition, in the struc-
tured situations abused children responded (at greater than
chance levels) with aggression and failed to respond (at greater
than chance levels) with prosocial behaviors, whereas nonmal-
treated children responded at greater than chance levels with
prosocial behaviors.
The latter result raises the possibility that the abused children
were 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 nonabused
groups in two samples but did reveal differences in the range of
negative and affective reactions assessed, not all of which could
be considered aggressive (e.g., fear and anger as well as physical/
nonphysical aggression in the third sample). Thus, more clearly
operationalized measures of aggression may be needed to fully
address this possibility.
Summary and Conclusions
The results of our review indicate that empathy is negatively
related 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,
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION 339

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

Estimate Relation to
Study Age, sex, and If Measure of empathy Type of abuse ofr hypothesis

Main & George 1 -3 years, M and F Expression of concern to Physical injuries inflicted -.62"'b +
(1985) Physically abused, distressed peer in a by parent/caregiver
Ar=9 nursery setting
Control group,
N=9
Squires (1979) 4-9 years, F Picture/story measure Physical injuries denned .05"'c
Physically abused, by regional medical
AT- 13 center
Control group,
ff-10
Straker& 5- 10 years, M and F Picture/story measure Physical injuries inflicted -.56"" -t-
Jacobson Physically abused, by parent/caregiver
(1981) N= 19
Control group,
N= 19

Note. M = male; F = female; Picture/story measure = self-report of matching affect to picture/story stimuli; + = negative relation between measure
of 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 We
computed 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 fact
that the abused group children were more than a year older on the average than the normally reared children. Moreover, extent of physical abuse
was not as severe as reported in the other samples. d The authors reported N = 19 for control and abused groups but, when comparing groups on
empathy scores, reported a (ft. of 17, which resulted in an extremely high estimate of r (.70). It seemed appropriate to estimate r more conservatively
on 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 by
age, mode of assessing empathy, or method of assessing negative
behaviors.
Specifically, we found a significant negative relation between
empathy and aggression when empathy was assessed with ques-
tionnaires and negative but nonsignificant relations for facial
affect, experimental induction, and picture/story methods. Age
differences appeared to influence the results for picture/story
methods; the relation between these indexes and aggression was
significant only when we excluded preschoolers from the analy-
ses. Overall, then, our analyses provide modest but not entirely
consistent support for the notion that empathic responsiveness
may be an inhibitor of aggression. Several factors may account
for the pattern of findings.
First, questionnaire methods of assessing empathy differ
from 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, and
anger) changes from story to story, sometimes requiring rapid
changes 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 to
demand 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 with
picture/story methods and with films, both of which frequently
involve stimuli that are clearly hypothetical. Although assessing
children's facial affect responses to these stimuli may minimize
the influence of demand characteristics, the presentation of
multiple emotional stimuli still requires them to change their
affective 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 young
children'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 of
empathy, questionnaire methods contain many items and
therefore tap individuals' responses to a wide variety of situa-
tions. Questionnaire methods of assessment also do not require
a direct empathic response to others in specific hypothetical sit-
uations; individuals are merely asked to report their general
style of emotional responsiveness to others in personally rele-
vant events (e.g., "It makes me sad to see a girl who can't find
anyone to play with"). Finally, questionnaire methods have
been used with an older age group; respondents have been
adults, adolescents, and school-age children. Given that the re-
lation of empathy to other modes of behavior (e.g., prosocial
behavior; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987) has been found to be less
consistent for younger children than for adolescents or adults,
one might expect a similar pattern of findings for aggression. It
was not possible, however, to determine on the basis of our anal-
ysis whether the inconsistent results are due to differences in
methods of assessing empathy for the age groups or represent
actual age differences in the relation between empathy and ag-
340 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG
gression. Thus, the moderating effect of age on the relation be-
tween empathy and aggression is an important issue for future
research.
The results of the meta-analysis concerning the relation of
empathy to both externalizing and antisocial behaviors gener-
ally are consistent with those pertaining to aggression. Empathy
and externalizing/antisocial negative behaviors were signifi-
cantly negatively related for questionnaire but not picture/story
measures of empathy. This pattern of relations did not appear
to be affected by method of classifying negative behaviors. If one
assumes that externalizing behaviors often represent relatively
extreme or problematic forms of antisocial behavior, these re-
sults can be viewed as providing additional support for the view
that empathic responding often may inhibit aggressive and anti-
social behavior.
It is quite possible that the results of our meta-analyses may
underestimate the degree of association between empathy and
aggression 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 current
theorizing concerns the regulatory role of empathy in response
to others' negative affective states and corresponding levels of
aggression, 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 noise
administrations, game disruption, and role-playing responses)
and externalizing behavior (e.g., conduct disorders, lying/steal-
ing, and ratings of antisocial behavior). It is questionable
whether some of these measures of aggression could reasonably
be expected to be influenced by individuals' empathic respon-
siveness. For example, game disruption was used as an index of
aggression in some research, but how it might be mediated by
empathic 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 in
which empathic reactions should conceptually be more likely
to influence aggressive behavior (e.g., during the administration
of aversive noise or shock accompanied by the victim's pain
cues), the relation of empathy to aggression was somewhat more
consistent with expectations.
It is also likely that the inhibition of aggressive and antisocial
reactions 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 which
factors other than empathy influenced the inhibition of aggres-
sion. For example, Dodge (1980) found that aggressive boys
were more likely than nonaggressive boys to interpret the other
person's behavior as aggressive or hostile, especially when the
other'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 situations
rather than as a consequence of a deficit in their capacity to
respond empathically to others' feelings. To the extent that indi-
viduals' cognitions influence their vicarious affective responses
toward others, their (mis)perception of the situation may pre-
clude empathic responding without necessarily implying any
lack 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 empathy
to aggression. Overall, relations of empathy to aggression and
externalizing behaviors were of similar magnitude and in the
predicted (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 of
similar magnitude, these differences appeared to be due, at least
in part, to the larger sample sizes for males. Generally, these
data are consistent with the idea that empathic responsiveness is
an inhibitor of aggression regardless of the sex of the individual.
An important issue that has not been addressed in any of the
relevant 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 of
reactions would inhibit aggression for different reasons, one
egoistic and the other altruistic. Individuals who experience
personal distress in reaction to another's distress should inhibit
their 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 those
who experience a preponderance of sympathy to derogate or
blame the victim in an attempt to distance themselves from the
other and reduce their own distress (see Hoffinan, 1984). These
attributions concerning the controllability of the other's status
as 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 empathy
differ in their relation to aggressive and antisocial behavior.
Some data are consistent with the argument that the relation
between empathy and aggression cannot be solely accounted
for 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 tested
whether 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 if
researchers would obtain indexes of both empathy constructs
(i.e., affective and cognitive) as well as aggression, preferably in
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION
a situation in which the individual empathized with and then
had an opportunity to aggress against the target person.
In some theoretical conceptions of the relation between em-
pathy and aggression, situational experiencing of empathy, not
dispositional empathy, has been stressed. Cues of the other's
distress are viewed as eliciting distress in the observer, which
inhibits further aggression (e.g., N. D. Feshbach & S. Feshbach,
1982). In our review, however, the relation between empathy
and aggressive behavior was not strong in those studies in which
both empathy toward a given person and aggression toward the
same individual were assessed (i.e., the experimental induction
studies). Rather, the relations were strongest between question-
naire indexes of dispositional empathy and aggressive or exter-
nalizing behavior. This general pattern of findings suggests that
the 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. The
differential roles that situational and dispositional empathy
may play in inhibiting negative behaviors are intriguing but are
virtually unexplored.
We obtained two important findings concerning the relation
of empathy to the receipt or enactment of physical abuse. Abu-
sive parents scored lower on indexes of empathic responsiveness
than did mothers from the "normal" population. Moreover,
children who were victims of abuse exhibited less empathy than
did 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 their
relationships with their children, to use more coercive and pu-
nitive socialization practices, and to express relatively higher
levels 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 abuse
exhibit long-term problems in social adjustment, aggressive and
antisocial behavior, and difficulties in maintaining relationships
with others. (See reviews by Lamphear, 1985; Wolfe, 1985.) It
is likely that abusive parents' relative inability to respond in a
supportive and empathic manner to their children is related to
their children's social and emotional difficulties. That is, abu-
sive parents may be less likely than other parents to (a) identify
or understand their children's feelings, especially in distress or
other situations involving their children's needs; (b) adopt their
children'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 to
react positively (i.e., emotionally and behaviorally) toward oth-
ers. Thus, it seems reasonable to find deficiencies in empathic
responsiveness associated with less adequate parenting.
Consistent with this reasoning, N. D. Feshbach (1987), in a
study of a nonclinical sample, found that maternal and paternal
empathy were negatively related to children's externalizing and
internalizing behavior and to inconsistencies in parental disci-
pline practices. Moreover, Howes and Feshbach (1986) found
that abusive parents showed less investment, involvement, and
341
affect in interacting with their children on a task and that these
behaviors were significantly and positively related to parental
empathy. Thus, abusive parents' interactions with their chil-
dren may be characterized by a lack of empathy—a lack that
has long-term negative consequences for children's socioemo-
tional development.
In conclusion, empathic and sympathetic responding appear
to be linked to a number of negative behaviors that affect indi-
viduals' functioning in a variety of interpersonal realms. The
processes underlying these relations need further explication,
however. There is a need to attend to differentiations in type of
vicarious responding (e.g., sympathetic versus personal dis-
tress) and to possible differences in the nature of empathy in
relation 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 types
of aggression) are considered, models of the relation of empathy
to antisocial behavior should be conceptually clearer, and the
results of empirical work on these models should be more con-
sistent than they are currently. Nonetheless, we obtained initial
relatively clear evidence of a modest negative relation between
empathy and aggressive and antisocial behavior. Thus, it seems
appropriate for practitioners and researchers interested in the
inhibition of individuals' aggressive and antisocial behavior to-
ward others to pay greater attention to the construct of empathy
in 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 of
Consulting 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 in
juvenile delinquents. (Doctoral dissertation, Miami University, Mi-
ami, OH, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 4675B.
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical
manual 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. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bamett, M. A. (1987). Empathy and related responses in children. In
N. 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 prior
anger arousal as determinants of adult aggressive behavior. Journal of
Personality 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 Social
Psychology, 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 altruistic
motivation 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.
342 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG
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. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Berlin, R. J. (1978). Teaching acting-out adolescents prosocial conflict
resolution 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 treatment
with 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 critical
review 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) empathy
index. 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 aggressive
behavior. 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 human
nature and the social order. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work
published 1902)
Cooper, J. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A
meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of
Personality 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 cognitive
and 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: A
meta-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 and
related 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 dimension
of 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 for
impulsiveness, 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. In
B. 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 behavior
in 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 scalefor measuring parent
empathy and partner empathy: Factorial structure, correlates and
clinical 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's
manual of child psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 159-259). New York: Wiley.
Feshbach, S., & Feshbach, N. D. (1986). Aggression and altruism: A
personality 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 University
Press.
Feshbach, S., Stiles, W. B., & Bitter, E. (1967). The reinforcing effect of
witnessing aggression. Journal of Experimental Research in Personal-
ity, 2, 133-139.
Fontana, V. J., SRobison, E. (1984). Observing child abuse. Behavioral
Pediatrics, 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 abused
children: Approach, avoidance and aggression. Child Development,
50, 306-318.
Gibbs, J. C. (1987). Social processes in the causation and treatment of
delinquency: The need to facilitate empathy as well as sociomoral
reasoning. 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.
 RELATION OF EMPATHY TO AGGRESSION
Gough, H. G. (1948). A sociological theory of psychopathy. American
Journal of Sociology, 53, 359-366.
Gouze, K., Rayais, M., & Bieber-Schneider, R. (1983, August). Cogni-
tive correlates of aggression in second-grade children. Paper presented
at 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 of
Professional Psychology, Los Angeles, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 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 and
moral judgment. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and
its 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, empathy
and egocentric balance in violent and nonviolent psychiatric offend-
ers. Psychological Reports, 39,1303-1308.
Howard, J. A. (1983). Preschoolers' empathy for specific affects and
their social interaction (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State Univer-
sity, Manhattan). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3954B.
Howes, C, & Eldredge, R. (1985). Responses of abused, neglected and
nonmaltreated 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 in
young 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 family
contexts: 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 relationship
of 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 and
concerning 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 moral
reasoning, 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 on
role-taking, altruism, empathy, and aggression. Paper presented at
343
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 of
empathy in early childhood. Paper presented at the biennial meeting
of 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: Moral
stages and the idea of justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and
Social 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 moral
reasoning 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.), Empathy
and its development (pp. 195-217). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Letourneau, C. (1981, September). Empathy and stress: How they affect
parental aggression. Social Work, pp. 383-389.
Main, M., & George, C. (1985). Responses of abused and disadvantaged
toddlers 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). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Marcus, R. F., Roke, E. J., & Bruner, C. (1985). Verbal and nonverbal
empathy 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 a
function of empathic responses and sociopathy. Journal of Research
in 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 latency
aged and adolescent males living in a residential treatment center for
emotionally disturbed children. Dissertation Abstracts International,
37, 10A, 6374.
Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development of aggression. In
E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Manual of child psychology. Vol. 4. Social-
ization, personality, and social development (pp. 549-641). New
York: Wiley.
Perry, D. G., & Perry, L. C. (1974). Denial of suffering in the victim as
a stimulus to violence in aggressive boys. Child Development, 45,55-
62.
344 PAUL A. MILLER AND NANCY EISENBERG
Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive social
learning mediators of aggression. Child Development, 57, 700-711.
Polk, W. M. (1976). Perceptual orientation, empathy, and the inhibition
of 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 delinquent
boys. 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 Problem
Checklist (Rev, ed.). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami.
Reid, J. B. (1986). Social-interactional patterns in families of abused
and 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 on
level 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 null
results. Psychological Bulletin, 86,638-641.
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., &Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic
personality 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 empathy
and prosocial behavior in elementary school children. Paper pre-
sented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 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 disturbed
classroom behavior: A behavioral diagnostic system for elementary
schools. 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, Indiana
University, Bloomington, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 40, 937B.
View publication stats
Staub, E. (1986). A conception of the determinants and development of
altruism and aggression: Motives, the self, and the environment. In
C. Zahn-Waxler, E. M. Cummings, & R. lannotti (Eds.), Altruism
and aggression: Biological and social origins (pp. 135-164). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E., & Feinberg, H. K. (1980, September). Regularities in peer
interaction, empathy, and sensitivity to others. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Mon-
treal, Quebec, Canada.
Steinman, D. R. (1979). Moderators of the effects of television violence
on 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 misbehaviors
and 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 and
analysis. 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 7,1986
Revision received September 22, 1987
Accepted November 9, 1987