Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Supplemental Materials
Participant Criteria
The sample’s ethnic distribution was as follows: 9 % African or African American, 9 %
Asian, Pacific Islander, or Asian American, 73 % European or European American (White), 6 %
Latino, 1 % Arab or Arab American, < 1 % Native American. Sign-up was restricted to students
who attested in mass testing that they were native speakers of English, to avoid additional stress
for speakers who may be anxious to speak publically in a foreign language. Sign-up was also
restricted to students who were generally healthy and specifically who had no history of
cardiovascular and heart problems, to avoid data artifacts related to cardiovascular issues. All
participants were informed prior to coming to the laboratory that the study would involve the
participant’s having electrodes placed on arms, hands and torso for the duration of the study
(Blascovich, Seery, Mugridge, Weisbuch, & Norris, 2004).
Recruitment
In mass testing, all Psychology 101 students were able to sign up for this study online via
SONA systems as long as they met the above requirements.
Mass Testing
In online mass testing I assessed (cardiovascular) health, and native language.
Specifically participants were screened for general, particularly cardiovascular health with four
yes-or-no format items, specifically “Are you generally healthy?”, “Are you free of
cardiovascular problems?”, “Do you have chronically low or high blood pressure?”, “Do you
have any heart problems or defects?”
Cardiovascular Procedures
All further data collection occurred in one of our laboratory rooms with a comfortable,
1
cushioned chair, Biopac physiological recording equipment, and a video/intercom system
permitting the researchers to communicate with the participant whenever needed to ensure
proper functioning of the equipment and for giving instructions (Seery, Blascovich, Weisbuch, &
Vick, 2004). Only one participant completed the study at a time and he or she was run through
the study by a research assistant of the same sex. Male subjects were also allowed to be run by
female experimenters.
All cardiovascular response measures were collected continuously and non-invasively
using guidelines published by Sherwood and colleagues (Sherwood, Allen, Fahrenberg, Kelsey,
Lovallo, & Van Doornen, 1990) utilizing the equipment manufactured and/or distributed by
Biopac Systems, Inc. (Goleta, CA). All readings were automatically saved and later analyzed
offline through Acqknowledge (Biopac) software. Specifically the MP150 analog to digital
converter was used as well as impedance cardiography (Model NICO100D) with the
Bionomadix Receiver, electrocardiography (Model ECG100C), a noninvasive blood pressure
(NIBP100D) module, and the DA100C general purpose amplifier. In order to record impedance
cardiography (ICG) two electrodes were applied on each side of the neck and two further
electrodes were applied in a straight line down on each side of the lower ribcage.
Electrocardiography was measured via spot electrodes placed underneath participants’ left
clavicle and underneath their right ribcage. Blood pressure was measured continuously via finger
cuffs, measurements that were calibrated at various points throughout the session with an arm
cuff (on the opposite arm).
AcqKnowledge PC software (Biopac) was used for data acquisition and for scoring of
physiological data. Scoring occurred by personnel blind to the respective participant’s
experimental condition. The software was programmed to identify the “B” point within the dZ/dt
2
waveform, the point at which left ventricular ejection begins and that is used to calculate stroke
volume and cardiac output, according to recommendations by Lozano et al. (2007). Blood
pressure data was used to calculate total peripheral resistance (TPR) by dividing mean arterial
pressure (MAP), derived from blood pressure measuring equipment, by cardiac output (CO) and
multiplying the outcome by 80 (Sherwood et al., 1990). Measurements from ICG were used to
calculate cardiac output (CO), measurements from ECG were used to determine heart rate (HR),
and measures from ECG and ICG were used to calculate ventricular contractility (VC), the
markers for the motivational states of challenge and threat. Each of these measures was obtained
on a cycle by cycle basis and subsequently averaged within each time point of interest (i.e., rest
period, speech task) for analysis.
Details on Experimental Procedures
After providing informed consent and being attached to the measuring equipment,
participants heard audiotaped instructions that welcomed them to the laboratory and explained to
them that they should sit as quietly and still as possible for five minutes for the collection of
baseline data as is typical in this type of research (Seery et al., 2004). After collecting five
minutes of functional baseline data, the participant was told the following slight cover story, also
via audio taped instructions.
Participants were told that our laboratory studies the physiological and cognitive
underpinnings of helping behavior among college-aged peers. For this study, they were told, they
would work with a partner, another participant. One of them was randomly chosen to share a
personal problem while the other participant was randomly chosen to try to help the participant
with the problem. Participants were further told that they were randomly assigned to the role of
“helper” for this study and that the participant who had been chosen to be the problem-sharing
3
participant (the “helpee”) had come to the laboratory earlier in order to complete a few
background questionnaires and describe a recent personal problem. In this study, participants
were told, each helper would be asked to read the personal problem described by the helpee
according to a set of reading instructions, and it was important that they followed these reading
instructions so that all helpers approach the reading in the same way. Participants were further
told that helpers would be asked to record their helping response via videotape so that we could
control for nonverbal communication between helper and helpee. After having been provided
this summary of tasks participants were randomly assigned to imagine-self, imagine-other, or
objective reading instructions and they began the study.
Participants were led to believe that they were requested to help an actual person rather
than an imaginary person so that concern for the other could emerge. Our goal with this design
was to make the task interesting and realistic to participants, securing task engagement and also
to induce a prosocial goal: that of wishing to help the other participant. It should be noted here
that in reality there was no other participant (i.e., no helpee). In addition, as in previous research,
participants were told that there was only one set of reading instructions to avoid hypothesis-
guessing that the study examined effects of different attentional foci (Batson, Early, et al., 1997).
In actuality, participants were randomly assigned to ISPT, IOPT, or objective instructions
and then read a fictional statement of a student describing a recent car accident. Then participants
were given five minutes to prepare a videotaped response to the helpee and immediately after
they were asked to record the video statement for the helpee.
In their response participants were asked to briefly paraphrase the helpee’s problem and
respond to that problem in a manner that they found appropriate. In addition, they were asked to
suggest ways that the helpee might solve a concrete problem as if giving advice to a friend, and
4
in addition or alternately, give advice on how the other participant might be able to cope with his
or her problem. After the recording participants were asked to complete a few background
measures and a demographic questionnaire, and then were told that the official part of the study
was now over, although in reality it was not. Participants were told that while the video format
was the ideal format for the researcher to test her hypotheses, this format was not ideal to provide
help to the other participant. Therefore they would now be given a chance to further help the
other participant by writing down further suggestions on how to help the other participant with
her problem. Participants were told that it would be their choice whether to help further or to be
dismissed from the study immediately. Then all participants were probed for suspicion, debriefed
and dismissed.
Materials and Measures
Imagine self vs. other vs. objective instructions. In the “imagine self” condition
participants were given the following instructions modeled after those by Batson, Early, and
colleagues (1997):
While you are reading about the other participant’s problem, try to imagine how you
yourself would feel if you were experiencing what has happened to the other participant
and how this experience would affect your life. Try not to concern yourself with
attending to all the information presented. Just concentrate on trying to imagine how you
yourself would feel.
Participants in the “imagine other” condition received the following instructions (Batson,
Early, et al., 1997):
While you are reading about the other participant’s problem, try to imagine how the other
participant feels about what has happened and how it has affected his or her life. Try not
5
to concern yourself with attending to all the information presented. Just concentrate on
trying to imagine how the other participant feels.
Participants in the “objective” or remaining objective condition were asked to follow the below
instructions (Batson, Early, et al., 1997):
While you are reading the other participant’s statement, try to be as objective as possible
about what has happened to the other participant and how it has affected his or her life.
To remain objective, do not let yourself get caught up in imagining what this person has
been through and how he or she feels as a result. Just try to remain objective and
detached.
Helpee statement. All participants read a statement describing the fictional participant
Kylie’s struggle with her financial situation due to a car accident. Specifically participants
received a hand-written statement allegedly written by Kylie herself. This particular story was
written for the purpose of this study to be somewhat milder than the typical scenario where a
student has very recently, within the past few months, lost both parents in a car crash and is
trying to avoid having her two siblings put into foster care (Batson, Early, et al., 1997).
Hello my name is Kylie. I am 20 years old. My major is Sociology. The most serious
problem I am dealing with at the moment is getting my life back together after a pretty
bad car accident early on this year. Back when the weather was really bad, I was stopped
at a red light and another car hit me. The result was a pretty badly fractured leg and a
ruptured spleen. And my car was totaled (the other driver was fine, by the way).
Insurance covered my car and the medical bills, but because of my leg injury I haven’t
been able to work (I’m a server at Olive Garden) and it’s been really tough on my
finances. Since my mom passed away two years ago and my dad left a long time ago
6
(sorry for all the detail), I’ve been the one taking care of my sister Kim, who just turned
14. We have enough to cover the basics –I mean, I can put food on the table and pay bills.
But I basically don’t have the money for anything extra for my sister. No going out with
friends, new clothes, anything. It really bothers me especially because Kim’s birthday is
coming up, and for our birthdays we always try to do something a little fun-- nothing
crazy, but just something to distract us from having to celebrate it without mom. I just
worry it is going to be a pretty sad birthday. I want to think of something we could do
that is fun and distracting, but doesn’t cost anything. I’ve just been feeling so helpless
lately, I haven’t had any good ideas.
Speech preparation instructions. Instructions for the speech asked participants to
respond to the other participant in a way that they felt was appropriate, and to give concrete
advice which could later be coded for helping effectiveness. At the same time these instructions
were meant to be brief and somewhat ambiguous to allow for variance in the quality of
participants’ response:
Please use the next few minutes to prepare a video statement responding to the other
participant’s problem. You should start off by introducing yourself briefly. Next please
try to summarize and restate the other participant’s problem briefly and respond to the
problem while expressing warmth and understanding, in whichever way you feel would
be appropriate. Next please give the other participant some advice on what he/she can do
about the problem. Please phrase these suggestions like the kind of advice you would
give to a friend if the friend were in a similar situation. Your advice could take the form
of strategies for the other person to solve a concrete problem. Alternately, or in addition,
you could give the person advice about how to deal with their feelings about their
7
situation. Note that you will be given five minutes to prepare for your video statement.
You will get to speak for exactly three minutes so make sure you prepare accordingly.
[After five minutes:] Speech instructions. It is now time to prepare your video statement
to the other participant. Please check the time on the provided digital clock on your
computer screen to make sure you address all of the points requested: introduction,
paraphrasing and response, and advice. Please speak directly into the camera. You have
exactly three minutes to record your video statement. When you are ready to record,
please press the bell attached to your cubicle.
Participants then recorded their statement while being videotaped. If a participant discontinued
talking before the three minutes were up, the experimenter reminded the participant to keep
speaking (Frings, Hurst, Cleveland, Blascovich, & Abrams, 2012).
Personal distress and empathic concern. Personal distress and empathic concern
(Batson, Early, et al., 1997) were assessed immediately after the speech task. Personal distress
(α=.86) was assessed by asking participants to indicate how much they felt each of the following
emotions: “alarmed”, “distressed”, “perturbed”, “worried”, “disturbed”, “upset”, “grieved”, and
“troubled”, each assessed on a seven point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). Empathic
concern (α=.80) was assessed by asking participants to indicate how much they felt each of the
following emotions: “warm”, “softhearted”, “empathetic”, “compassionate”, “moved”, “tender”.
These items were embedded in other mood items as is often done in this kind of research (e.g.
Cialdini et al., 1987). Specifically we used items of the brief version of the positive and negative
affect scale (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to avoid hypothesis-guessing that we
were interested in participant’s empathic responses. PANAS items, and the items comprising the
personal distress and empathic concern scales were shown in randomized order.
8
Self-assessment questionnaire. Next participants were given a self-assessment
questionnaire assessing various items that have been shown to be predictors of helping behavior.
Manipulation check. Participants were asked three manipulation check questions
assessing how much they followed instructions (Batson, Early, et al., 1997).
Self-rated helping efficacy. Participants also completed a few items about their own
assessment of their helping efficacy and effectiveness, each assessed on seven-point scales.
These four items were standardized and then combined into an index of self-rated helping
efficacy (α= .90).
Distancing. We further assessed whether self-distancing may be driving effects using
items used in previous research (Kross et al., 2014).
Trait anxiety. The items of the Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form X-1)
(Spielberger, 1989) which assessed absence of anxiety were reverse scored, and then all items
were standardized and averaged into an index of trait anxiety (α= .88).
Further predictors of helping behavior. Similarity and including the other in the self
(IOS) scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Neuberg et al., 1997) have been shown to be
associated with helping behavior in past research.
Further participants were asked how much they felt the other participant was in need of
help and how much they felt the other participant deserved help, each assessed on a seven point
scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much), standardized and combined into an index of demand
(α= .80). We also asked participants to indicate how much they cared about the helpee’s welfare
and well-being, each assessed on a seven point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). These two
items were standardized and combined into an index of caring (α= .96).
Helping Effectiveness and Helping
9
A secondary goal of this project, not included in the present manuscript, was to explore
effects of the two types of perspective taking on helping behavior. Coders were trained to rate
participants’ video messages based on nonverbal aspects of supportiveness, including how often
participants smiled sympathetically; showed facial expressions (for a review see Goetz et al.,
2010) that seemed empathetic (raise their eyebrows, show sad facial expression, give a
‘sympathetic smile’); how well they seemed to understand Kylie’s feelings; how genuine,
trustworthy, and empathetic they seemed; and how warm, kind, friendly, and caring they seemed
overall. All eight items assessing nonverbal supportiveness were standardized and the mean of
ratings across coders was calculated for each item. Then these means were averaged into an
index of nonverbal supportiveness. Internal consistency was high both across nonverbal items
within coders (αwithin Coder 1 = .96, αwithin Coder 2 = .92) and across coders for the index of nonverbal
supportiveness (α= .95).
In order to have a more concrete assessment of participant’s helping effectiveness, coders
also rated the actual advice participants gave, that is, they were asked to rate how helpful they
thought the participant’s advice was, the quality of their advice, and how easy the advice would
be to implement. Specifically coders were asked to indicate how effective participant’s advice to
Kylie was for her task planning the birthday, to rate the overall quality of the suggestions coders
gave on how to plan the birthday, and how easy it would be to follow the participant’s
suggestions for how to plan the birthday. Coders also rated how helpful the transcript was with
regard to planning the birthday. Reliability within coders (αwithin coder 1 = .89, αwithin coder 2 = .89) as
well as between coders (α = .91) was excellent.
10
In-person helping. Participants were also given the option to help the other participant
further after they had already provided help via the speech task. It should be noted that this
variable would only capture extreme helpfulness, as participants had already helped via the
videotape. The experiment was timed so that participants always had at least 20 minutes to spare
before the scheduled end time, and participants were told that they had an option for the
remainder of the time left in the experiment. Either they could “try to help the other participant
with their problem further” by providing further advice via a written note or they could leave the
experiment early. Participants were told that receiving such written notes was usually more
helpful than just receiving a video message, but for the purpose of the study the researcher had
collected all necessary data, so that it were up to them if they would like to help more or not. The
helping decision was recorded by the research assistant and each participant’s statement was
saved. Helping thus was a dichotomous variable (0 = did not help, 1 = helped).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics and results for all variables are reported in Table 2.
11
Manipulation Check
We asked participants to indicate how much they had thought about how they themselves
would feel in Kylie’s situation, how much they had thought about how Kylie must feel, and how
much they remained detached and objective with regard to Kylie’s situation. Those in the ISPT
condition reported thinking marginally more about how they themselves would feel compared to
IOPT and objective conditions (B= 0.44, t(211)= 1.90, p= .06, 95% CI [ -0.02, 0.90]; f2=.02).
Those in the IOPT condition reported thinking marginally more about how Kylie felt compared
to the other two conditions (B= 0.38, t(211)= 1.97, p= .05, 95% CI [ -0.001, - 0.76]; f2=.02 ).
These relatively small effects on self-reported perspective taking are consistent with Batson and
colleagues’ original research in which ISPT did not significantly predict greater imagine-self
thoughts compared to IOPT and IOPT did not significantly predict greater imagine-other
thoughts compared to ISPT (Batson, Early, et al., 1997). Those in the objective condition
reported attempting to remain objective and detached significantly more than those in the two
perspective-taking conditions (B= 1.04, t(211)= 4.89, p<.001, 95% CI [ 0.62, 1.46]).
Calculation of Challenge and Threat Index
For ten participants challenge and threat could not be calculated due to movement
artifacts that were too extreme or failure of research assistants to place critical markers.
Following procedures used by other researchers (e.g., Blascovich et al., 2004; Lupien, Seery, &
Almonte, 2012), we first constructed several measures in order to calculate challenge and threat.
Ventricular contractility (VC) is a measure of the contractile force of the heart’s left ventricle,
and was calculated by multiplying pre-ejection period reactivity scores by -1. The amount of
blood the heart pumps per minute is cardiac output (CO), while total peripheral resistance (TPR)
is a measure of net constriction versus dilation of the arteries. During both challenge and threat
12
HR and VC show reactivity, that is, positive changes from baseline. Challenge consists of
relatively higher CO and lower TPR as compared to threat, where CO is lower and TPR is
higher. In line with previous research, all reactivity scores were generated by calculating change
scores, subtracting baseline values from the task values (i.e. the values during the speech
performance). As is typical in previous research on challenge and threat, we used the first two
minutes of the speech task and the first two minutes of error-free baseline data.
In order to construct the actual measure of challenge versus threat, we first converted
both TPR and CO reactivity scores (r= -.63, p<.001) into z-scores (Lupien et al., 2012). Next, we
subtracted TPR scores from CO scores for the index of challenge versus threat (Blascovich et al.,
2004; Lupien et al., 2012). Through this procedure, lower scores reflect greater threat, while
greater scores reflect relative challenge. The index was then standardized for the sake of easy
interpretation. Any differences in this index (M= 0, SD= 1) are relative, with the zero point of the
index consisting of the sample mean, rather than the point clearly separating challenge and
threat. That is, challenge and threat are measured on a continuum, relative to one another. In
addition, HR and VC were standardized and summed for a covariate to be included in all
analyses as a way to increase power in separating relative threat from relative challenge by
controlling for general reactivity across the challenge and threat continuum in these measures
(Lupien et al., 2012; Seery et al., 2004).
Necessary Pre-Conditions for Challenge & Threat Assessment
Before beginning with the main analyses, we checked whether participants generally
showed increases from baseline values of HR and VC during the speech task (Lupien et al.,
2012) across ISPT and IOPT conditions via one sample t-tests. That is, we made sure that mean
HR increase and VC were both significantly greater than 0 during the speech task (Lupien et al.,
13
2012). Results indicated that both values were significantly greater than 0 (HR: M= 18.78,
t(201)= 21.12, p<.001; VC: M= 2.21, t(201)= 4.19, p<.001). In light of these results, we
concluded that the necessary precondition to be able to assess challenge and threat was given in
these data.
Inter-Rater Reliability of Helping Effectiveness Ratings
A component factor analysis (CFA) via structural equation modeling revealed that the fit
for a factor model for two separate factors, one for verbal coding effectiveness and one for
nonverbal supportiveness was not good, but acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999), χ2 = 710.67 (df=
289), p > .01; RMSEA = .08; CFI/TLI = .94/.93; SRMR = .08. The intra-class correlations
were .55 for the index of nonverbal supportiveness and .44 for the index of verbal helping
effectiveness. Both intra-class correlations are acceptable, based on a cutoff of .40 (Hallgreen,
2012). In addition Pearson’s correlation coefficients between raters were also acceptable for
nonverbal supportiveness (r= .57) and verbal helping effectiveness (r= .60; ps < .001).
In this study three different indicators of helping effectiveness were assessed: the index
of verbal helping effectivenessi, the index of nonverbal supportiveness, and participants’ own
estimates of their helping effectiveness. Each of these dependent variables were separately tested
in a regression model with the IOPT vs. other dummy and the objective vs. other dummy as
predictors as well as in a regression model with the ISPT vs. other dummy and the objective vs.
other dummy as predictors. Using the annotation scheme designed in this exploratory analysis,
we found no evidence that relative threat was associated with reduced verbal helping
effectiveness or that perspective taking was associated with reduced verbal helping effectiveness.
The only significant effect that emerged was a marginal negative association between the
challenge & threat index and nonverbal supportiveness, B= -0.18, t(192)= -1.90, p= .06, 95% CI
14
[ -0.21, 0.003], f2=.02. That is, higher levels of relative threat were marginally associated with
lower levels of nonverbal supportiveness. It should be noted that the verbal effectiveness index
was bimodal. Quantile regressions were run to address this issue, but effects still did not reach
significance.
Results of a logistic regression for the dependent variable of providing helping (yes/no) above
and beyond the speech task, controlling for time left in the study, revealed that the likelihood of
those in the ISPT condition to help was not any lower (or higher) than that of participants in the
objective condition. Furthermore, a further logistic regression with the ISPT vs. other dummy
and the objective vs. other dummy as predictors of helping revealed that the likelihood of
providing help was not greater in the IOPT condition compared to the objective condition. In
addition, a further logistic regression with the challenge and threat index as the independent
variable predicting helping revealed that challenge & threat were not associated with helping,
again controlling for amount of time left in the study and with the HR/VC variable as the
covariate, OR= 1.06, p= .75, 95% CI [ 0.74, 1.51]. That is, there was no evidence that threat was
associated with reduced likelihood of helping, that perspective taking was associated with
helping likelihood, and thus no evidence that ISPT would lead to relative threat and in turn to
reduced likelihood of helping. In sum, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
Mediators of the relationship between perspective taking and challenge versus
threat.
I also wished to explore whether common mediators of the association between
perspective taking and helping might account for the previously demonstrated association of
perspective taking with relative challenge versus threat. None of the variables that have been
shown to fully or partially account for the relationship between perspective taking and helping,
15
namely IOS, similarity, distress, or empathic concern, were shown to mediate the relationship
between perspective taking and relative challenge versus threat.
Moderation effects
I also explored moderation by several exploratory moderators, namely derogation
(assessed via two separate items), caring, trait anxiety, distancing, gender, and need. Due to the
fact that multiple comparisons without strong hypotheses were conducted in this research--
specifically, moderation was tested in 28 different models--a Bonferroni correction was applied
to these data in an attempt to reduce the familywise Type I error rate. Via the Bonferroni
correction an alpha level of p=.002 was required to meet the threshold for corrected significance.
No moderation effects reached significance when this standard was applied.
16
Tables
Dummy Coding
ISPT vs. other
IOPT vs. other
Objective vs. other
ISPT 0 0 0IOPT 0 1 0
Objective 0 0 1
Table 1. Dummy code representation of each condition.
17
N Mean (SD) Rangea Correlations
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. CT index 202 0(1) (-4.57-2.55) 1
2. Helping 212 .19(.40) (0- 1) 0.02 1
3. Verbal Effectiveness 212 0(.75) (-1.54-
1.52)0.03 0.06 1
4. NV Supportivenes
s212 0(.76) (-1.85 -
1.73) -0.14 † 0.11 .25*** 1
5. Demand 212 0(.91) (-4.30 - .95) -.20** 0.07 0.02 -0.03 1
6. Distress 212 2.58(1.09) (1-7) -0.11 0.11 -.15* -.16* 0.12 † 1
7. Deserved 212 1.40(1.17) (1-7) -0.02 .16 * 0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.05 1
8. Caring 212 0(.98) (-3.19-1.21) -0.06 .18 * 0.21 0.26
*** 0.22 ** 0.06 -0.05 1
9. Distancing 212 0(.88) (-1.71 - 2.02)
-0.02 -0.17 * -0.07 -0.19 * -0.07 -0.1 0.02 -0.24 ***
10. Gender 212 1.61(.49) (1-2) 0.17* -0.16 * -0.38 -0.26 *** -0.1 0.13 † -0.03 -0.08 -0.001
11. Trait anxiety 212 2.11(.46) (1.05-
3.55)-0.06 -0.03 -0.02 -0.07 0.1 0.48
*** -0.06 -0.08 -0.01
12. Similarity 212 3.21(1.56) (1-7) -0.14 † 0.16 * 0.02 0.25 ** 0.02 0.07 0.17 * 0.29 *** -0.23 **
13. IOS 212 3.5(1.26) (1-7) -0.06 0.16 * 0.07 0.21 ** 0.13 † 0.11 0.01 0.4 *** -0.25 ***
14. Need 212 5.77(1.19) (1-7) -0.17 * 0.06 -0.01 -0.09 0.91 *** 0.1 0.03 0.18 * -0.08
15. Empathic concern 212 4.45(1.04) (1-7) -0.17 * 0.22 ** 0.07 0.27
*** 0.16 * 0.37 *** 0.1 0.43
*** -0.22 **
16. Own fault 212 1.40(.93) (1-7) -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 0.04 -0.21 ** 0.04 0.29 -0.2 ** 0.1
17. Objective vs. other 212 .35(.48) 0-1 0.03 -0.07 0.08 -0.03 -0.3 *** -0.15 0.08 -0.05 0.19 **
18. ISPT vs. Other 212 .33(.47) 0-1 -0.14 * -0.04 -0.05 -0.02 0.18 ** 0.03 0.04 -0.05 -0.22 **
19. IOPT vs. Other 212 .32(.47) 0-1 0.12 † 0.1 -0.03 0.05 0.13 † 0.12 † -0.12
† 0.1 0.04
† marginal, * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001;
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of key study variables.
18
CorrelationsVariable 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. CT index
2. Helping
3. Verbal Effectiveness
4. NV Supportivenes
s
5. Demand
6. Distress
7. Deserved
8. Caring
9. Distancing
10. Gender 1
11. Trait anxiety
-0.04 1
12. Similarity -0.13 † -0.001 1
13. IOS -0.12 † 0.05 0.47 *** 1
14. Need -0.1 0.07 0.01 0.07 1
15. Empathic concern
-0.08 -0.07 0.27 *** 0.33 *** 0.1 1
16. Own fault 0.07 -0.06 0.1 -0.05 -0.22 ** -0.02 1
17. Objective vs. other
-0.04 -0.2 ** 0.001 -0.06 -0.3 *** -0.06 0.11 1
18. ISPT vs. Other
0.01 0.11 -0.09 0.05 0.2 ** -0.02 -0.02 -0.51 *** 1
19. IOPT vs. Other 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.5
***-0.48 *** 1
† marginal, * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001;
Table 2 continued.
19
Figures
Threat
ISPTReduced Helping
Effectiveness
Figure 1 a. Proposed mediation of the ISPT – Helping effectiveness association by relative threat.
Threat
ISPTReduced Helping
Likelihood
Figure 1 b. Proposed mediation of the ISPT – Helping likelihood association by relative threat.
20
Imagine Self No perspective-taking Imagine Other
-0.25-0.2
-0.15-0.1
-0.050
0.050.1
0.150.2
CHALLENGE AND THREAT
Figure 2. Means of the challenge/threat reactivity by condition. Please note that higher scores on
the challenge/threat index represent greater relative challenge, while lower scores reflect greater
relative threat, with zero representing the sample mean.
21
Imagine Self No perspective-taking Imagine Other
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
Distress as a Predictor of Challenge vs. Threat by Condition
Figure 3. Association between distress & challenge vs. threat reactivity by experimental
condition. Bars represent value of regression coefficients linking distress with challenge versus
threat within each condition.
22
Increased Demands
ISPT Threat
β=-.18 (β=-.15)
Figure 4. Mediation of the ISPT – threat association by perceived demands.
23
Appendix
Mass Testing Items
Are you generally healthy? Yes No
Are you free of cardiovascular problems? Yes No
Do you have chronically low or high blood pressure? Yes No
Do you have any heart problems or defects? Yes No
What is your native language? English Other
ISPT/IOPT/Objective Instructions (Batson, Early, et al., 1997)
IOPT:
While you are reading about the other participant’s problem, try to imagine how the
other participant feels about what has happened and how it has affected his or her life.
Try not to concern yourself with attending to all the information presented. Just
concentrate on trying to imagine how the other participant feels.
Objective:
While you are reading the other participant’s statement, try to be as objective as possible
about what has happened to the other participant and how it has affected his or her life.
To remain objective, do not let yourself get caught up in imagining what this person has
been through and how he or she feels as a result. Just try to remain objective and
detached.
24
ISPT:
While you are reading about the other participant’s problem, try to imagine how you
yourself would feel if you were experiencing what has happened to the other participant
and how this experience would affect your life. Try not to concern yourself with attending
to all the information presented. Just concentrate on trying to imagine how you yourself
would feel.
Kylie’s Statement
Hello my name is Kylie. I am 20 years old. My major is Sociology. The most serious
problem I am dealing with at the moment is getting my life back together after a pretty
bad car accident early on this year. Back when the weather was really bad, I was
stopped at a red light and another car hit me. The result was a pretty badly fractured leg
and a ruptured spleen. And my car was totaled (the other driver was fine, by the way).
Insurance covered my car and the medical bills, but because of my leg injury I haven’t
been able to work (I’m a server at Olive Garden) and it’s been really tough on my
finances. Since my mom passed away two years ago and my dad left a long time ago
(sorry for all the detail), I’ve been the one taking care of my sister Kim, who just turned
14. We have enough to cover the basics –I mean, I can put food on the table and pay
bills. But I basically don’t have the money for anything extra for my sister. No going out
with friends, new clothes, anything. It really bothers me especially because Kim’s
birthday is coming up, and for our birthdays we always try to do something a little fun--
nothing crazy, but just something to distract us from having to celebrate it without mom.
I just worry it is going to be a pretty sad birthday. I want to think of something we could
25
do that is fun and distracting, but doesn’t cost anything. I’ve just been feeling so helpless
lately, I haven’t had any good ideas.
Speech Instructions
In your video you should introduce yourself briefly, respond to your partner's problem
expressing warmth and understanding and then give some advice to the other participant
on how to deal with his/her problem. Phrase your suggestions like the kind of advice you
would give to a friend. You can give advice for the other participant to solve a concrete
problem or on how to deal with their feelings about their situation.
Questionnaires Following Speech Task
Batson Empathic Concern and Personal Distress Scale (Batson et al., 1987) & PANAS scale (Watson et al., 1988)
Using the provided scale, please rate how well each of the following emotions describes how you currently feel.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7not at all somewhat extremely
alarmedsympatheticupsetmoveddisturbedcompassionatedistressedtenderperturbedwarmgrieved
26
troubledsoftheartedworriedanxiouscalmconfidentinsecure
Manipulation Check
1 2 3 4 5 6 7not at all somewhat very much
1. While reading the other participant's statement how much did you think about how YOU YOURSELF would feel in the other participant's situation?2. While reading the other participant's statement how much did you think about how THE OTHER PARTICIPANT felt in their situation?3. While reading the other participant's statement how much did you try to remain objective and detached with regard to what happened to the other participant?
Further Items
How much would you say the other participant, your partner in this study, deserves help?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7not at all somewhat extremely
Distancing (modeled after Kross et al., 2014)
How much did you see the event the other participant described in their note through your own eyes versus watching the event unfold as an observer?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7Predominantly predominantly immersed distancedparticipant observer
How far away from the event the other participant described were you when you read his or her statement?
27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
very close very farsaw it saw itthrough as ifmy own eyes an observer
Self-Rated Helping Efficacy
How helpful did you think was your video to the other participant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all somewhat very
helpful helpful helpful
How much do you think you were able to give the other participant good advice?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all somewhat very
muchHow much do you think you were able to give the other participant good advice?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all somewhat very
muchHow would you rate the overall quality of the advice you gave to the other participant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all extremely
good good
How well do you think the other participant will rate you in terms of helpfulness?1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all extremely
good good
28
General Confidence Items
In general how good do you feel you are at providing help to strangers?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all very good good
In general how good do you feel you are at providing help to people you know well?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all very good good
Caring
How much do you care about the welfare of the other participant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all somewhat very
much
How much do you care about the well-being of the other participant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all somewhat very
much
Similarity
How similar would you say you are to the other participant?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all somewhat very
much
Derogation
29
How much do you believe the personal problem the other participant described to you was his or
her own fault?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all somewhat very
much
How much do you believe the personal problem the other participant deserved what happened to
him or her?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all somewhat very
much
How much do you feel the other participant is in need of help?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all somewhat very
much
Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale (Aron et al., 1992)
In the following you will see depictions of circles which overlap to varying degrees. One circle represents you. The other circle represents the other participant, your partner in the study today. Please remember the image that best represents how you feel towards the other participant right now.
Please chose the one which pair of overlapping circles best represents how you feel towards the other participant. Each of the overlapping circles is numbered and you can find the number underneath the circle. When you have made your selection, please memorize the number and then choose it on the following page.
30
Self Partner Self Partner Self Partner
1 2 3
Self Partner Self Partner Self Partner
4 5 6
Self Partner
7
Which of the circles on the page before best describes how you feel towards the other participant, your partner in this study, right now. You may go back if you are unsure which picture best describes your feelings towards the other participant.
1. circles image 12. circles image 23. circles image 34. circles image 45. circles image 56. circles image 67. circles image 7
31
Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form X-1) (Spielberger, 1989)
Please indicate how much you agree with each statement.
1 2 3 4
not at all somewhat moderately very much
I feel calm.I am tense.I feel upset.I am relaxed.I feel content.I am worried.I feel secure.I am regretful. I feel at ease.I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes.I feel rested.I feel anxious.I feel comfortable.I feel self-confident.I feel nervous.I feel jittery.I feel "high strong".I feel over-excited and "rattled".I feel joyful.I feel pleasant.
32
Background Measures
What is your gender? Female Male
How old are you? _______
Which of these choices best describes your current academic year at UB?
FreshmanSophomoreJuniorSeniorOther
Which hand is your dominant hand (i.e., the hand you use most frequently for writing and other
activities requiring dexterity and coordination)? Left Right
What is your ethnic identity? If more than one apply, please select the one with which you
identify most strongly.
African or African AmericanAsian, Pacific Islander, or Asian AmericanEuropean or European American (White)Latino/LatinaArab or Arab AmericanNative American (Eskimo or American Indian)
Which of the following best describes your religious views?
JewishChristian - ProtestantChristian - CatholicChristian - LutheranChristian - Other
33
MuslimHinduAtheistAgnosticOther
How important to you are your religious beliefs?
1 Not at all important234 Neutral567 Very Important
Of which country are you currently a citizen? USA Other
For how many years have you been a fluent English speaker? If you do not consider yourself
fluent at English, please enter "0." (Please be honest - you will receive credit no matter how you
respond to this question.) _________
What language do you speak at home? If multiple languages apply, please choose the one that is
used most frequently.
EnglishSpanishChineseJapaneseKoreanArabicOther
34
Did you have any trouble or problems understanding some of the questions today because you
are not completely fluent in English?
1 no problems at all understanding234567 a lot of problems understanding
35
i
