Empatia Whit Animal and With Humans Are Linken

8/13/2019 Empatia Whit Animal and With Humans Are Linken

1/9

194 ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000 Paul

INTRODUCTIONmpathy or emotional empathy isdefined by most social psychologiststoday as a vicarious emotionalresponse to anothers emotions or

states, and is regarded as distinct from perspec-tive taking, which involves the cognitive com-prehension of anothers thoughts or feelings(Eisenberg 1995). The idea that the capacity foremotional empathy motivates or mediates altru-istic and helping behavior (e.g. see Blum 1980;Batson and Coke 1981; Hoffman 1981) hasled to considerable research attention beingfocused on the origins and sources of variationin peoples empathic responding (e.g. Koestner,Franz and Weinberger 1990; Eisenberg et al.1993; Fabes et al. 1994; Miller and opdeHaar1997). Also, largely because of this researchfocus, studies of the nature of empathy have forsome time attended almost exclusively to peo-

ples tendencies to empathize with other human

beings, despite the fact that the notion of empa-thy originated within the non-human context ofbeing able to feel oneself into an object of artsuch as a painting or sculpture (Wisp 1987).Yet within this human-oriented tradition thereappears to have been a popular, implicitassumption that emotional empathy is a broad-ly-based trait, with a persons capacity for empa-thy being expected to be generally stable (e.g.see Rushton et al. 1986), regardless of the typeof target which elicits it (although for examplesof exceptions to this see Holzebeling andSteinmetz 1994; Batson et al. 1996).Emotional empathy has been regarded as sobroadly applicable, in fact, it has been consid-ered to apply equivalently to human and animaltargets (Eisenberg 1988). Thus, measures ofemotional empathy such as those designed byBryant (1982) and Mehrabian and Epstein(1972) have incorporated the assumption thathighly empathic individuals will be very empath-ic with animals as well as people, and unem-pathic individuals will likewise be unempathicwith animals and people (see also Eisenberg etal. 1992). However, this idea has been subjectedto no empirical investigation, beyond basic inter-nal reliability tests of the measures concerned.

Recent growing research interest in thenature of peoples relationships with, and atti-

REVIEWS & RESEARCH REPORTS

Present address and address for correspondenceand requests for reprints: Dr E. Paul, Division ofAnimal Health and Husbandry, Department ofClinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol,Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU,UK Ph: (0117) 928 9355; fax: (0117) 928 9582;e-mail: [email protected]

E

EMPATHY WITH ANIMALS AND WITH HUMANS:ARE THEY LINKED?

Elizabeth S. Paul

Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, UK

ABSTRACT A sample of 514 adults completed a postal questionnaire measuring both their empathy withhumans (using the Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) Questionnaire for the Measurement of Emotional Empathy) and their empathy with non-human animals (using the Animal EmpathyScale, developed for this study). There was a significant, but modest correlation between thetwo scales ( Kendalls tau=0.26, p


2/9

Paul ANTHROZOS, 13(4), 2000 195

tudes towards, animals has led to the suggestionthat this presumed link between human-orientedand animal-oriented empathy needs to be ques-tioned and reconsidered (Arluke and Sax 1992).There has been a long-standing belief amongstmoral philosophers that compassion for animalsand people are positively associated (seeThomas 1983; Serpell and Paul 1994; Paul2000). Likewise, the notion that people whoare cruel to animals might also be a danger tohumans, has a long historical pedigree (Serpell1996). Much of public opinion seems to concurwith that of empathy researchers, that someonewho is empathic and caring in their views of ani-mals is likely to have similar sentiments towardspeople (Lockwood 1983; Messent 1983;Rossbach and Wilson 1992). But despite this,animal rights and welfare supporters are not

infrequently criticized for caring too much aboutanimals and not enough about people (Paul1995). Extreme counter examples of the sup-posed link between empathy with animals andempathy with people also call these popularassumptions regarding the generalizability ofempathy into question. For example, there arethe militant animal rights activists who havethreatened and injured people in pursuit of theircause (Paton 1993), and Hitler and some of hisfellow Nazis, who clearly had little regard forhuman rights and dignity, but were vegetarians,purported pet lovers and proponents of animalwelfare legislation (Arluke and Sax 1992; Arlukeand Sanders 1996). Such apparent anomalieshave prompted the need for psychologists toreconsider the accuracy of the presumed broadnature of the empathy construct. Perhaps theexamples, cited above, of Nazis and militant ani-mal rights activists represent instances of specificemotional pathologies, of people whoseempathic mechanisms are simply not function-ing in a way that is contiguous with those of thebroader population (e.g. see Blair et al. 1996;Blair et al. 1997; Intrator et al. 1997). If so,these cases could be simply regarded as anom-alous, and not to be extrapolated to make con-clusions about the broader nature of normalempathy. On the other hand, if they are in factextreme examples of a wider discontinuitybetween human- and animal-oriented empathy,

fresh conclusions may have to be drawn, notonly concerning the nature of peoples attitudestowards animals, but also regarding the pre-sumed broad applicability and universality of theempathic mechanism itself.

The aim of the present study was to testthe assumption that human-oriented and ani-mal-oriented empathy are linked; that they rep-

resent facets of the same, broadly continuousconstruct. The first question to be asked con-cerns whether or not levels of human-orientedand animal-oriented empathy are correlated. Ifthey are highly correlated, measures of eachmay well be tapping the same basic mechanismor device. If they are not, we must concludethat they represent wholly or partly indepen-dent psychological processes. The second ques-tion to be asked concerns whether or nothuman- and animal-oriented empathy have thesame likely sources of variation. If they operatevia a single mechanism, higher and lower levelsof empathic responding to both human andanimal targets should be expected to be pre-dicted by the same demographic and develop-mental factors. But if they functionindependently, each is likely to have its own,

perhaps very different sources of variation.A postal survey was used to investigatethese two sets of questions. A questionnairewas designed to obtain self-report measures ofboth human-oriented emotional empathy (usinga modified version of the Mehrabian andEpstein (1972 ) Questionnaire for theMeasurement of Emotional Empathy) and ani-mal-oriented emotional empathy (using theAnimal Empathy Scale, developed for thisstudy), as well as demographic and backgrounddevelopmental details which might representsources of variation in empathic responding.Methods were employed which would yield asample of respondents as representative aspossible of the general local population.

METHODSQuestionnaireThe first page of the questionnaire was used to

ascertain background information about theparticipants, which could be relevant in deter-mining their levels of empathy with either ani-mals or humans. Past and present ownershipof pets is known to be associated with greaterconcerns about the treatment and welfare ofanimals (Paul and Serpell 1993), so it mightalso be associated with higher levels of empa-thy with animals. Similarly, human-orientedempathy could be hypothesized to be related toexperiences of marriage and child-rearing, as itis thought to play an important role in suchrelationships (Wiesenfeld, Whitman andMalatesta 1984; Levenson and Ruef 1992).Therefore, in addition to basic demographicinformation, questions concerning both child-hood and present ownership of pets, currentmarital status, and present child-rearing status


3/9


were asked. The second and third pages of thequestionnaire contained the Animal EmpathyScale (designed for the purposes of this study -see below) and the Questionnaire for theMeasurement of Emotional Empathy(Mehrabian and Epstein 1972), with the orderof these two scales being assigned randomlyacross the sample. Participants responses toboth empathy measures were recorded using9-point Likert -type response scales, rangingfrom Agree very strongly to Disagree verystrongly. Higher scores represented higher lev-els of self-reported empathy.

Questionnaire for the Measurementof Emotional EmpathyThe Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) scale wasoriginally developed to measure variation in

peoples capacities for vicarious emotionalresponsiveness to witnessing the emotion ofanother, and thereby probably measures a vari-ety of closely related responses including sym-pathy, personal distress and emotionalcontagion. As such it represents a broadlydefined, self-report measure of emotionalempathy. Although predominantly designed togauge human-oriented empathy, two of thestatements within the scale concern animal tar-gets of empathy. For the purposes of the pre-sent study, these two items were excluded fromthe questionnaire, leaving a total of 31 remain-ing items. In addition, the wording of some ofthe statements were anglicized in order to makethem more applicable to a British sample ofrespondents (e.g. movies changed to films).

The Animal Empathy ScaleThe initial design of the animal empathy scalewas based on the Mehrabian and Epstein

(1972) Questionnaire Measure of EmotionalEmpathy. Two of the items in that scale alreadyconcerned empathy with animals, so thesewere included unaltered. Wherever possible,the other items from Mehrabian and Epstein(1972) scale were restructured and reworded inorder to pertain to familiar animals (e.g. pets,wild birds) instead of the original human empa-thy targets. In addition, further, original itemswere developed, based on statements that hadarisen during a series of informal interviewswith students and members of the public con-cerning their feelings about animals and theirtreatment. By these means, a total of 22 itemswere produced (see Appendix 1 for full scale).Of these, 11 represented unempathic senti-ments and 11 represented empathic senti-ments. As in the original Mehrabian andEpstein (1972) scale, the majority of items

emphasized negative events and emotions (e.g.Seeing animals in pain upsets me).Responses to each item were requested using anine-point Likert-type scale, and a scoring sys-tem was used which allocated higher scores formore empathic responses.

The scale was piloted using a sample of75 (53 female, 22 male) third-year undergradu-ate psychology students. They completed aquestionnaire incorporating the scale during acomparative psychology course in the winter of1995. Their ages ranged between 19 and 27years, with a mean age of 21 years. All partici-pants fully completed the scale. Cronbachalpha analyses revealed that the scale had goodlevels of internal reliability ( =0.78).

Participants and ProcedureThe names and addresses of the residents of sixpolling districts of the administrative region ofLothian, Scotland, were obtained from LothianRegional Council. Four of the districts werewithin the city of Edinburgh, and two were fromthe surrounding countryside. In total, the six dis-tricts were chosen to be broadly representativeof the socio-economic distribution of urban, sub-urban and rural Lothian. By randomly selectinga name from every fourth household (alternatelymale and female where more than one personwas registered at a single residence), a sample of907 names were selected to be sent a question-naire. To achieve a maximum response rate,potential participants who had not returnedtheir questionnaire two weeks after the initialmailing were sent a reminder and a duplicatequestionnaire. Two weeks later again, continu-ing non-respondents were sent a secondreminder. Because of the potentially sensitivenature of the subject matter, the questionnairewas designed to be completed entirely confiden-tially, with code numbering being used to identi-fy people who had and had not responded tothe initial mailings (names and addresses werenever added to questionnaires nor data files).

RESULTSParticipantsOf the 526 questionnaires returned, 497 werecomplete and usable in analyses, representing afinal response level of 55%. However, given thatat the time of questionnaire distribution, thepolling lists were due to be updated, LothianRegional Council estimated that at least1520% of the selected names would in facthave no longer been resident (due to relocationor death). Thus, the actual response level wasprobably closer to 6468%.


4/9


Fifty-six per cent of the respondentswere female and 44% were male. Their agesranged from 18 years to 99 years (mean age49.5 years). Comparison with census figuresfor demographic distributions within Lothian(General Register Office for Scotland 1991)indicated that the sample was acceptably rep-resentative of the region for age, sex, employ-ment status and socio-economic status.

Correlations between animal-orientedempathy and human-oriented empathyFor the entire sample, non-parametric, Kendallcorrelation analyses revealed that animal-ori-ented and human-oriented empathy scoreswere significantly positively correlated, albeit ata relatively low level (Kendalls tau=0.26,

p


5/9


nor in their animal-oriented empathy(U =14765.5, ns; females only U =4842.5, ns;males only U =2510.0, ns). Similarly, socio-economic status (a,b,c1 vs. c2,d,e) had no dis-cernible association with eitherhuman-oriented empathy ( U =14920.5, ns;females only U =2786.0, ns; males onlyU =2595.0, ns) or animal-oriented empathy(U =11635.0, ns; females only U =2865.5, ns;males only U =2471.5, ns.). Respondents whocurrently had a child or children living at home

with them scored significantly higher on thehuman-oriented empathy scale than thosewho did not ( U =21020.5, p


6/9


DISCUSSIONThe popular belief that empathy or emotionalconcern for people and animals are strongly

linked dates back considerably further than 20thcentury empathy research (see Thomas 1983;Serpell and Paul 1994, for historical reviews).But the findings of this study do not offerunequivocal support for the notion that human-and animal-oriented empathy represent facetsof a single, broadly continuous construct.

The first question addressed by thisresearch was whether or not levels of human-oriented and animal-oriented emotional empa-thy are correlated. It was found that there wasa small but significant degree of linkagebetween participants self-reported scores onhuman-oriented and animal-oriented emotion-al empathy. Moreover, this link remainedwhen male and female respondents scoreswere assessed independently, so the findingdid not simply represent a confound based onsystematic malefemale differences in respons-es to each type of scale.

The second question that was addressed

was whether or not human-oriented and ani-mal-oriented empathy have the same potentialsources of variation. Demographic and develop-mental factors which could be hypothesized toinfluence levels of either or both types of empa-thy were assessed for their degree of associationwith each. The analyses indicated that while thefactors of age and sex were similarly related to

both human-oriented and animal-orientedempathy (females and younger participantsshowing significantly higher levels of each),childhood and current pet ownership, and thecurrent presence of children in the home, wereindependently related to the two types of empa-thy. Past and present pet owning was associatedwith higher levels of animal-oriented but nothuman-oriented empathy, while child rearingwas associated with higher levels of human-ori-ented but not animal-oriented empathy.

Taken together, the findings that human-oriented and animal-oriented empathy showsmall yet significant correlations, and that somefactors correlate differentially with the two typesof empathy while others correlate equivalently,suggest that human- and animal-oriented emo-tional empathy may best be viewed as consisting

of both shared and non-shared components.Further research, using a variety of methods formeasuring empathy and assessing the possiblelinks between empathic responding to humanand animal targets, will be needed to confirm orrefute this possibility. Nevertheless, at the veryleast, these findings cast doubts on the appropri-ateness of using animal targets in measures ofhuman-oriented empathy (Mehrabian andEpstein 1972; Bryant 1982; Eisenberg et al.1992). They also raise the question of whetherempathy towards different human targets, suchas those of different ages, nationalities or races,and even empathy towards different kinds ofanimal targets, might also show shared andnon-shared components.

Regarding our understanding of thenature of the empathic mechanism itself, thepresent findings cast doubt on the simplenotion that empathy results from a single, uni-versal device which, (while operating at differ-ent levels of intensity in different individuals)responds similarly, within an individual, to dif-ferent types of target. One could speculate thatboth human-oriented and animal-oriented emo-tional empathy may be tapping some underly-ing, dispositional trait for emotional empathy(Eisenberg et al. 1994; Strayer and Roberts1997), which perhaps has its origins in a per-sons early developmental environment(Koestner, Franz and Weinberger 1990;

Eisenberg et al. 1992) or in their genetic make-up (Rushton et al. 1986; Davis, Luce andKraus 1994). The actual level of empathyevoked by a given target in a particular situationmay then be determined by some kind of mod-erator mechanism which acts to either diminish(Hills 1995) or enhance the basic empathicresponse. Alternatively, the present findings are

Figure 7. Box and whisker plots showing the ani-

mal empathy scale scores (measured by the AnimalEmpathy Scale) of participants who did and did nothave a child living at home with them (showingmedians, upper and lower quartiles, and maximumand minimum scores)

150

A N I M A L E M P A

T H Y S C A L E S C O R E

NO CHILD AT HOMECHILD AT HOME

140

130

120

110

100

160

170

180


7/9


also consistent with a simpler, modular explana-tion of empathic mechanisms: that empathywith different targets occurs independently,based on separately functioning devices ormodules. The level of the empathic responsesshown to different types of target may therebyhave quite different developmental and evolu-tionary histories, while the shared componentsof empathic responsiveness to different targetsmight simply represent underlying, individualvariation in emotionality or autonomic reactivi-ty. In both of these two scenarios, factors suchas developmental experience of the target (e.g.pet animals - see Paul and Serpell 1993) orones perceived similarity to the target (Batsonet al. 1996) are likely to have as much or moreinfluence over the degree of empathic reactionexperienced in a given situation than any

broader, trait-like tendency to show higher orlower levels of empathy overall.In the context of peoples attitudes

towards animals, the present findings lend onlypartial support to the popular belief that peo-ple who are friendly or compassionate towardsanimals are also likely to have similar, benignsentiments towards human beings (for review,see Paul 2000). They are also difficult to fullyreconcile with the possibility that people who

develop empathy or compassion towards com-panion animals in childhood can generalizethis into enhanced empathy or compassiontowards humans in later life (Finch 1989;Ascione 1992; Paul and Serpell 1993). Onthe other hand, the proposed possibilities thatempathy is either modular, or that a moderatormechanism determines the actual level of emo-tional empathy elicited by a particular target,are both potentially useful models for develop-ing a better understanding of those apparentlyincongruous individuals who appear to havegreat compassion for animals, yet little con-cern for the well-being of people (Arluke andSax 1992), or, indeed, those who appear to bevery empathic with people, but who show littleor no concern for animals.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe research for this paper was supported bya grant from the Royal Society for thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals. Manythanks go to the participants in the study, whogave their time so willingly, and to AdelmaHills for her comments on the nature of ani-mal-oriented empathy. My thanks also go tothe two anonymous reviewers of this paper,for their valuable and constructive comments.

REFERENCESArluke, A. and Sanders, C. R. 1996. Regarding

Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Arluke, A. and Sax, B. 1992. Understanding

Nazi animal protection and the holocaust. Anthrozos 5: 631.

Ascione, F. R. 1992. Enhancing childrens atti-tudes about the humane treatment of ani-

mals: generalisation to human directedempathy. Anthrozos 5: 176191.Batson, C. D. and Coke, J. S. 1981. Empathy:

A source of altruistic motivation for helping? In Altruism and Helping Behaviour: Social,Personality and DevelopmentalPerspectives, 167187, ed. J. P. Rushton andR. M. Sorrentino. Hillsdale, N.J.: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Batson, C. D., Sympson, S. C., Hindman, J.L., Decruz, P., Todd, R. M., Weeks, J. L.,Jennings, G. and Burris, C. T. 1996. Ivebeen there too - effect on empathy of priorexperience with a need. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin 22: 474482.

Blair, R. J. R., Jones, L., Clark, F. and Smith,M. 1997. The psychopathic individual: Alack of responsiveness to distress cues?Psychophysiology 34: 192198.

Blair, J., Sellars, C., Strickland, I., Clark, F.,Williams, A., Smith, M. and Jones, L. 1996.Theory of mind in the psychopath. Journalof Forensic Psychiatry 7: 1525.

Blum, L. A. 1980. Friendship, Altruism andMorality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bryant, B. K. 1982. An index of empathy forchildren and adolescents. Child Development53: 413425.

Davis, M. H., Luce, C. and Kraus, S. J. 1994.The heritability of characteristics associatedwith dispositional empathy. Journal of Personality 62: 369391.

Eisenberg, N. 1988. Empathy and sympathy. Anthrozos 2: 1517.

Eisenberg, N. 1995. Empathy. In TheBlackwell Encyclopaedia of SocialPsychology , 203208, ed. A. R. Mansteadand M. Hewstone. Oxford: Blackwell.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Speer, A.L., Switzer, G., Karbon, M. and Troyer, D.1993. The relations of empathy-related emo-tions and maternal practices to childrens com-forting behaviour. Journal of ExperimentalChild Psychology 55: 131150.


8/9


Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G. Troyer,D., Speer, A. L., Karbon, M. and Switzer, G.1992. The relations of maternal practicesand characteristics to childrens vicariousemotional responsiveness. ChildDevelopment 63: 583602.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B.,Karbon, M., Maszk, P., Smith, M., Oboyle,C. and Suh, K. 1994. The relations of emo-tionality and regulation to dispositional andsituational empathy-related responding.

Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 66: 776797.

Eisenberg, N. and Lennon, R. 1983. Sex differ-ences in empathy and related capacities.Psychological Bulletin 94: 100131.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Karbon, M., Troyer,D. and Switzer, G. 1994. The relations of

childrens emotion regulation to their vicariousemotional responses and comforting behav-iours. Child Development 65: 16781693.

Finch, P. 1989. Learning from the past. In TheStatus of Animals: Ethics, Education andWelfare, 6472, ed. D. Paterson and P.Palmer. Wallingford: CAB International.

General Register Office for Scotland 1991.Census 1991 Scotland: Report for Scotland.Edinburgh: HMSO.

Hills, A. M. 1993. The motivational bases ofattitudes toward animals. Society and

Animals 1:111128.Hills, A. M. 1995. Empathy and belief in the

mental experience of animals. Anthrozos 8:132142.

Hoffman, M. L. 1981. Is altruism part ofhuman nature? Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 40: 121137.

Holzebeling, F. and Steinmetz, M. 1994.Construction of a situation-oriented question-

naire by an experimental procedure. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie 25: 155169.Intrator, J., Hare, R., Stritzke, P., Brichtswein,

K., Dorfman, D., Harpur, T., Bernstein, D.,Handelsman, L., Schaefer, C. Keilp, J.,Rosen, J., and Machac, J. 1997. A brainimaging (single photon emission comput-erised tomography) study of semantic andaffective processing in psychopaths.Biological Psychiatry 42: 96103.

Koestner, R., Franz, C. and Weinberger, J. 1990.The family origins of empathic concern: A 26year longitudinal study. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 58: 709717.

Lennon, R. and Eisenberg, N. 1987. Genderand age differences in empathy and sympa-thy. In Empathy and its Development ,195217, ed. N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levenson, R. W. and Ruef, A. M. 1992.Empathy: a physiological substrate. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 63:234246.

Lockwood, R. 1983. The influence of animalson social perception. In New Perspectives onOur Lives with Companion Animals ,6471, ed. A. H. Katcher and A. M. Beck.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

Mehrabian, A. and Epstein, N. 1972. A mea-sure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality 4: 525543.

Messent, P. R. 1983. Facilitation of social inter-action by companion animals. In NewPerspectives on Our Lives with Companion

Animals, 3746. ed. A. H. Katcher and A.M. Beck. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.

Miller, P .A. and opdeHaar, M. A. J. 1997.Emotional, cognitive, behavioral and tem-perament characteristics of high-empathychildren. Motivation and Emotion 21:109125.

Paton, W. 1993. Man and Mouse: Animals inMedical Research. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Paul, E. S. 1995. Us and them: scientists andanimal rights campaigners views of the ani-mal experimentation debate. Society and

Animals 3: 122.Paul, E. S. 2000. Love of pets and love of peo-

ple. In Companion Animals and Us:Exploring the Relationships BetweenPeople and Pets, 168186, ed. A. L.Podberscek, E. S. Paul and J. A. Serpell.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paul, E. S. and Serpell, J. A. 1993. Childhoodpet keeping and humane attitudes in youngadulthood. Animal Welfare 2: 321337.

Rossbach, K. A. and Wilson, J. P. 1992. Doesa dogs presence make a person more like-able? Two studies. Anthrozos 5: 4051.

Rushton, J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neale, M. C.,Nias, D. K. B. and Eysenck, H. J. 1986.Altruism and aggression: the heritability ofindividual differences. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 50: 11921198.

Serpell, J. A. 1996. In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-AnimalRelationships. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press

Serpell, J. A. and Paul, E. S. 1994. Pets andthe development of positive attitudes to ani-mals. In Animals and Human Society:Changing Perspectives, 127144. ed. A.Manning and J. Serpell. London: Routledge.


9/9


Strayer, J. and Roberts, W. 1997. Childrenspersonal distance and their empathy: indicesof interpersonal closeness. International

Journal of Behavioural Development 20:385403.

Thomas, K. 1983. Man and the NaturalWorld: Changing Attitudes in England15001800. London: Allen Lane.

Wiesenfeld, A. R., Whitman, P. B. andMalatesta, C. Z. 1984. Individual differencesamong adult women in sensitivity to infants:evidence in support of an empathy concept.

Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 46: 118124.

Wisp, L. 1987. History of the concept ofempathy. In Empathy and its Development ,1737. ed. N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix 1. The Animal Empathy ScalePlease indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements, by drawing a circle aroundthe appropriate number on the agreement disagreement scale. For example, if you think you agree with astatement fairly strongly, you might circle the 2 on the left hand side of the scale:

Agree very strongly Disagree very strongly

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 41. So long as theyre warm and well fed, I dont think zoo animals mind

being kept in cages. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

2. Often cats will meow and pester for food even when they are not really hungry. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

3. It upsets me to see animals being chased and killed by lionsin wildlife programs on TV. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

4. I get annoyed by dogs that howl and bark when they are left alone. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

5. Sad films about animals often leave me with a lump in my throat. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 46. Animals deserve to be told off when theyre not behaving properly. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

7. It makes me sad to see an animal on its own in a cage. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

8. People who cuddle and kiss their pets in public annoy me. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

9. A friendly purring cat almost always cheers me up. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

10. It upsets me when I see helpless old animals. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

11. Dogs sometimes whine and whimper for no real reason. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

12. Many people are over-affectionate towards their pets. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 413. I get very angry when I see animals being ill treated. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

14. It is silly to become too attached to ones pets. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

15. Pets have a great influence on my moods. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

16. Sometimes I am amazed how upset people get when an old pets dies. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

17. I enjoy feeding scraps of food to the birds. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

18. Seeing animals in pain upsets me. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

19. People often make too much of the feelings and sensitivities of animals. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

20. I find it irritating when dogs try to greet me by jumping up and licking me. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

21. I would always try to help if I saw a dog or puppy that seemed to be lost. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

22. I hate to see birds in cages where there is no room for them to fly about. 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

Documents

Empatia Whit Animal and With Humans Are Linken