INFORMATION TO U SE R S

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

W
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
IE
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

EV
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
PR

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerogtaphically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

ProQuest Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 I EW
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 NOTE TO USERS

W
IE
This reproduction is the best copy available.
EV
PR

UMI'

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ][ Temple University
Doctoral D issertation
Subm itted to the G raduate Board

Title o f D issertation:
(Please type)

The Contribution of Empathy to Harmony in Interpersonal Relationships

Author:
(Please type)

Deborah D. Sezov
Date o f Defense:
(Please type)

March 22, 2002

Read and Approved By:(Signatures)

W
Dissertation Examining Committee:(picase type)

Ronald B aenninger__________________
Dissertation Advisory Committee Chairperson

John Frisone
IE
EV
Donald A. Overton

Robert E. Lana____________________
PR

Ralph Rosnow

Monica Greco

Luci Paul
Examining Committee Chairperson If Member of the Dissertation Examining Committee

Date Submitted to Graduate Board:__

Accepted by the Graduate Board of Temple University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of D octor o f Philosophy.
D ate_____________________
tf the Graduate senoolj

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 THE CONTRIBUTION OF EMPATHY TO HARMONY IN INTERPERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS

A Dissertation
Submitted to

W
the Temple University Graduate Board

IE
EV
in Partial Fulfillment
o f the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
PR

by
Deborah Sezov
May, 2002

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 UMI Number: 3057111

Copyright 2002 by
Sezov, Deborah Dawn

W
All rights reserved.

IE
EV

__ ®
PR

UMI
UMI Microform 3057111
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 W
IE by
Deborah D. Sezov
2002
All Rights Reserved
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ABSTRACT

Title: The Contribution o f Empathy to Harmony in Interpersonal Relationships

Candidate's Name: Deborah D. Sezov

Degree: Doctor o f Philosophy

Temple University, 2002

Doctoral Advisoiy Committee Chair: Ronald Baenninger

The modem psychological concept o f empathy is traced to its roots in the 18th

EW
century moral philosophy o f David Hume and Adam Smith as well as in German

aesthetics. After contrasting empathy with sympathy the evolution o f the term "empathy"

through the 20,h century is examined with emphasis on the major schools o f thought o f
I
that time period and the most influential empathy theorists. After a consideration o f the
EV

modem topic of empathy measurement, the importance o f empathy to the promotion o f

positive social interactions and inhibition o f antisocial behavior as well as its importance
PR

in the proper treatment o f animals are discussed. From this literature it is apparent that

while strong theoretical support has been accompanied by empirical evidence for the

importance of empathy to harmony in the interpersonal relationships o f adults and older

children this same relationship has not been found in young children. A new picture/story

empathy measure (The Empathy Measure for Preschoolers), which attempts to avoid

some of the pitfalls of previous measures, was developed. Scores on this measure were

compared with preschool children's scores on a measure o f their social skills and problem

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 behavior. Empathy scores, as measured by the Empathy Measure for Preschoolers (EMP),

were found to be positively related to social skills-and negatively related to problem

behavior. In addition, an inventory of children's bond to their pets was developed. Scores

on the Pet Bonding Scale (PBS) were not predictive of empathy or o f quality of

interaction with a live rabbit. However, the quality o f interaction with the rabbit, pet

ownership, and length of pet ownership were postively related to empathy. The Pet

Bonding Scale appeared to be susceptible to social desirability and halo effect

confounding in part due to lack o f camouflaging the intent o f the questions. The Empathy

Measure for Preschoolers needs additional testing to assure its validity and reliability.

W
However, based on the results o f this study, empathy as assessed by the EMP was

predictive o f harmonious social behavior, which is in accordance with the majority of

theoretical evidence.
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to the members o f my advisory committee, Ronald Baenninger,

Luci Paul, and Ralph Rosnow, for their long-standing support, constructive comments,

and insightful guidance at all stages o f this research project. I also wish to thank the

members of my dissertation examining committee, Monica Greco, John Frisone, Robert

Lana, and Donald Overton, for their helpful advice and encouragement.

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Richard Sezov, Jr., and my parents,

George and Ruth Kostas, with much gratitude for their constant long-suffering support,

patience, wise counsel, and for their prayers on my behalf - without which this project

W
could never have been completed.

O f course, the importance o f empathy was known long before this dissertation and
IE
the other works discussed in it. The Biblical mandate to empathize predates it all and was

the impetus behind my interest in this topic.

EV

Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be o f the same mind

toward one another. — Romans 12:15-16a.

PR

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1
The Development of the Concept o f Empathy............................................................................................... 1
Sympathy................................................................................................................................................... 2
David Hume.........................................................................................................................................2
Adam Smith......................................................................................................................................... 8
Herbert Spencer................................................................................................................................. 14
William McDougall........................................................................................................................... 19
Empathy................................................................. .................................................................................20
E. B. Titchener...................................................................................................................................25

W
Wolfgang Kdhler............................................................................................................................... 28
George Herbert Mead.......................................... 30
Distinguishing Between Sympathy and Empathy........................................................................... 32
June Downey......................................................................................................................................42
G. W. Allport..................................................................................................................................... 44
IE
The Phenomenological Perspective......................................... 48
The Psychoanalytic Perspective........................................................................................................51
The Humanistic Perspective..............................................................................................................56
The Behavior Analytic Perspective.................................................................................................. 59
EV
Definitional Considerations.............................................................................................................. 67
Jean Piaget......................................................................................................................................... 75
The 1950s and 1960s.........................................................................................................................80
The 1970s...........................................................................................................................................86
The 1980s......................................................................................................................................... 102
The 1990s........................................................................................................................................ 134
PR

The Measurement of Empathy................................................................................................................... 168

Picture/Story Methods ......................................................................................................................... 168
Questionnaire Methods..........................................................................................................................179
Physiological Methods...........................................................................................................................183
Experimental Inductions........................................................................................................................186
Relation of Empathy to Prosocial Behavior, SocialSkills and Problem Behavior in Children...............189
Motivations Underlying Altruism and HelpingBehavior.................................................................... 189
Models o f the Pathway from Empathy to Helping Behavior..............................................................192
Reduction o f Aversive Arousal Model...........................................................................................193
Hoffman’s Model o f Empathic Distress......................................................................................... 194
Negative State Relief Model ..........................................................................................................197
Batson's "True" Altruistic Motivation M odel............................................................................... 200
Empathy and Prosocial Behavior in Children..................................................................................... 206
Picture/Story Methods..................................................................................................................... 208

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Questionnaire Methods ....................... ............ -....... ...209
Somatic Methods.............................................................................................................................. 211
Physiological Methods.......................... .213
Experimental Inductions.............:........ .-.......214
Empathy and Social Skills in Children................................................................................................. 220
Empathy and Problem Behavior in Children........................................................................................224
The Relation of Empathy to Treatment o f Animals. ..................... 237
The Human-Animal Bond.....................................................................................................................237
The Benefits o f Animals on Humans' Health..................................................................................... .242
Benefits to Children's Emotional Development............................................................................ 242
Benefits to Physical Health................................................... 243
The Mechanism o f these Benefits.................................................................................................. 245
Pets as Therapists................................................................................................................................... 248
The Relationship Between Cruelty to Animals and Cruelty to Humans........................................... .252
The Relationship between Empathy for Animals and Empathy for Humans in Children.................258
Rationale....................................................................................................................................................... 267
Assessing the Relationship Between Empathy and Harmonyin Interpersonal Relationships........... 267

W
Age o f Children to be Studied........................................................................................................ 267
Measuring Empathy in Preschoolers..............................................................................................268
A New Empathy Measure for Preschoolers...................................................................................270
Hypotheses....................................................................................................................................... 215
IE
Studying Empathy in Relation to Owning Companion Animals........................................................ 278
Development of The Pet-Bonding Scale........................................................................................ 279
Hypotheses........................................................................................................................................ 282
2. METHOD....................................................................................................................................................... 285
EV
Subjects......................................................................................................................................................... 285
Materials and Measures............................................................................................................................... 287
Procedure......................................................................................................................................................:291
3. RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................................295
PR

Descriptive Statistics....................................................................................................................................295
Hypotheses.................................................................................................................................................... 307
Additional Analyses.................................................................................................................................... 317
The Relationship between Age and SSIand EMP..Scores................................................................. 317
Pet Ownership and Empathy..................................................................................................................318
Petting Quality and Empathy Scores.................................................................................................... 320
Hypothesis 1..................................................................................................................................................324
Hypotheses 2 and..3..................................................................................................................................... 328
Hypothesis 4..................................................................................................................................................330
Hypotheses 5 and..6..................................................................................................................................... 332
Additional Analyses.................................................................................................................................... 333
The Relationship Between Age and SSIand EMP Scores.................................................................333
Pet Ownership and Empathy..................................................................................................................334
Petting Quality and Empathy Scores....................................................................................................335

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Conclusions...................................................................... ;..................................... 336
REFERENCES CITED...................................................................................................................................... 340
APPENDIXES
A. THE EMPATHY MEASURE FOR PRESCHOOLERS............................................................................ 362
B. COUNTERBALANCING THE EMPATHY MEASURE FOR PRESCHOOLERS................................364
C. THE PET BONDING SCALE......................................................................................................................365
D. INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG EMP VARIABLES..........................................................................367
E. TABLES OF CORRELATIONS WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED P- VALUES
AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS.................................................................................................................368

W
IE
EV
PR

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF TABLES -
Page
The Age of Children in the Study................................................................................................................... .286
Means and Standard Deviations for the EMP................................................................................................. 296
Means and Standard Deviations for the SSL...................................................................................................297
Means and Standard Deviations for the Externalizing and Internalizing Subscales of the SSI................... 298
Intercorrelations among SSI Variables........................................... 1............................................................... 298
Intercorrelations Among the Externalizing and Internalizing Components o f the Problem
Behavior Scores as Rated by Parents and Teachers ......................... 299
Means and Standard Deviations for the PBS.................................................................................................. 300
Intercorrelations and p values among PBS variables............................... *.................... 301
Means and Standard Deviations for the Measures o f Interaction with the Rabbit........................................303
Interrater Reliability and Effective Reliability for Raters A & B and A & C for each
score o f 0,1, or 2 assigned while observing the children's petting behavior................................................. 305
Interrater and Effective Reliability for Raters A & B and A & C for the Final Petting Quality Scores
Assigned to each C hild.................................................................................. 305
Type and Total Number of Pets Owned......................................................................................................... 306
The Relationship o f Empathy to Problem Behavior Scores.......................................................................... 308
The Relationship o f Empathy to Externalizing Problem Behavior Scores................................................... 309
The Relationship o f Empathy to Social Skills Scores................................................................................... 311
The Relationship between scores on the EMP and scores on the PBS as well as the
Relationship between Parent- and Teacher-rated Social Skills and Problem Behavior

W
(as assessed by the Social Skills Inventory (SSI)) and the PBSl.................................................................... 311
Relationship between the PBS, Focus Score, Petting Style Score, and Motivation to See the Rabbit 316
The Relationship between Age, the EMP, and SSL....................................................................................... 317
The Relationship between EMP scores and Pet Ownership!.......................................................................... 319
IE
The Relationship between EMP Scores and the Length of Time the Children have Owned Pets...............320
The Relationship between EMP Scores and Petting Quality Scores............................................................. 321
Addendum to Table 13: The Relationship o f EMP Scores to Problem Behavior Scores........................... 368
Addendum to Table 14: The Relationship o f Empathy to Externalizing Problem Behavior Scores.......... 369
EV
Addendum to Table 15: The Relationship of EMP Scores to Social Skills Scores.....................................369
Addendum to Table 18: The Relationship between Age, the EMP, and SSL...............................................370
Addendum to Table 19: The Relationship between EMP scores and Pet Ownership.................................371
Addendum to Table 20: The Relationship between EMP Scores and the Length o f Time
the Children have Owned Pets........................................................................................................................ 371
Addendum to Table 21: The Relationship Between EMP Scores and Petting Quality.................................372
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Davis’s Organizational Model of Empathy as he Diagrammed it (1996, p* 13),......... ...............— .......157
Mean Problem Behavior and Social Skills Scores Compared with Mean EMP Score................................. 313
The mean EMP Score compared with the mean Petting Quality Scores ................ 323

W
IE
EV
PR

xi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
The Development o f the Concept o f Empathy

Empathy, defined broadly as knowing the consciousness o f another, is an

important concept in both philosophy and psychology. For philosophers, the problem o f

the other's subjective experience is arguably second only to the mind-body problem

(Ickes, 1997). Jose Ortega y Gasset has summarized this problem well. He writes,

Here is the immense paradox: that with the being o f others, there appear in
my world worlds alien to me as such, worlds that present themselves to me
as unpresentable, that are accessible to me as inaccessible, that become
patent as essentially latent. (Ortega y Gasset, 1957, as cited in Ickes, 1997)

W
Philosophers and psychologists from widely varied perspectives have been concerned
IE
with resolving this problem o f the paradox between "the indeterminate, ever-elusive

nature of the Other's subjective experience when the Other is immanently present" (Ickes,
EV
1997, p. 1).

Although it is inappropriate in the present context to exhaustively trace the

modem conceptions o f empathy back to their roots in philosophy and theology, it is

PR

instructive to review the theories o f two philosophers o f note who have been especially

influential in laying the groundwork for present research in empathy: David Hume and

Adam Smith. Their observations, theories, and conceptualizations o f empathy are echoed

in modem psychology. In the brief synopsis o f their theories that follows are many

concepts that will be returned to later in this dissertation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Sympathy

. The word "empathy" did not exist in the 19* century. So, Hume and Smith used

its close approximate, "sympathy." The English word "sympathy" was derived from the

Greek sympatheia or the Latin sympathiaand literally means "with" (syn) "suffering"

(pathos) (Wispe, 1986). In common parlance today sympathy is used to refer to a feeling

of sadness fo r another person. Hume used the word sympathy to refer to feeling hatred,

resentment, esteem, love, courage, mirth, cheer, and melancholy with another person. He

defined sympathy as entering "into the sentiments o f others" (Hume, 1739/1896, p. 318).

For Hume, sympathy was a principle o f communication (Hume, 1739/2000). Smith, on

W
the other hand, redefined the word sympathy to refer to feeling any emotion whatsoever

with another person.

IE
Hume and Smith were close friends and traveling companions (Hume, 1740/1965;

Hume, 1748/1993) who were clearly influenced by discussions with each other. In fact,
EV
Smith seems to build on Hume's ideas, yielding a more satisfying theory of sympathy. As

Wispe (1986) puts it, "The concept of sympathy was important in Hume's system, but it
PR

was the cynosure o f Smith's" (p. 314). Hume and Smith did not agree about the nature of

sympathy or hold the same view about its relation to moral value (Ardal, 1966). M ost of

their arguments are included in their original words to preserve the language o f the time

period and to give the reader the best possible sense o f their arguments.

David Hume

In "[a]n attempt to introduce the experimental method o f reasoning into moral

subjects" the British empiricist David Hume wrote A Treatise o f Human Nature in 1739.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 In his autobiography, My Own Life, Hume writes that the Treatise "fell dead-bomfrom

the press without reaching such distinction, as even to excite a murmur among the

zealots" (1748/1993, p. 4-5). However, by the end o f his life it was received with much

more acclaim. In fact, Hume may be the first person to have earned a comfortable living

through the sale o f his books (Hume, 1748/1993). Contained in Book II ("Of the

Passions") o f this Treatise is Hume's exposition on sympathy. Sympathy is so integral to

Hume's explanation o f morality that Ardal (1966) writes, "It can be most emphatically

stated that it is impossible to give a satisfactory account o f Hume's views on the nature o f

evaluation in the Treatise without introducing the principle o f sympathy" (p. 41).

W
Hume attached great importance to the concept o f sympathy. He writes,

No quality of human nature is more remarkable, both in itself and in its

IE
consequences, than that propensity we have to sympathize with others, and
to receive by communication their inclinations and sentiment, however
different from, or even contrary to our own. (Hume, 1739/1896, p. 316)
EV
Hume ascribes to sympathy the tendency for people living in a particular nation to

have opinions and sensibilities more similar to their own countrymen than those o f
PR

another country. Hume writes, " 'tis much more probable, that this resemblance arises

from sympathy, than from any influence o f the soil and climate, which, tho' they continue

invariably the same, are not able to preserve the character o f a nation the same for a

century together" (1739/1896, p. 317). Hume supports this assertion by reasoning that "a

good-natur'd man finds himself in an instant of the same humour with his company; and

even the proudest and most surly take a tincture from their countrymen and

acquaintances." (1739/1896, p. 317).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Hume wrote that sympathy occurs through the conversion o f an idea into an

impression (1739/1896). In the present context it would be.distracting to review the basic

tenets of empiricists of the 18th century, but it may be helpful to briefly explain that Hume

considered all o f the perceptions o f the human mind to be either impressions (feelings) or

ideas (thinking). Under impressions Hume lists sensations, passions, and emotions "as

they make their first appearance in the soul" (1739/1896, p. 1). Hume defines ideas as

"faint images of these [impressions] in thinking and reasoning; such as, for instance, are

all the perceptions excited by the present discourse, excepting only, those which arise

from the sight and touch, and excepting the immediate pleasure or uneasiness it may

W
occasion" (1739/1896, p. 1). By stating that sympathy is a conversion o f an idea into an

impression, Hume is asserting that before one is able to feel the emotion of another, one
IE
must first infer what the other is feeling.

Since we cannot directly observe other's emotions, they are communicated to us,
EV
according to Hume, through the external effects o f the emotion in either the expression or

speech of the other person (Ardal, 1966). From the observation o f this often involuntary
PR

affect of the other person, a belief or knowledge (an idea) that the other is experiencing

an emotion is formed. The idea o f another person's emotions "acquires such a degree of

force and vivacity, as to become the very passion itself, and produce an equal emotion, as

any original affection" (Hume, 1739/1896, p. 317).' Under these circumstances the idea

1 This enlivening o f the idea through the related impression presupposes that the
difference between an idea and an impression is only force or vivacity. Thus, "there is no
difference in principle between the thought of pain and real pain; the thought of pain may
become real pain if its force or liveliness is somehow increased" (Ardal. 1966. p. 43).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 takes on the force o f an impression, and the observer is able to fe d the emotion o f the’

target individual. -

Hume alludes to the importance o f "certain views and reflections" that precede

sympathy which may only be evident to the trained philosopher. Although he does not

explain what he means by these views and reflections Hume writes that similarity is

important to the experience o f sympathy. "Accordingly we find, that where, beside the

general resemblance o f our natures, there is any peculiar similarity in our manners, or

character, or country, or language, it facilitates the sympathy" (Hume, 1739/1896, p. 318).

Hume's argument here is that people are able to have greater sympathy with those who are

W
most similar to themselves because they are able to have more effective communication

with them than with dissimilar people (1739/2000). Modem empirical research does
IE
support this claim that similarity facilitates empathy (Batson, et al., 1991; Davis, 1996;

Feshbach, 1975, 1978; Feshbach & Roe, 1968; Hoffman, 1982a; Mehrabian & Epstein,
EV
1972; Stotland, 1969).

Hume argues that the judgments o f other people are able to influence us through
PR

sympathy. We are able to ascertain their opinions through sympathy and then consider

whether or not we agree with them through reasoning. From this point Hume explains,

"These two principles o f authority and sympathy influence almost all our opinions; but

must have a peculiar influence, when we judge of our own worth and character"

(1739/1896, p. 321). But, according to Hume, passion is always involved in matters o f

our own worth and character, reducing the effect o f reason and leaving only sympathy,

with regard to our assessment of the opinions o f others about us. It is through this

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 reasoning that Hume explains why humans are so affected by what others think o f them -

more so than by other's opinions on other matters in which reason tempers sympathy.

Oxford's annotations to Hume's Treatise provides a helpful explanation o f this somewhat

complex theory.

Those who praise another are themselves experiencing the passion o f love
or esteem. The external signs o f this passion convey an idea o f it to the
person praised. She who is praised then converts that idea of esteem into
an impression o f pleasure while at the same time she has new grounds for
entertaining the idea o f herself (the praise is praise o f her). (Hume,
1739/2000, p. 501)

The source o f praise or contempt is integral to the importance placed on the other

EW
person's opinion. The opinions o f others who are similar to oneself or whom one would

emulate, carry more weight because of the common sympathy that is more easily

communicated through the agreement between the parties. This is the argument Hume
I
used to explain the source o f pleasure from praise, the love o f fame, and mortification felt
EV
over contempt from others. In anticipation o f objections from others to his argument "that

the pleasure, which we receive from praise, arises from a communication o f sentiments"
PR

(1739/1896, p. 324) he offers the following reasoning.

Popular fame may be agreeable even to a man who despises the vulgar; but
'tis because their multitude gives them additional weight and authority.. . .
Proud men are most shock'd with contempt, tho' they do not most readily
assent to it; but 'tis because o f the opposition betwixt the passion, which is
natural to them, and that receiv'd by sympathy. (Hume 1739/1896, p. 324)

In an interesting point rarely addressed in modem psychological literature, Hume

describes how sympathy from others can contribute to embarrassment and discomfort.

Hume describes the difference between being humiliated among those we know and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 among strangers. He explains that if a "gentleman" lives like a pauper among strangers,

his abasement is known only in his own thoughts and is thus not as distressing to him as

it would be if-he were living among his own countrymen and would receive "disagreeable

reflexion and comparison . . . by a sympathy with others" (Hume, 1739/1896, p. 324).

This connection between empathy and discomfort as well as the importance o f empathy

in the love o f fame are concepts that are still relatively untouched in empirical research.

This concern for other's opinions o f oneself communicated through sympathy is

what enables people to survey themselves as they appear to others and to disapprove o f

qualities which might selfishly benefit themselves. Hume writes, "either surveying

EW
ourselves as we appear to others, or considering others as they feel themselves, we enter,

by that means, into sentiments, which no way belong to us, and in which nothing but

sympathy is able to interest us" (1739/1896, p. 589).2 Hume asserts that without sympathy
I
humans would not care about society but only for themselves. He attributes to sympathy
EV
the uneasiness felt when hearing of injustice suffered by others, and he thought sympathy

combined with the opinion o f others is what makes humans regard their own unjust acts
PR

as vicious. Hume does acknowledge the role o f self-interest injustice, but emphasizes the

importance o f sympathy to the opinion one holds o f ones own actions. "Thus self-interest

is the original motive to the establishment o f justice: but a sympathy with public interest

is the source o f the moral approbation, which attends that virtue" (Hume, 1739/1896, p.

499-500). Hume thought sympathy was the source o f pity and compassion.

2 The language Hume uses here o f entering into the sentiments o f others will be
important in later discussions of the differences between empathy and sympathy and in
the etiology o f the word empathy.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.