(PDF) A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour to determine the Altruistic Personality

A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Empathy and Prosocial

Behaviour to determine the Altruistic Personality

HARJINDER KAUR MACKENZIE

AUGUST 2017

(Dissertation submitted in part-fulfilment of the requirements

for the BSc (Hons) Psychology degree)

Acknowledgements

Thank you to all of my lecturers throughout the course. A special thank you to Professor

Mandy Robbins for the invaluable comments and feedback given throughout the research and

writing process, including kind words for the times that I thought it would be impossible to

complete this dissertation. Her guidance has been second to none!

A thank you is also owed to all of my wonderful friends for their moral support and

encouragement to keep me motivated.

Finally, I would also like to thank all of my family for their unconditional love and support,

especially my mum, Jit, and my gorgeous children, Sonia, Amelia and Cameron (whom I owe

some fun days out)!

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between empathy and

prosocial behaviour with the expectation of establishing the altruistic personality,

concomitantly, testing the empathy-altruism theory proposed by Batson, Duncan, Ackerman,

Buckley and Birch (1981). Based on previous literature, it was hypothesised that a

significant positive correlation between empathy and prosocial behaviour would be found.

The study utilised quantitative responses to an online survey. A total of 43 respondents from

Higher Education (H. E.) Institutions in the UK completed the questionnaire by accessing the

HTML link provided through social media platform. Pearson correlation was performed to

evaluate the hypothesised relationships between the variables. Significant positive

relationships were observed between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour (r(41)=.70, p<.001);

Empathy and the HEXACO-60 personality dimensions: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality,

and Openness to experience. No significant relationships were found between Prosocial

Behaviour and HEXACO-60. The data corroborate the empathy-altruism theory and support

the hypothesis for the current study, demonstrating that Empathy influences Prosocial

Behaviour and that Personality impacts Empathy. Implications for these findings and study

limitations are discussed including recommendations for further research.

Keywords: altruism, empathy, prosocial behaviour, empathy-altruism theory,

altruistic-motivation theory, HEXACO, TEQ, PSA

Contents

Title .………………………………………………………………………………….. i

Acknowledgments ..…………………………………………………………………..

Abstract …………....………………………………………………………………….

Contents ………………………………………………………………………………

Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………

Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………………………….

Chapter 2: Altruism …………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 3: Empathy …………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 4: Personality ………………………………………………………………..

Chapter 5: Three Concepts Together ….…………………………………..………….

5.1 Purpose of the Research ………………….…………………………..

Chapter 6: Method …………………………………………………………………....

6.1 Design …………………………………….…………………………..

6.2 Participants …………………………….…………………………….

6.3 Materials/Measures ..............................................................................

6.3.1 Prosocial Behaviour ………...……...…………………………..

6.3.2 Empathy ………….….……………………………………….....

6.3.3 Personality .…………………….……………...………………..

6.4 Procedure ….…………………………….…………………………...

6.5 Ethical Considerations ...………...…………………………………...

6.6 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………...

Chapter 7: Results ……………………………………………………………………

Chapter 8: Discussion / Conclusion …………………………………………...….….

References ……………………………………………………………………………

Appendix A Ethical Approval Correspondence ..………...…………………………..

Appendix B Participant Invitation Email ………………………………………….....

Appendix C Participant Information Sheet …………………………………………..

Appendix D Participant Informed Consent ….………..……………………………...

Appendix E Online Survey comprising HEXACO-60; TEQ; PSA ………………….

iv

ii

iii

iv

v

1

2

5

8

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

25

35

37

38

40

41

Abbreviations

A: Agreeableness

C: Conscientiousness

E: Extraversion

EPQ: Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

FFM: Five-Factor Model

H: Honesty-Humility

HEXACO-PI-R / HEXACO-60: HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised scale

H. E. Higher Education

L: Lie scale

N: Neuroticism

O: Openness to experience

P: Psychoticism

PSA: Prosocialness Scale for Adults’

TEQ: Toronto Empathy Questionnaire

X: eXtraversion

v

1. Introduction

This dissertation presents an empirical analysis of the relationship between Empathy

and Prosocial Behaviour among a sample population of 43 participants from Higher

Education (H. E.) Institutions in the UK. In a world that is increasingly encouraging selfish

acts driven by free-market global economic determinants, altruism is perhaps, a saving grace

and a reprieve for the spirit of human kindness. It is hoped that this valuable facet of the

human condition be cherished and preserved towards a move to better citizenship and

harmonious societies. One renowned example is the philanthropist, Bill Gates, who helps

third world countries. Gates (2010) together with Warren Buffet, initiated ‘The Giving

Pledge’, a charitable organisation encouraging wealthy people of the world to contribute their

wealth to philanthropic causes. A leading anthropologist, Edith Turner (2012), stipulated that

helping individuals through genuine interactions can bring feelings of joy. Altruistic

contributions from people can thus be a measure of comfort for persons experiencing

unsettled times, whilst providing a framework for thinking about well-being in the world

(Stoller, 2016). Stoller claims that supporting each other can bring mutual gratification and

be a tonic for contemporary social life. These insights prompted reflection on the practice of

and influences on altruism. A relationship between empathic concern and altruism dates back

almost three centuries when the basic idea of this theory was first proposed by philosophers’

David Hume (1777) and Adam Smith (1759). However, much debate continues over the

existence of true altruism (Allport, 1960; Batson, 2011; Buss & Craik, 1983; Piliavin &

Charng, 1990). Similarly, each person’s willingness and ability to help another in a given

situation varies from person to person (Batson, Lishner & Stocks, 2015).

This study specifically explores the relationship between empathy and prosocial

behaviour to assess whether the altruistic personality can be realised. Research suggests that

high levels of Empathy are generally shown to be associated with Prosocial Behaviour which

culminates into the altruistic personality. Consequently, a growing body of research verifies

that empathy is a fundamental attribute and key antecedent towards prosocial behaviour

alongside understanding altruistic acts (Batson, 2011; Eisenberg, Miller, Schaller, Fabes,

Fultz, Shell & Shea, 1989; Farside, 2007; Hoffman, 2008). However, there are two schools

of thought when it comes to altruism: the endocentric pseudo-altruistic approach (Hoffman,

1981; Yoeli, Hoffman, Rand & Martin, 2013), and the exocentric altruistic approach (Batson,

Ahmad & Lishner, 2002; Batson, 2011). There has been a long running and still unresolved

debate among researchers about how to properly conceptualise and measure altruistic acts.

Clarifying the

1

strengths and limitations of these approaches will be important to advancing research in this

area. For the purpose of the present study this project focused on true-altruism which

requires a holistic approach that enables one to comprehend and/or distinguish between

sympathy and empathy.

The empathy-altruism theory is being increasingly employed among researchers

towards understanding the phenomena of prosocial acts. Contemporarily, this theory was

proposed by Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley and Birch (1981), and has been

operationalised by a number of different instruments including the Toronto Empathy

Questionnaire (TEQ; Spreng, McKinnon, Mar & Levine, 2009), and Prosocialness Scale for

Adults (PSA; Caprara, Steca, Zelli & Capanna, 2005).

The overall context and chapter outline for the present study is as follows: Chapter 2

provides the reader with historical background vis-à-vis altruism and identifies areas of

controversy in the existing literature. As a consequence this chapter makes a distinction

between the different theories (pseudo-altruism and true-altruism), with particular emphasis

on the conceptualisation of true-altruism pertinent to this study. Chapter 3 discusses empathy

vis-à-vis prosocial behaviour and makes a succinct distinction between empathy and

sympathy through conducting a literature search and review of previous studies concerning

empathy. Chapter 4 clarifies personality traits vis-à-vis the HEXACO Personality Inventory-

Revised scale (HEXACO-PI-R; Ashton & Lee, 2009) and reviews previous studies

concerning altruistic personality traits. Additionally, it provides a succinct conceptualisation

of what constitutes the altruistic personality. Chapter 5 draws the three concepts

(Altruism, Empathy, Personality) together subsequently followed by the rationale and

hypothesis for this study. Chapter 6 provides the reader with the important factors in the

conceptualisation and design of this project, including details regarding the population,

methods and measures used for this study. Chapter 7 provides the reader with the results of

the online survey administered to a H. E. population from the UK. Alphas, means and

standard deviations are reported followed by a correlation matrix between all three variables

provided in table format. Chapter 8 clarifies the findings and develops conclusions

accordingly in relation to earlier research reviewed. It ends with a summary of the report as a

whole and outlines the recommendations made for further research.

2. Altruism

The aim of this chapter is to review pseudo-altruistic and true-altruistic theories with

2

particular emphasis on true-altruism. First, it provides the background to altruism followed

by divergent conceptualisations of altruism. Second, it provides a rationale for the

operationalisation of altruism through the PSA (Caprara et al., 2005).

The word altruism originates from the Latin, alteri, which means other people or

somebody else. It was defined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte, as altruisme for an

antonym of egoism (Comte, 1875; Paul, Miller & Paul, 1993). However, much debate exists

over the definition and existence of true altruism (Allport, 1960; Batson, 2011; Buss & Craik,

1983; Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Recognised as the 'specificity versus generality'

controversy, questions have been raised, primarily, in the area of personality and moral

behaviour (Rushton, Chrisjohn, Fekken, 1981). This is because of the uncertainty behind an

individual’s motivation to help another. Thus, in order to understand the development of

prosocial behaviour and the dynamics of interpersonal interaction, motivation has important

implications. Hence, in recent years, interest in specific conceptualisations of altruism has

grown steadily in social psychological research (Farside, 2007). The most common theories

are the reciprocity norm, social exchange, kin-selection, empathy-altruism hypothesis and

altruistic personality traits (Feigin, Owens & Goodyear-Smith, 2014). To this end, a

distinction between two types of altruism, namely, pseudo-altruistic approach (selfishly

motivated) and altruistic approach (selflessly motivated) follows.

Advocates of Pseudo-altruistic (endocentric) theories postulate that no act of sharing,

helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic (Hoffman, 1981). This is because

they believe the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of self-gratification

(psychological egoism). Trivers (1971) and Yoeli et al. (2013) argue that people only engage

in prosocial behaviour towards others if they consider that those others are likely to

reciprocate, known as reciprocity theory. Similarly, Homans (2016), a key contributor to the

social exchange theory asserts altruism only exists when benefits to the self, outweigh costs

to the self. His early studies investigated social structures, shaped by repeated exchanges and

the ways in which these structures, both coerce and enable actors to exercise power and

influence. In contrast, Fehr and Fischbacher (2003) argue that humans are more altruistic

towards close kin than to distant kin or non kin. This evolutionary theory known as kin-

selection proposes that people help others who are related to them because they want their

genes to survive for future generations. Similarly, Hoffman (2013) used mathematical

simulations to demonstrate that kin-selection is one of the possible fundamental processes,

which affects the evolution of social behaviour. The underlying view of the above theories is

that altruism entails an egotistical

3

motivational state because the end goal tends to be to improve one’s own welfare (Batson,

2008; Dambrun & Ricard, 2011).

Advocates of the altruistic (exocentric) approach consider highest moral quality to be

key (Bar-Tal, 1976; Berkowitz, 1972; Krebs, 1970; Leeds, 1963; Staub, 1978). This concept

specifies that moral concern signifies caring about the welfare of others which can lead to

altruism (Carlo, Koller, Eisenberg, DaSilva & Frohlich, 1996). More importantly, this

approach agrees that altruistic acts: must benefit another person, must be performed

voluntarily and intentionally, the benefit must be the goal itself, and must be performed

without expecting any external reward (Karylowski, 1982). There is evidence to suggest that

children as young as two display a variety of prosocial behaviours, such as sharing, helping

and comforting others (Zahne-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner & Chapman, 1992). These

infants provide support to strangers even when no reward can be expected for helping

(Warneken & Tomasello, 2006).

The fundamental concepts underpinning the altruistic approach are: principled moral

reasoning (Kohlberg, 1976); internalized prosocial values (Staub, 1974); and personal

disposition sometimes called altruistic personality (Oliner & Oliner, 1988). Moreover, the

empathy-altruism hypothesis, also known as the other oriented emotion, asserts that people

are more likely to help others if they feel empathy towards them. Batson et al. (1981)

substantiated the empathy-altruism hypothesis by running a manipulated experiment on

psychology students. Students’ motives to help or not help during two different escape

scenarios (difficult and easy) were scrutinised. As hypothesised high empathy participants

were willing to help, regardless of whether it was difficult or easy to escape. More recent

investigations (Batson, 2011; Batson, Ahmad & Lishner, 2002; Batson, Batson, Slingsby,

Harrell, Peekna & Todd, 1991) provide some evidence to suggest that true altruism actually

exists, and is far more prevalent and powerful than is recognised. So, although individuals

often behave selfishly, there is research suggesting people also have a proclivity to help

others, with the ultimate goal being the recipient’s well-being and no expectation of external

rewards (Batson 2011; Krupp, 2013; Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Consequently, there is focus

on altruistic personality traits which describe a person’s average tendencies (Sherman,

Rauthmann, Brown, Serfass & Jones, 2015).

It can be summarised that psychological altruism is a motivational state, signifying

empathic concern, with the intention to improve another’s welfare, without regard for one’s

own interests (Batson, 2010; Bierhoff, 2002). A picture is beginning to emerge illustrating

that empathy leads to potential prosocial behaviour. Therefore, personality characteristics

such as an inclination to be empathic toward others, or general agreeableness, provide the

building

4

blocks on which true altruism is based (Eisenberg et al., 1989). This classification is of

special interest to the present study, since it considers moral quality to be a dimension on

which altruism is based. Therefore, this research will specifically concentrate on altruism as

a selfless act which benefits others with no expectation of reward.

It is possible to measure altruism via self-report Likert scales (Likert, 1932). Some of

the key scales are: the Self Report Altruism scale (SRA; Rushton et al., 1981) which

measures altruistic traits based on the frequency of helping behaviours; the Helping

Orientation Questionnaire (HOQ; Romer, Gruder & Lizzardo, 1986) which measures four

helping orientations: altruistic, receptive giving, inner sustaining and selfishness; and the

Helping Attitudes Scale (HAS; Nickell, 1998) which measures beliefs, feelings and

behaviours related to helping. Nevertheless, altruistic tendencies in the present study have

been operationalised by PSA (Caprara et al., 2005).

Caprara et al. (2005) employed the PSA among a large sample of 2,574 Italian adults.

They reported good internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficients .91). Caprara and

Steca (2007) employed PSA among a sample of 1,324 Italian adults within a wide-ranging

age group of 20-90 years. They also reported good internal consistency reliability of alpha to

.93. Sachet (2013) employed the PSA among a sample of 60 undergraduate students. She

reported good internal consistency reliability of alpha to .90. Strakatý (2016) employed the

PSA among a sample of 150 volunteer workers from various non-profit volunteer

organisations. He reported good internal consistency reliability of alpha to .89.

Against this background, it is the aim of the present study to assess altruism by

utilising the PSA inventory. The reason for this operationalisation as opposed to the other

scales mentioned above is that this questionnaire is more contemporary and refined in

comparison to the others. The PSA also demonstrates good internal reliability as detailed in

the studies above.

3. Empathy

This chapter explores a number of different definitions of empathy and presents the

definition that will be utilised in this study. First, it discusses the definition of empathy

followed by the important distinction between empathy and sympathy. This chapter also

provides a rationale for the operationalisation of empathy through TEQ (Spreng et al., 2009),

justifying its employment in this study. In order to understand another person’s subjective

experiences one will draw upon a sophisticated set of processes. Although key differences

exist between such processes, the umbrella term often used for these processes is empathy

5

(Farside, 2007). Empathy allows individuals to appreciate the world from another person’s

perspective by sharing the emotional state of that person in distress (Hewstone, Stroebe &

Jonas, 2012). However, there is no uniform definition of empathy because as a construct

there are a number of definitions. For example, some researchers propose that empathy

encompasses only identifying emotion (Ickes, 2003), whereas others postulate that empathy

involves both recognising and indirectly experiencing emotion (Reniers, Corcoran, Drake,

Shryane, & Völlm, 2011). Further, while some researchers theorise sympathy as an element

of empathy resulting in helping behaviours (Håkansson & Montgomery, 2003), others may

conceptualise sympathy as an outward other-oriented benevolent response by merely wishing

for that person to feel better through showing concern or sadness (Eisenberg, Eggum &

Giunta, 2010).

Nevertheless, although empathy is a slippery construct leading to conflicting

viewpoints, it is important to understand the construct of empathy. Eisenberg (2000) defined

empathy as an affective response, which stems from understanding another’s emotional

condition which entails an awareness of what the other person is feeling. Contemporary

theorists suggest there are two main types of empathy: affective and cognitive aspects

(Decety & Jackson, 2006). Affective (emotional) empathy is conceptualised as the ability to

be sensitive to and vicariously experience the feelings of others (Naybar, 2008; Reniers et al.,

2011). While cognitive empathy, also known as theory of mind (Blair, 2005), is

conceptualised as the ability to recognise and respect the emotional states of others by

visualising their perspective (Ickes, 2003). However, Baron-Cohen and Wheelright (2004)

argue that both affective and cognitive approaches are essential to define empathy, and that in

most cases both approaches are not easily separated.

Sympathy, on the other hand, can be defined as an emotional response toward another,

which stems from feelings of sorrow or concern for that person without necessarily showing

understanding (Eisenberg, 2000). Sympathy is, therefore, conceptualised as an empathic

response which usually stems from the affective component of empathy but not part of it

(Reniers et al., 20011). In short, a person may feel the need to reduce another’s distress but

may not actually act on this desire. Yet, Baron-Cohen and Wheelright (2004) believe

sympathy can also involve both cognitive and affective components of empathy. They

postulate that sympathy can develop from empathy which subsequently results in helping

behaviours. Consequently, although definitions of empathy are multi-faceted and

interrelated, there is clear evidence to corroborate the link between empathy and empathy

related responses with prosocial behaviour (Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen & Randall, 2003;

Eisenberg et al., 2010;

6

Lockwood, Seara-Cardoso & Viding, 2014). In line with this, Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder

and Penner (2006) assert that empathetic individuals usually experience a state of arousal

comprising responses that entail physiological and subjective characteristics which precede

prosocial acts. Moreover, two guiding theorists (Eisenberg et al., 2010; Hoffman, 2008)

acknowledge that the ability to engage in other-oriented helping necessitates emotion

regulation. They believe this arises from affective empathy which is integral to prosocial

behaviour. This is consistent with (Decety & Jackson, 2004; Destano, 2015) who also

postulate that emotion regulation is a prerequisite as a component of empathy. They claim

that it is important to manage and reinforce introspective relations between self and others.

Because without emotion regulation one would experience personal distress, and

subsequently be less able to engage in helping behaviours.

Conversely, in their investigation into the existence of true altruism, Maner, Luce,

Neuberg, Cialdini, Brown and Sagarin (2002) found a significant zero-order relationship

between empathic concern and helping. Consistent with this notion, the negative state relief

model (Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan, Arps, Fultz & Beaman, 1987) indicate that an individual

may help another person in distress to alleviate their own undesirable feelings (Hogg &

Vaughan, 2011). However, Farside (2007) disputes these claims, and argues that if an

individual holds the ability to attribute their mental state to another person in distress they

possibly have the potential to be altruistic. Consequently, the long running, and still

unresolved debate continues in regards to empathy-induced helping. Due to the overall

consensus among many researchers, however, it can be summarised that empathy and

concepts of sympathy could lead to prosocial behaviour. Therefore, this study specifically

considers empathy as an affective response that is similar to that of a distressed individual,

whereby empathisers are cognisant to the feelings of others and can vicariously experience

those feelings.

There are numerous instruments available in the public domain that can be utilised to

measure empathy. However, some of these instruments are out-dated or inadequate to some

extent. Some examples are: the Empathy Scale (EM; Hogan, 1969) comprising 64 items

which assesses four factors: social self-confidence, even-temperedness, sensitivity, and

nonconformity (Johnson, Cheek & Smither, 1983). Yet, only one of these factors (sensitivity)

is directly related to empathy (Davis, 1994). The Questionnaire Measure of Emotional

Empathy (QMEE; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972) contains seven subscales. Although some

items in the QMEE measure affective empathy, the scale as a whole may be confounded as

the

items tap a single construct – emotional arousability to the environment – as opposed to an

7

individual’s emotions (Mehrabian, Young, & Sato, 1988). A more current measure, the

Empathy Quotient (EQ; Baron-Cohen & Wheelright, 2004) comprises 60 questions with 40

questions tapping empathy and 20 filler items included to distract participants from

persistently focusing on empathy. However, empathy in the present study has been

operationalised by TEQ (Spreng et al., 2009). The TEQ primarily conceptualises empathy as

an affective (emotional) process. It comprises 16 questions and is designed as a single factor

and brief measure of empathy following reviews of other empathy instruments. Therefore,

the reason for this operationalisation as opposed to the other inventories mentioned above is

that this scale is short, clear and homogenous with a robust single factor structure. Moreover,

it measures empathy aptly in relation to this study and has demonstrated that it is internally

reliable as detailed in the studies below.

Spreng et al. (2009) employed the TEQ among a sample of 200 University of Toronto

undergraduate students. They reported very good internal consistency reliability of alpha

coefficients for the entire set of items to .85. Lelorain, Sultan, Zenasni, Catu-Pinault, Jaury,

Boujut and Rigal (2013) employed the TEQ among a sample of 295 French general

practitioners. They also reported good internal consistency reliability of alpha to .71. Celik,

Saritas and Catalbas (2013) employed the TEQ among a sample of 376 student teachers.

They reported very good internal consistency of alpha to .82. Stefanović, Dunjić-Kostić,

Gligorić, Lačković, Damjanović, and Ivković (2015) employed the TEQ among a sample of

363 medical students. They reported good internal consistency of alpha to .70. Against this

background, the aim of the present study is to assess empathy by utilising the TEQ.

4. Personality

This chapter will briefly review trait theories of personality with particular emphasis

on the six factor model. First, it provides the background to the theory followed by

conceptualisation of personality traits. Second, it provides a rationale for the

operationalisation of the six factor model through the HEXACO-60 inventory (Ashton and

Lee, 2009).

Trait theories are usually based on findings from lexical studies with the use of factor

analysis. Accordingly, language based classifications have been used as a method for

developing personality models which are organised hierarchically. The three most widely

accepted and used trait theories are Eysenckian Model, viz. the Eysenck Personality

Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) Big Five-Factor Model (FFM; Costa &

8

McCrae, 1992), and HEXACO Model (Ashton & Lee, 2004). Eysenck’s (1975) model of

personality maintains three orthogonal higher order factors to assess individual differences.

The first factor is expressed on the continuum from Introversion (I) to Extraversion (E).

Those who score high on the E scale are generally characterised as sociable, lively and

carefree individuals, whereas low scorers tend to be more reserved, reflective and self-

contained in their approach to life. The second factor is expressed on the continuum from

emotional stability to Neuroticism (N). High scorers on the N scale are generally

characterised as anxious, depressed and irrational individuals, whereas low scorers tend to be

more stable, and self-confident. The third factor is expressed on the continuum from

tendermindedness to Psychoticism (P). High scorers on the P scale are generally

characterised as toughminded, antisocial and aggressive individuals, whereas low scorers

tend to be more prosocial and tenderminded in nature. Finally, this personality measure also

includes the lie (L) scale to guard against dissimilation. Those who score high on this scale

tend to reflect high levels of social conformity (Poropat, 2011).

The FFM developed by Costa and McCrae (1992) proposes five factors to efficiently

summarise individual differences. These five dimensions are often referred to as the ‘Big

Five’: Extraversion (E) – high scorers tend to be assertive and sociable individuals rather

than quiet and reserved; Agreeableness (A) – high scorers tend to be cooperative and polite

rather than antagonistic and rude; Conscientiousness (C) – high scorers tend to be task-

focused and orderly rather than distractible and disorganised; Neuroticism (N) – high scorers

tend to be prone to negative emotions rather than being emotionally resilient; and finally,

individuals Open to experience (O) – have a broad rather than narrow range of interests

(Mcrae, & John, 1992). However, Paunonen and Ashton (2001) argue that the predictive

value of the FFM on specific behaviours and attitudes is often found to be weak. In addition,

Ashton and Lee (2004) claimed the FFM was not as comprehensive as initially thought,

postulating methodological issues with cross-cultural research. Ashton and Lee (2004)

argued that FFM dimensions were not universal due to many languages lacking one-to-one

translations.

Consequently, Ashton and Lee (2004), established the six factor model of personality.

They assert that instead of a 5-factor solution, factor analysis leads to a 6-factor solution.

These factors are Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), eXtraversion (X), Agreeableness

(A), Conscientiousness (C) and Openness to experience (O). Each of these factors

incorporate four facets with an interstitial facet called altruism, representing a blend of the H,

E and A factors. H comprises sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance and modesty; E comprises

fearfulness,

9

anxiety, dependence and sentimentality; X comprises social self-esteem, social boldness,

sociability and liveliness; A comprises forgiveness, gentleness, flexibility and patience; C

comprises organisation, diligence, perfectionism and prudence; and O comprises aesthetic

appreciation, inquisitiveness, creativity and unconventionality. These facets are also

measured by polar opposites on positive and negative ends of a continuum. All six measures

proposed by Ashton and Lee (2004) have been operationalised in a series of self-completion

instruments for application among adults, including the HEXACO-PI (2004) and HEXACO-

60 (2009).

Ashton and Lee (2009) employed the HEXACO-60 among a sample of 936 Canadian

undergraduate students. They reported very good internal consistency reliability for all six

scales of alpha coefficients from .77 to .80. Bashiri, Barahmand, Akabri, Ghamari and

Vusugi (2011) employed the HEXACO among a sample of 613 Iranian undergraduate

students. They also reported very good internal consistency reliability for all six scales of

alpha from .71 to .81. Barbarovic and Sverko (2013) employed the HEXACO-60 among a

sample of 1004 Croatian undergraduate students. They reported very good internal

consistency reliability for all six scales of alpha coefficients from .77 to .80. Wakabayashi

(2014) employed the HEXACO among a sample of 492 Japanese undergraduate students. He

reported exceptional internal consistency reliability for all six scales of alpha from .84 to .90.

To explore altruism, Aghababaei, Mohammadtabar, and Saffarinia (2014) employed the

HEXACO among a sample of 223 employees from an urban area of Tehran. They reported

good internal consistency reliability for the six factors ranging from .60 to .75.

For the purpose of this study personality will be measured quantitatively by utilising

the HEXACO-60 personality inventory. The reason for employing this operationalisation, as

opposed to the FFM, is that HEXACO-60 reflects some pertinent personality variance not

represented within the FFM model (Ashton, Lee & de Vries, 2014). There is particular

interest in the six-dimensional framework because it includes the additional trait, Honesty-

Humility. The narrow facet-level traits incorporated in H have been verified by, Zettler,

Hilbig and Heydasch (2013), as a measure of prosocial behaviour. What is more, the traits A

and E, broadly epitomise personality characteristics associated with altruism (Ashton & Lee,

2009). These three dimensions, therefore, contribute separately towards an overall

disposition within individuals to engage in prosocial acts. More importantly, HEXACO-60

explicitly measures the interstitial facet, viz. altruism, defined by the characteristics kind,

sympathetic and generous (Ashton et al., 2014). This facet-level trait, therefore, measures a

combination of high H, high A, and high E, which is of specific interest in this study. Further,

the scales of this instrument

10

are compatible with the largest set of personality dimensions that are consistently obtained

from the indigenous personality lexicons of a wide-range of human languages (Ashton &

Lee, 2008). The HEXACO-60 has demonstrated that it is internally reliable as detailed in the

studies above. Against this background, it is the aim of the current research to assess

personality from a nomothetic approach to measure traits that occur consistently across

groups.

5. Altruism, Empathy and Personality concepts together

Individuals differ fundamentally from one another in the way they express their

emotions, and equally, each person’s willingness and ability to help another in a given

situation varies from person to person (Batson et al., 2015; Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio &

Piliavin, 1995). The process of motivation preceding prosocial behaviour is a complex and

multifaceted phenomenon (Chowdhury, 2015; Gordon, 2014). Recently, an interest into the

roots of altruism has sparked debate (de Waal, 2008; Hay, 2008; Warneken & Tomasello,

2008). Graziano and Tobin (2002) surmise that acts of kindness are linked to Agreeableness

which materialise through tertiary and secondary socialisation, such as parental influences,

schooling, and peer-groups respectively. Warneken and Tomasello (2009) maintain that

altruistic proclivities materialise early in ontogeny (biological predisposition) involving

intrinsic motivations linked to genetic factors that influence individual differences.

Warneken and Tomasello (2008) recognised socialisation as a secondary source that builds

upon this predisposition, postulating that, ‘human cultures cultivate rather than implant

altruism in the human psyche’ (p.465). Accordingly, Piliavin (2009) suggested that the brain

is wired for empathy and other-oriented action proposing that hormones impact this

disposition. Contemporarily, Batson et al. (1981) proposed the empathy-altruism theory

stating that individual’s high in empathy are more inclined to act prosocially.

Whatever the developmental origins and moderation of prosocial motivation, a

person situation approach requires a concomitant, effective, and procedural analysis with

empirical support, linking differences in prosocial motives like empathy and Agreeableness

(Graziano, Habashi, Sheese & Tobin, 2007). Evidence suggests that there is a link between

individuals high in Agreeableness and altruistic traits (Cumberland-Li, Eisenberg & Reiser,

2004). The main objective of this study was to quantitatively analyse the relationship

between empathy and prosocial behaviour to determine the altruistic personality. It is

proposed that the investigation of altruism warrants a general framework of positive

psychology to examine

11

Prosocialness in a new conceptual light. As described by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi

(2000), the discipline of positive psychology exemplifies positive sentiments, positive

personality traits, and positive settings. Whilst recognising the conflicting perspectives

toward pseudo-altruistic and true altruistic acts, Hoffman (2000) declared that empathy and

concern for others are what makes social life possible. Since this subject covers such a wide

area, the present study will narrow the research focus with the central theme being empathic

concern, and specifically concentrate on empathy-induced altruism (Batson et al., 2015).

Therefore, for the purpose of this study altruism is considered to be genuine selflessness,

which benefits others with disregard for any extrinsic rewards (Warneken & Tomasello,

2008). Although, it is well recognised that altruistic motivation is determined by empathy, a

contemporary view of altruism includes both affective and cognitive processes (Eisenberg,

Fabes & Spinrad, 2006). Evidence suggests that altruism includes not only emotional

attributes but also cognitive facets, such as perspective-taking and causal attribution (Lay &

Hoppman, 2015). It is supposed that Hoffman’s (2008) theory supports the role of

perspective-taking with connotations that empathy may play an important role on emotion

regulation. Gordon (2014) postulates that, perhaps, one’s capacity to understand the

perspective of others, instead of managing one’s own emotions is more integral to a pertinent

empathic response. Gordon (2014) found that emotion regulation plays a huge role on the

relationship between empathy and altruistic behaviour. Consistent with this Lockwood,

Seara-Cardoso and Viding (2014) assessed the link between affective and cognitive empathy

and prosocial behaviour and found similar results to some extent. Research indicates that

people who show empathy toward others are more inclined to help others and, therefore,

develop a more positive type of moral judgement (Eisenberg & Morris, 2001). It was

identified that even children were able to recognise another’s pain or sadness, and

subsequently displayed empathetic responses toward others (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1997). In

agreement with Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, Stalikos and Hamodraka (2004)

claim that empathy develops in stages during infancy and childhood, which manifests

according to one’s quality of interpersonal relations, leading to emotional judgements that

can affect one’s incentive to help. There is a growing body of research verifying a

significantly strong positive link between empathy and prosocial behaviour (Batson, 2011;

Carlo & Randall, 2002; Chowdhury, 2015; Feigin, Owens & Goodyear-Smith, 2014; Sze,

Gyurak, Goodkind, & Levenson, 2012), with only a limited number finding no relationship

(Cialdini et al., 1987; Maner et al., 2002; Underwood & Moore,

12

1982). Along these lines, it can be summarised that empathy is considered to promote moral

development, which subsequently encourages prosocial behaviour in children and adults

alike that can shape one’s personality (Hoffman, 2000; Leontopoulou, 2010).

In the research literature, there is a focus on the personality domain, Agreeableness

(Graziano et al., 2007). Evidence suggests that prosocial motivation and other-oriented

behaviours, for example, altruism, may have underlying social-cognitive processes that

transpire through the Agreeableness trait (Finch, Panter & Caskie, 1999; Tobin, Graziano,

Vanman & Tassinary, 2000). Moreover, Ashton et al. (2014) and Graziano et al. (2007)

postulate that a combination of high H, high A, and high E traits typify prosocial tendencies

associated with altruism, which is pertinent to the current research.

To conclude, a picture is emerging of the relationship between empathy and prosocial

behaviour. Much research across different cultures is finding a consistent link between these

two constructs. Moreover, trait personality theory recognises that, overall, prosocial

motivation is linked to H, E and A dimensions of personality through an additional measure

of the interstitial narrow facet-level trait, altruism, facilitated within the HEXACO-60. In

addition, there is general consensus that prosociality is a multifaceted trait. Knafo-Noam,

Uzefovsky, Israel, Davidov and Zahn-Waxler (2015), in their longitudinal study among twins,

found that a single factor of prosociality accounts for an abundant proportion of the variance

across all prosociality facets which explains this phenotype. Therefore, it was proposed from

an empirical perspective that the above personality dimensions would be central towards a

better theoretical interpretation of the altruistic personality (Ashton, et al., 2014; Caprara,

Alessandri, Giunta, Panerai & Eisenberg, 2009).

5.1 Purpose of the Research

While a considerable amount of research exists on altruism; to date, to the best of the

author’s knowledge, there is no quantifiable recent research exploring the relationship

between empathy and prosocial behaviour which determines an altruistic personality in the

UK. Studies of empathy have predominantly been conducted on children and relatively few

studies have examined the link between empathy and prosocialness in conjunction with

altruistic personality traits (Sze et al., 2012). Based on the above literature and preceding

rationale, the present study seeks to address this gap in the literature among a population from

H. E. settings in the UK. Therefore, the main objective of the present study is to consider the

empathy-

13

altruism theory (Batson, 2011) in order to test the claim that empathy leads to prosocialness,

incorporating personality theory that individual traits are related to the altruistic personality.

The aims of the present study were, first, to explore the effects of (if any) demographic

factors, for example, gender, age, marital status, and parenthood, on altruism. Second, to

investigate the relationship between empathy and prosocial behaviour. Third, to highlight the

existence of personality traits towards altruistic behaviour. Previous research linking

empathy and prosocialness demonstrates a significantly positive relationship between

empathy and prosocial behaviour which implies a predisposition towards an altruistic

personality. It was, therefore, hypothesised that the results would demonstrate a significant

positive correlation between empathy and prosocial behaviour, with the expectation that these

findings would enable one to categorise the altruistic personality.

6. Method

6.1 Design

This study employed a correlational online survey design to investigate the

relationship between empathic concern (Independent Variable; IV) and prosocial behaviour

(Dependent Variable; DV) via TEQ and PSA respectively. A third variable to determine the

altruistic personality via HEXACO-60 was also analysed.

6.2 Participants

A random and convenience sample of students from diverse backgrounds, including

overseas, attending University in the UK were invited to take part in this study. A total of 46

responses were received of which 43 were fully completed and included in the final analysis.

Of this sample, 14% (N=6) were male and 86% (N=37) were female. Participants’ age

ranged from 18 to 56+ with the breakdown as: 44.2% in the 18-25 category, 30.2% in the 26-

35 category, 9.3% in 36-45 category, 11.6% in 46-55 category, and 4.7% in the 56+ category.

In terms of year of study, 27.9% (n=12) stated that they were in Year 1; 20.9% (n=9) in Year

2, and 51.2% (n=22) in Year 3. Out of all the participants 76.7% were not married and 51.2%

reported that they were parents.

6.3 Materials/Measures

In order to collect data electronically, an online, quantitative survey generated via

Qualtrics (2016) was utilised in this study. This method was deemed suitable for the current

14

research because it is particularly expedient when measuring the degree and scope of

attitudes

(Hewstone, Stroebe & Jonas, 2012). Moreover, a relatively large dataset (>30) is considered

to be potentially representative of the population, and, therefore, generalisable (Denscombe,

2014). The materials comprised an information sheet (Appendix C), and a consent form

(Appendix D). The self-report measures used in this study are validated and reliable tools

considered appropriate for dispositional and trait-based constructs. In addition to

demographic data requested, viz. sex, age, year of study, marital status and whether the

participant is a parent, the following measures were included:

6.3.1 Prosocial Behaviour

The Prosocialness Scale for Adults’ (PSA; Caprara, Steca, Zelli & Capanna, 2005)

was employed to operationalise prosocial behaviour. This 16-item measure requires

participants to indicate whether each statement vis-à-vis prosocial behaviour is true of

themselves. For example, ‘I am pleased to help my friends/colleagues in their activities’

[item 1]. Each item is assessed on a 5-point Likert scale: 1=never/almost never true;

2=occasionally true; 3=sometimes true; 4=often true and 5=almost always/always true.

Higher scores in this scale are indicative of a more helpful and caring disposition.

6.3.2 Empathy

The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ; Spreng, McKinnon, Mar & Levine, 2009)

was employed to operationalise empathy. This questionnaire is verified as a brief, reliable,

and valid instrument with high internal consistency. This 16-item measure comprises 8

positively worded items and 8 negatively worded items. Participants are required to rate

themselves on how much they are able to empathise with people. For example, ‘I enjoy

making other people feel better’ [item 5 – positively worded], ‘I am not really interested in

how other people feel’ [item 12 – negatively worded]. Each item is assessed on a 5-point

Likert scale: 0=never; 1=rarely; 2=sometimes; 3=often; and 4=always. Subsequently, higher

scores in this scale are indicative of a more empathetic disposition.

6.3.3 Personality

The self-report HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised scale (HEXACO-PI-R;

Ashton & Lee, 2009) was employed to operationalise personality in terms of six major

dimensions. These factors are Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness,

15

Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience. This 60-item measure assesses six broad

HEXACO personality factors, each of which contains four facets (narrower personality

characteristics). An additional 25th narrow facet, called altruism is included, representing a

blend of the Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, and Agreeableness factors. Thus, verified to be

a more precise measure of altruism. Participants are required to rate how much they agree or

disagree with each statement. For example, ‘I would enjoy creating a work of art, such as a

novel, a song, or a painting’ [item 13]. Each item is assessed on a 5-point Likert scale:

1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neutral (neither agree nor disagree; 4=agree; and

5=strongly agree. Higher scores in this scale indicate a higher level of each personality

dimension.

All three scales are readily available in the public domain (Ashton & Lee, 2004;

Caprara et al. 2005; Spreng et al. 2009), and have made valuable contributions in providing a

better understanding in this research area. Moreover, these three instruments specifically

assess subjective attitudes concerning altruism (prosocial behaviour), empathy and

personality traits, although, the researcher did take into account that all scales are limited in

what they can do from a psychological perspective. A copy of the questionnaire can be found

in (Appendix E).

6.4 Procedure

In compliance with the British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Ethics and

following ethical approval from the Department of Psychology Ethics Committee

(Appendix A), an online survey platform was created using Qualtrics (2016) software. A

global email was sent out to pertinent participants by a member of the psychology team at

Glyndwr University, inviting them to take part in the survey (Appendix B). The email

included a URL link and participants were notified that further guidance would be provided

on clicking the link. On access to the study site, participants were notified that completion of

the survey was entirely optional and that data would be recorded anonymously. At first,

participants were directed to an introduction page that described the purpose of the study,

comprising a full and detailed information sheet (Appendix C). Before they could continue

to the next stage, participants were instructed to consent to the study electronically by

clicking on the three compulsory requirements (Appendix D), viz. confirmation that they had

read and understood the information sheet; verification that participation was voluntary and

that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time without giving reason; and

assurance that data collected would be looked at by the researcher and supervisor of the

project only. If all three mandatory

16

statements had not been agreed upon, participants were re-directed to the end of the survey

and thanked for their time. Participants’ that agreed to all three mandatory statements were

directed to the next stage and were asked to make note of their personal identification code

for the purpose of anonymity, before they continued with the survey. At the beginning of the

survey participants were informed that they must click the submit button at the end of each

page or their data would not be anonymously recorded. Initially, participants were required

to complete brief demographic details as mentioned above. Subsequently, participants

completed the questionnaire tapping empathy, prosocialness and personality. Whilst scoring

the online survey, participants had the flexibility to go back to previous pages if they wished

to change their answers. There was no time limit for completion of the study, however, it

would have taken no longer than 10-15 minutes to complete. At the end of the survey,

participants were thanked for their time in completing the survey and informed that their

responses had been successfully recorded.

6.5 Ethical Considerations

The British Psychological (BPS) Code of Ethics and the university’s ethical

committee guidelines and standards were followed (Appendix A). Informed consent was

obtained from the participants, and they were notified of their right to withdraw from the

study without prejudice. Participants were assured of anonymity and confidentiality, and

debriefed following completion of the questionnaire. They were advised that data would only

be kept for the purpose of the study and destroyed thereafter. No incentive was given for

participation.

6.6 Data Analysis

All data were exported from Qualtrics to SPSS 24 Statistics Data Editor. In order to

establish the internal reliability of the scales, syntax was applied wherein 29 statements were

reverse-keyed for the HEXACO-PI-R scale, and 8 statements were reverse-keyed for the

TEQ scale. The PSA scale did not require re-coding as the valence for agreement with the

statements contributed to the measure of prosocialness. Responses were subsequently

converted into numerical data between 1 and 5, with 1 representing lower scores and 5

representing higher scores. Data were subject to analysis using frequencies, reliability and

Pearson correlation routines.

17

7. Results

Table 7.1 below presents the Cronbach alphas, means, and standard deviations for

Empathy, Prosocial Behaviour and the HEXACO-60 loaded onto six factors. The alpha

coefficients for the present study are as follows: Empathy α =.86; Prosocial Behaviour α

=.85; Honesty/Humility α =.78; Emotionality α =.77; eXtraversion α =.85; Agreeableness α

=.82; Conscientiousness α =.74; Openness to experience α =.59. Among the present sample

the data demonstrate that seven scales record very good reliability scores, according to

DeVellis (2003) of .65. The only exception is the Openness to experience subscale, achieving

a slightly lower internal consistency reliability score than the threshold set by DeVellis

(2003). However, this was deemed acceptable and data analysis proceeded as normal. On

the whole, these alphas confirm the findings of previous studies within H. E. settings,

indicating that these scales perform well in this context. With regard to mean scale scores,

Empathy carried the highest mean (M=63.16, SD=8.12), followed by Prosocial Behaviour

(M=58.97, SD=8.09), Openness to experience (M=35.18, SD=4.94), Honesty/Humility

(M=35.05, SD=6.51), Conscientiousness (M=34.10, SD=6.16), Emotionality (M=33.69,

SD=6.37), Agreeableness (M=31.54, SD=6.92), and eXtraversion (M=30.18, SD=7.58).

Table 7.1

Scale properties and descriptive statistics for TEQ, PSA, and HEXACO-PI-R

Scale Alpha Mean SD Min Max

Empathy .86 63.16 8.12 46 77

Prosocial Behaviour .85 58.97 8.09 43 80

Honesty/Humility .78 35.05 6.51 22 47

Emotionality .77 33.69 6.37 20 45

eXtraversion .85 30.18 7.58 15 48

Agreeableness .82 31.54 6.92 18 45

Conscientiousness .74 34.10 6.16 23 45

Openness .59 35.18 4.94 20 44

Note: Empathy: TEQ; Prosocial Behaviour: PSA; Honesty/Humility, Emotionality,

eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness: HEXACO-PI-R.

Table 7.2 below presents the Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficients

between all the variables. In terms of the main aim of the present study three key findings are

noteworthy from these data.

18

First, the data demonstrate that empathy and prosocial behaviour is strongly correlated

(r(41)=.70, p<.001), showing a statistically significant positive relationship between these

two

variables. This indicates that empathy has maximum impact on prosocial behaviour. Thus as

levels of measured empathy increase so do levels of prosocial behaviour, encapsulating the

strong link between empathy and prosocial behaviour.

Second, the data demonstrate that personality impacts empathy due to statistically

significant positive correlations present between Empathy and Honesty-Humility (r(41)=.46,

p<.01), Empathy and Emotionality (r(41)=.34, p<.05), and Empathy and Openness to

experience (r(41)=.35, p<.05). Although, the other three variables incorporated within

HEXACO-60, viz. eXtraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are in the positive

direction, they do not present significant correlations.

Third, despite the fact that Pearson correlations range from .09 to .26 between

prosocial behaviour and HEXACO-60 dimensions, and the analyses are in a positive

direction, the data demonstrate that personality does not impact prosocial behaviour.

Correlations between these variables were negated due to the non-significant relationships

found, for example, Prosocial Behaviour and Openness to experience (r(41)=.24, ns), and

Prosocial Behaviour and Conscientiousness (r(41)=.25, ns). A moderately significant

positive relationship is present between Honesty and Agreeableness (r(41)=.49, p<.01).

Essentially, according to these analyses it could be summarised that a higher level of empathy

is key towards realising the altruistic personality and that personality does not impact

prosocial behaviour.

Table 7.2

Correlation Matrix for Empathy, Prosocial Behaviour and HEXACO-PI-R Subscales

Empath

yOpen Consc Agree eXtr Emot Hon

Prosocial +.70

.001

+.24

NS

+.25

NS

+.09

NS

+.21

NS

+.26

NS

+.20

NS

Honesty +.46

.01

+.28

NS

+.15

NS

+.49

.01

-.01

NS

-.05

NS

Emotionality +.34

.05

-.27

NS

+.41

.01

-.31

NS

+.27

NS

eXtraversion +.19

NS

+.33

.05

+.28

NS

-.19

NS

Agreeableness +.18

NS

+.44

.01

-.08

NS

Conscientiousness +.19

NS

-.17

NS

Openness +.35

.05

19

8. Discussion and Conclusion

The present study was designed to analyse the relationship between empathy and

prosocial behaviour to assess whether the altruistic personality could be verified, whilst

testing the empathy-altruism theory (Batson et al., 1981). Based on previous literature

reviewed, it was hypothesised that a significant positive correlation between empathy and

prosocial behaviour would be found. Drawing on data collected from 43 respondents through

an online survey, measured by TEQ, PSA and HEXACO-PI-R, this quantitative study has

been concerned with scrutinising the link between the three constructs altruism, empathy and

personality. It is evident that empathic concern and altruistic acts share important attributes.

Both are caring and discretionary behaviours which reinforce the empathy-altruism theory by

being interconnected to the altruistic personality. It was noted that rather than transient

responses to specific situations, the two concepts – empathy and prosocial behaviour –

generally occur consistently and concurrently found to be part of one’s personality during the

course of the relevant individual’s lifespan (Ashton et al., 2014; Caprara et al., 2009;

Hoffman, 2000; Leontopoulou, 2010). Three salient inferences emerge from these data.

8.1 First Inference

The first inference concerns the extent to which empathy influences prosocial

behaviour. The current data demonstrate a strong significantly positive correlation between

empathy and prosocial behaviour thus upholding the hypothesis for this study. With regard to

the empathy-altruism theory, Batson et al. (1981), essentially claimed that psychological

altruism does exist and materialises through the empathetic drive to help another who may be

distressed. A similar trend has emerged from this sample population affiliated to universities

in the UK. The significant positive relationship found between empathy and prosocialness in

this study clearly indicates a reasonable fit of the empathy-altruism model. These findings,

therefore, provide a snapshot to confirm the empathy-altruism theory (Batson et al., 1981)

emphasising that empathy is directly related to prosocial behaviour. This lends further

support to the theories of Carlo and Randall (2002); Eisenberg et al. (2010); Hoffman (2008),

indicating the importance of empathy for engaging in prosocial acts. In terms of measuring

empathy in this study, TEQ primarily conceptualises empathy as an affective process aptly.

The ability to recognise and indirectly experience the feelings of others vicariously thus

instigates prosocial behaviour. Conceptually the finding suggests that an increased level of

empathy is integral when predicting relationships between empathy and prosocial behaviour

to ascertain the

20

altruistic personality. Consonant with Decety and Jackson (2004), this conclusion highlights

the importance of managing and reinforcing introspective relations between self and others.

This appears to be a key aspect of empathy which ultimately facilitates prosocialness.

Consequently, the decisive conclusion derived from this inference is that empathy-induced

altruism can be genuinely selfless which compels people to reduce their own unpleasant

emotions to help others in distress. This personality trait is apparent even in situations where

exposure to certain circumstances could be avoided easily (Batson, 1981). This finding is in

juxtaposition vis-à-vis to individuals who lack empathic concern who display avoidant

behaviour toward helping others in distress (Destano, 2015). Accordingly, it could be stated

that empathy is regarded as the principal facilitator in respect of the desire to act prosocially.

The implication for this pertinent finding is that high empathetic individuals will

convey the tendency to help others with the intention to simply benefit the recipient.

Although, there are nuances of difference in this study in comparison to the literature

reviewed, the strong link between empathy and prosocial behaviour is clearly evident. High

levels of compassion and concern for people in need, facilitates more prosocial moral

reasoning which leads to the desire to improve the condition of those in distress. It is

postulated that empathic abilities lead to profound moral principles subsequently manifesting

through humane acts. There is a possibility that, in line with the empathy-altruism approach

(Kohlberg, 1976; Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Staub, 1974) the monumental effects of internalised

prosocial values empower individuals to be positively predisposed toward engagement in

altruistic acts, which ultimately substantiates the altruistic personality. Along these lines, and

consistent with Carlo et al. (1996) it could be summarised that caring about the welfare of

others through moral concern encourages prosocial behaviour which subsequently shapes the

altruistic personality (Hoffman, 2000; Leontopoulou, 2010). The propensity of empathetic

individuals among this sample showed that as levels of measured empathy increased so did

levels of prosocial behaviour which indicates the strong link between empathy and prosocial

behaviour.

8.2 Second Inference

The second inference concerns the focus on altruistic personality traits, which

succinctly put, describes a person’s average proclivity toward prosocial acts. There is

consensus in the literature reviewed that the altruistic personality is ubiquitous among people

where high levels of empathy are linked to prosocial behaviour (Farside, 2007; Feigin et al.,

2014; Sherman et al., 2015). In terms of personality impacting empathy, the current findings

21

demonstrated that, in general, there is a strong link between empathy and prosocial behaviour

which shapes one’s character (Hoffman, 2000; Leontopolou, 2010). Specifically, the present

study found significant positive correlations between empathy and H, E, and O. The

interstitial facet called altruism in the HEXACO-60 represents a blend of H, E, and A (Ashton

& Lee, 2009) which are known determinants mediating the altruistic personality, with some

of the characteristics including kindness, sympathy and generosity (Ashton et al., 2014).

In line with Zettler et al. (2013), the current study thus validates a measure of

prosocial behaviour. The H, E, and A traits broadly and separately epitomise personality

characteristics associated with altruism (Gaziano et al., 2007). In the current study, it was

found that two of these three facets contribute towards an overall disposition within

individuals to engage in prosocial acts. The significant positive relationships identified

between empathy and H, E, and O in the current study thus contribute to the literature

reviewed (Ashton et al., 2014). The interpretation of these findings indicate that individuals

with altruistic personality traits are first – sincere, operate with fairness, eschew greed and

are modest; secondly – fearful, anxious, dependent and sentimental; and thirdly – possess

aesthetic appreciation, inquisitive, creative and unconventional, respectively. Although,

there was not a statistically significant relationship found between empathy and A in the

present study, it was however, still, in a positive direction. According to trait theories,

individual dispositions tend to occur consistently and are relatively stable over time

(Sherman et al. 2015). An explanation for the current findings that the propensity to be

empathetic leads to prosocial behaviour, subsequently results in altruistic traits. These data

are also consistent with Ashton et al. (2014); Caprara et al. (2009); and Graziano et al.

(2007) whereby similar trends emerged whilst examining the antecedents to prosocial

behaviour. As a result, altruism appears to be intertwined with prosocial behaviours

triggered by empathic concern. Overall, the analysis demonstrated that, in general, findings

tentatively determine the altruistic personality trait.

8.3 Third Inference

The third conclusion concerns the non-significant correlations recorded pertaining to

personality and prosocial behaviour. Although all six dimensions of HEXACO-60 were in

the positive direction and correlated with prosocial behaviour, the findings were negated due

to the insignificant levels achieved. This is contrary to previous findings (Cumberland et al.,

2004; Graziano & Tobin, 2002), postulating a link between individuals high in Agreeableness

and

22

altruistic traits. There was, however, a moderately positive significant relationship recorded

between the constructs Hand A which are both key players in facilitating the altruistic

personality. As predicted, what constitutes the altruistic personality is thus interdependent on

the strong link between empathy and prosocial behaviour. Overall, the analysis demonstrated

that, in general, personality was not a predictor of prosocial behaviour which implies that it

does not impact prosocial behaviour. Instead, as expected, personality impacts empathy. As

a result predominant findings from this study allowed for drawing a typology of what

constitutes the altruistic personality. The empirical evidence for the present study is,

therefore, consistent with (Knafo-Noam et al., 2015) who validate the theoretical

conceptualisation of the altruistic personality asserting that both genetic and environmental

factors are at play regarding one’s prosocial activity.

8.4 Conclusions, Limitations and Directions for Further Research

In summary, the present study specifically set out to assess the relationship between

empathy and prosocial behaviour alongside assessing the altruistic personality. A

significantly strong positive correlation between empathy and prosocial behaviour was found,

in conjunction with moderately positive correlations between empathy and H, E, and O

dimensions of HEXACO-60. The above findings succinctly elucidate the theoretical and

conceptual aspect of true-altruism. Empirical evidence obtained corroborates the viability of

prosocial acts preceded by empathy. These findings, therefore, uphold the hypothesis for the

current research alongside confirming the empathy-altruism theory (Batson et al., 1981). On

the basis of these results, it could be concluded that empathy is an attribute linked to

prosocialness which brings about various positive psychological effects including the

realisation of the altruistic personality. It is thus postulated that people who behave

prosocially would have personality profiles that show high levels of empathy. It can be

tentatively concluded that the conceptualisation of what constitutes the altruistic personality

is thus the interdependence of empathy and prosocial behaviour.

However, it is important to highlight that the study’s correlational design restricts

conclusions about causal relationships. The researcher found an association rather than a

cause and effect. As a consequence, no firm causal inferences should be drawn from this

correlational study. Although the results demonstrate a significant positive relationship

between higher levels of empathy being associated with increased levels of prosocialness, it

does not demonstrate necessarily that one causes the other, neither does it indicate why this

might be.

23

A Regression Model would have been appropriate if there were a higher number of

respondents. Further research is now needed to expand data obtained to explore how

percentage of variance can be explained with regards to empathy once personality is taken

into account. Another limitation is the use of self-report measures which could have resulted

in pro-altruistic response bias due to the potential for socially desirable responses. Despite

the above limitations, the encouraging results from this quantitative study, in terms of the

variables empathy and prosocial behaviour in relation to altruism, lend themselves to further

replication and extension with the use of more sophisticated data collection and analysis

tools.

(Word Count: 9,048 approx.)

24

References

Aghababaei, N., Mohammadtabar, S., & Saffarinia, M. (2014). Dirty dozen versus the H

factor: Comparison of the dark triad and Honesty–Humility in prosociality, religiosity

and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 6-10. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.026

Allport, G.W. (1960). The open system in personality theory. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 61, 301-310.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality.

European Journal of Personality, 15, 327-353.

Ashton, M.C., & Lee, K. (2004). The HEXACO Personality Inventory: A new measure of

the major dimensions of personality. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 39. 258-

329. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the

HEXACO and Five-Factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality,

42, 1216-1228.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major

dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340-345. doi:

10.1080/00223890902935878

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness,

and Emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 18(2), 139-152. doi: 10.1177/1088868314523838

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bar-Tal, D., Sharabany, R., & Raviv, A. (1982). Cognitive basis for the development of

altruistic behavior. In V.J. Derlega, & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping

behavior: theories and research (pp. 377-396). New York: Academic Press.

Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of

adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex

differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163-175.

Barbarovic, T., & Sverko, I. (2013). The HEXACO personality domains in Croation sample.

Institute of Social Sciences, 22(3), 397-411. doi: 10.5559/di.22.3.01

Bashiri, H., Barahmand, U., Akabri, Z. S., Ghamari, G. H., & Vusugi, A. (2011). A study of

the psychometric properties and the standardisation of HEXACO Personality

25

Inventory. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 30, 1173-1176. doi:

10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.228

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Batson, C.D., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D.A. (2002). Empathy and altruism. In: Oxford

handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed). New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic

emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 40(2), 290-302.

Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., & Stocks, E. L. (2015). The empathy-altruism hypothesis. In

D. Schroeder, & W. Graziano, The oxford handbook of prosocial behaviour, (pp.

259-281). New York: Oxford University Press.

Batson, C.D., Batson, J.G., Slingsby, J.K., Harrell, K.L., Peekna, H.M., & Todd, RM. (1991).

Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 61, 413-26.

Batson. C.D. (2008). Moral masquerades: Experimental exploration of the nature of moral

motivation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences (Special Issue on “Moral

Phenomenology” ed. By Uriah Kriegel), 7, 51-66.

Batson, C.D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In (Eds.), Prosocial motives,

emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 15-34). Washington DC:

American Psychological Association.

Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings and other factors affecting helping behavior and

altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 63-

108) (6th ed.). New York: Academic Press.

Bierhoff, H.W. (2002). Prosocial behaviour. East Sussex: Psychology Press.

Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy

through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and

Cognition, 14(4), 698–718. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004

Buss, D.M., & Craik, K.H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological

Review, 90, 105-126.

Caprara, G.V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A new scale for measuring adults’

prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 21(2), 77-89.

doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77

Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2007). Prosocial agency: The contribution of values and self-

26

efficacy beliefs to prosocial behaviour across ages. Journal of Social & Clinical

Psychology, 26(2), 218-239. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.2.218

Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., Giunta, L. D., Panerai, L., & Eisenberg, N. (2009). The

contribution of agreeableness and self-efficacy beliefs to prosociality. European

Journal of Personality, 24(1), 36-55. doi: 10.1002/per.739

Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for

late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31-44.

doi:10.1023/A:1014033032440

Carlo, G., Koller, S. H., Eisenberg, N., DaSilva, M. S. & Frohlich, C. B. (1996). A cross-

national study on the relations among prosocial moral reasoning, gender role

orientation, and prosocial behaviours. Developmental Psychology, 32, 231–240.

Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and

behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. Journal of

Early Adolescence, 23(1), 107–134. doi: 10.1177/0272431602239132

Celik, K., Saritas, E., & Catalbas, G. (2013). The Effect of Student Teachers’ Liking of

Children and Empathic Tendency on the Attitudes of Teaching Profession.

International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 3(2), 499-510.

Chowdhury, N. T. (2015). A quantitative study: To examine whether religiosity, empathy,

gender and age play a role in prosocial behaviour in students. (Unpublished

Batchelor’s thesis). Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom.

Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L. (1987).

Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 52, 749-758.

Comte, A. (1875). System of positive polity. London: Longmans, Green.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R)

and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Cumberland-Li., A, Eisenberg, N., & Reiser, M. (2004). Relations of young children’s

agreeableness and resiliency to effortful control and impulsivity. Social Development.

13, 191-212.

Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based

psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General

Psychology, 15, 138-157.

27

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. CO: Westview Press.

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy.

Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71-100.

doi: 10.1177/1534582304267187

Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide for small scale social research projects.

(5th ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.

DeSteno, D. (2015). Compassion and altruism: How our minds determine who is worthy of

help. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 80-83. doi:

10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.02.002

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. London: Sage.

de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy.

Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 279–300.

Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A., (2006). The Social

Psychology of prosocial behaviour. London: Erlbaum.

Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Schaller, M., Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., & Shea, C. L.

(1989). The role of sympathy and altruistic personality traits in helping: A re-

examination. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 41-67.

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 51, 665–697.

Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Giunta, L.D. (2010). Empathy-related responding:

Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Social

Issues Policy Review, 4(1), 143–180. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., & Spinrad, T. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg & W.

Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 646– 718). New York:

Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., & Morris, A. S. (2001). The origins and social significance of empathy-related

responding, Social Justice, 14, 95-120.

Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1997). The roots of prosocial behavior in children.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. J. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Farside, T. L. (2007). The psychology of altruism. The Psychologist, 20. 474-477.

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791.

28

doi: 10.1038/nature02043

Feigin, S., Owens, G., & Goodyear-Smith, F. (2014). Theories of human altruism: a

systematic review. Annals of Neuroscience and Psychology, 1(1). 1-9.

Finch, J. F., Panter, A. T., & Caskie, G. I. L. (1999). Two approaches for identifying shared

personality dimensions across methods. Journal of Personality, 67, 407–438.

Gates, B. (2010). The giving pledge 2010. Retrieved from http://www.givingpledge.org

Gordon, H. (2014). Investigating the relation between empathy and prosocial behavior: An

emotion regulation framework. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University. Blacksberg, VA.

Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: Dimension of personality or social

desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70, 695-727.

Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness,

empathy, and helping: A Person-situation perspective. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 93(4), 583-599. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583

Håkansson, J., & Montgomery, H. (2003). Empathy as an interpersonal phenomenon. Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 267-284.

Hay, D. F. (2009). Commentary. The roots and branches of human altruism. British Journal

of Psychology, 100, 473-479.

Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W., & Jonas, K. (2012). An introduction to social psychology.

(5th ed.). Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and

justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, M. L. (2008). Empathy & prosocial behavior. In M. Lewis, J. Haviland-Jones, & L.

Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., Vol. 24, p. 298). The Guilford

Press.

Hoffman, M.L. (1981). The development of empathy. In J.P. Rushton, R.M. Sorrentino

(Eds.), Altruism and helping behaviour: Delusion. New York: Plenum.

Hoffman, G.E. (2013). Correcting for population structure and kinship using the linear mixed

model: Theory and extensions. PLoS One, 8(12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075707

Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 33, 307–316.

Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2011). Social Psychology. (6th ed.). Essex: Pearson

Education Limited.

29

Homans, G.C. (2016). George C. Homans history, theory, and method (Ed. By A J Travino).

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Hume, D. (1777) Enquiries concerning the human understanding and concerning the

principles of morals. Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hume-enquiries-

concerning-the-human-understanding-and-concerning-the-principles-of-morals

Ickes, W. J. (2003). Everyday mind reading: Understanding what other people think and feel.

Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Johnson, J. A., Cheek, J. M., & Smither, R. (1983). The structure of empathy. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1299–1312.

Karylowski, J. (1982). Two types of altruistic behaviour: Doing good to feel good or to make

the other feel good. In V. J. Derlega, J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping

behavior: theories and research (pp. 397-413) New York: Academic Press.

Knafo-Noam, A., Uzefovsky, F., Israel1, S., Davidov, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2015). The

prosocial personality and its facets: genetic and environmental architecture of mother-

reported behavior of 7-year-old twins. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(12).

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00112

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach.

In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social

issues (pp. 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Krupp, D. B. (2013). How to distinguish altruism from spite (and why we should bother).

Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26, 2746-2749. doi:10.1111/jeb.12253

Lay, J. C., & Hoppmann, C. A. (2015). Altruism and Prosocial Behavior. Encyclopedia of

Geropsychology, 1(2), 1-10. doi: 10.1007/978-981-287-080_69-1

Lelorain, S., Sultan, S., Zenasni, F., Catu-Pinault., A. Jaury, P., Boujut, E., & Rigal., L.

(2013). Empathic concern and professional characteristics associated with clinical

empathy in French general practitioners. European Journal of General Practice, 19,

23-28. doi: 10.3109/13814788.2012.709842

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous

personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76,

1001-1054. doi: 10.111/j.1467-6494.2008.00512x

Leontopoulou, S. (2010). An exploratory study of altruism in Greek children: Relations with

empathy, resilience and classroom climate. Scientific Research, 1(5), 377-385.

doi:10.4236/psych.2010.15047

30

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives

of Psychology, 140(1), 44‐53.

Lockwood, P. L., Seara-Cardoso, A., & Viding, E. (2014). Emotion regulation moderates the

association between empathy and prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 9(5), 1-6.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096555

Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S., & Sagarin, B. J. (2002).

The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for

altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1601-1610. doi:

10.1177/014616702237586

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its

applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.

Mehrabian, A., Young, A. L., & Sato, S. (1988). Emotional empathy and associated

individual differences. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 7, 221–240.

Naybar, N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy: The role of the right hemisphere. Brain

and Cognition, 67, 162-167.

Nickell, G. (1998). The Helping Attitudes Scale. Paper presented at 106th Annual Convention

of the American Psychological Association at San Francisco, August, 1998.

Oliner, S.P., & Oliner, P.M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi

Europe. New York: Free Press.

Paul, E.F., Miller, F.D., & Paul, J. (1993). Altruism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of

behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 524-539. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524

Piliavin, J. A. (2009). Altruism and helping: the evolution of a field. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 72, 209-225.

Piliavin, J.A., & Charng, H. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual

Review of Sociology, 16, 27-65.

Poropat, A. E. (2011). The Eysenckian personality factors and their correlations with

academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 2011, 41-

58. doi: 10.1348/000709910X497671

Qualtrics. (2016). Qualtrics Survey Software. Retrieved from: https://www.qualtrics.com

Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011). The

QCAE: a questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality

31

Assessment, 93(1), 84–95. doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.528484

Romer, D., Gruder, C. L., & Lizzadro, T. (1986). A person-situation approach to altruistic

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 101-1012.

Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the

self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 292-302.

Sachet, A. B. S. (2013). Children’s and adults’ prosocial behaviour in real and imaginary

social interactions. Department of Psychology and the Graduate School of the

University of Oregan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy.

Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of

helping and altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.

American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. Los Angeles, CA: Enhanced Media

Publishing.

Sorrentino, R.M., & Rushton, J. (1981). Current perspectives and future possibilities. In

J. Rushton & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social,

personality, and developmental perspectives (pp. 425-439). Hillsdale, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto empathy

questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to

multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 62-71.

doi: 10.1080/00223890802484381

SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSSX Users Guide. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Stalikas, A., & Hamodraka, M. (2004). I ensynaisthisi stin psychotherapeia. Athina: Ellinika

Grammata.

Staub, E. (1974). Helping a distressed person: Social, personality, and stimulus determinants,

In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 293-

341). New York: Academic Press.

Stefanović, M. J., Dunjić-Kostić, B., Gligorić, M., Lačković, M., Damjanović, A., &

Ivković, M. (2015). Empathy predicting career choice in future physicians. Engrami,

37(1), 37-48.

32

Stoller, P. (2016). Edith Turner and the anthropology of collective joy. Paranthropology:

Journal of anthropological approaches to the paranormal, 7(1). 40-41.

Strakatý, S. (2016). Relationship between traumatic experience and prosocial behaviour.

State University of New York, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

of Bachelor of Arts in Psychology.

Sze, J. A., Gyurak, A., Goodkind, M. S., & Levenson, R. W. (2012). Greater emotional

empathy and prosocial behavior in late life. Emotion, 12(5), 1129-1140.

doi: 10.1037/a0025011

Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality,

emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 79, 656-669.

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46,

3537.

Turner, E. (2012). Communitas: The anthropology of collective joy. USA: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological

Bulletin, 91, 143-173.

Wakabayashi, A. (2014). A sixth personality domain that is independent of the Big Five

domains: The psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory in a

Japanese sample. Japanese Psychological Research, 56(3), 211-223. doi:

10.1111/jpr.12045

Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young

chimpanzees. Science, 311(5765), 1301-1303.

Warneken, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Extrinsic rewards undermine altruistic tendencies in

20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1785-1788.

Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The roots of human altruism. British Journal of

Psychology, 100, 455-471. doi: 10.1348/000712608X379061

Yoeli, E., Hoffman, M., Rand, D.G., & Nowak, M.A. (2013). Powering up with indirect

reciprocity in a large-scale field experiment. PNAS, 110(2), 10424-10429.

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301210110

Zahne-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of

concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126-136.

33

Zettler, I., Hilbig, B. E., & Heydasch, T. (2013). Two sides of one coin: Honesty-Humility

and social factors mutually shape social dilemma decision making. Journal of

Research in Personality, 47, 286-295

34

Appendix A

Email Correspondence

Re. Psychology ethics

From: emyr.williams@glyndwr.ac.uk

Dated: Wed 2/11/2016, 14:02

Recipients: Harjinder Mackenzie (harjindermackenzie@hotmail.co.uk); Mandy Robbins

(m.robbins@glyndwr.ac.uk); Jo Turley (j.turley@glyndwr.ac.uk)

Dear Harj

Many thanks for this, and I am happy to grant you ethical approval.

Best wishes

Emyr

------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1.52 PM +0000, “Harjinder Mackenzie”

<harjindermackenzie@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Dr Williams

I write to acknowledge receipt of your email. I am pleased that my project has been approved subject to the

directions given. I would like to notify you that the request for inclusion of my supervisor's name on all

participant forms has been implemented.

Kind regards

Harjinder Mackenzie

------------------------------------------------------------------

35

From: Emyr Williams <emyr.williams@glyndwr.ac.uk>

Sent: 01 November 2016 15:59

To: HARJINDER KAUR MACKENZIE

Cc: Jo Turley; Mandy Robbins

Subject: Psychology ethics

Dear Harjinder

A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour to determine the Altruistic

Personality

Thank you for your application to the Department of Psychology Undergraduate ethics committee. I am pleased to inform

you that your project has been approved subject to the following:

1. Inclusion of supervisors name and contact details on all participant forms (i.e., consent form, invitation).

Please confirm by email that these changes have been made.

Good luck with your study.

Yours sincerely

Dr Emyr Williams

(on behalf of the Department of Psychology Undergraduate Ethics Committee)

--

Dr Emyr Williams MBPsS

Senior Lecturer and Programme Lead

Psychology (A12),

Glyndŵr University,

Mold Road,

Wrexham,

LL11 2AW

Telephone: 01978 293100

Email: emyr.williams@glyndwr.ac.uk

36

Appendix B

Participant Invitation Email

Dear prospective participant

Re: Invitation to participate in research

My name is Harjinder Mackenzie, I am currently a BSc Psychology student in my final year of university and I

am conducting research for my undergraduate dissertation. You are invited to participate in research that will

explore altruism. The survey should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete, therefore, please take some

time out to share your experiences as your feedback is very valuable.

Please read the information sheet attached with details about the investigation. In order to participate in the

research you will need to be:

-A student at a University in the UK

-Aged 18 and above

-Not categorised to be a vulnerable adult such as having mental health illness / homeless

-Able to provide consent independently to participate in this research

The research has been approved by the university’s ethics committee and complies with the British

Psychological Society code of ethics.

Please note there is no obligation to take part in this survey. If you do not wish to participate, please disregard

this invitation. However, if you do wish to participate, and would like to share your views and opinions, please

click on the link below. Please read the instructions carefully and provide your consent before you begin to

answer the questions.

https://glyndwr.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_ehVLkCaAdkqYBPn

Please do not hesitate to contact me (harjindermackenzie@hotmail.co.uk) or my supervisor: Prof. Mandy

Robbins (m.robbins@glyndwr.ac.uk) via email if you have any queries or would like further clarification.

Thank you very much in anticipation of your response.

Yours sincerely

Harjinder Mackenzie

S14000497@glyndwr.ac.uk

37

Appendix C

Participant Information Sheet

Research Study Title:

A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour

to determine the Altruistic Personality

Introduction

My name is Harjinder Mackenzie and this research forms part of my BSc (Hons) Psychology programme at

Glyndŵr University. The project has been approved by Glyndwr’s Research Ethics Committee and is being

supervised by Prof. Mandy Robbins. You are being invited to take part in this study. Before you agree to do so,

it is important that you understand the purpose and nature of the research and what your participation will

involve, if you agree. Please read the following information carefully, and please do ask if anything is not clear,

or if you want more information. Contact details are given at the end of this information sheet.

What is the purpose of the study and how will it be carried out?

The research objectives are:

1. To investigate the relationship between empathy and proscocial behaviour

2. To determine the altruistic personality

The research methodology is:

1. Quantitative approach looking for correlations between variables

2. Valid and reliable questionnaires and scales readily available in the public domain

If you agree to take part, you may still withdraw at any time, without giving a reason. If that happens, any

information or data you have given will not be used in the study.

What will taking part involve?

Taking part is entirely voluntary, however, if you agree to take part it will entail providing informed consent

electronically and completing an electronic questionnaire prepared via Qualtrics software. The survey should

take no longer than 20 minutes to complete at your convenience and your feedback is very valuable. You may,

however, still withdraw up until the point of data analysis (10th February 2017). Should you wish to do so,

please provide your ID number presented at the beginning of the study and contact Harjinder Mackenzie at

s14000497@glyndwr.ac.uk in order to remove your data.

38

Will my participation be confidential?

Data collected during the study will be kept strictly confidential and stored in accordance with the Data

Protection Act. There is no way of identifying you as no personal information will be collected apart from

demographic details such as age and gender. The data will only be kept for the purpose of the study and

destroyed thereafter.

Benefits and risks

There are no envisaged benefits or risks to you in taking part. However, if taking part causes discomfort or

distress at any point you may access Glyndwr University’s counselling service on: counselling@glyndwr.ac.uk

or alternatively on: 01978 293266.

What will you do with the results of the research?

The results of the research will be incorporated into a BSc (Hons) final year dissertation. If, in the future, an

academic publication of the research is planned a report for the external body will be prepared. The results of

the research will be incorporated into a BSc (Hons) final year dissertation. No participant will be named in the

thesis or possible publication of this project.

Contact for further information

Thank you for reading the information sheet. Should you have any questions regarding the research prior to or

after completing the survey, please do not hesitate to contact primarily Harjinder Mackenzie:

s14000497@glyndwr.ac.uk or alternatively my supervisor Prof. Mandy Robbins.

39

Appendix D

Participant Informed Consent

Research Study Title:

A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour

to determine the Altruistic Personality

Name of Researcher:

Harjinder Mackenzie

Please tick the box(es) to confirm each statement

I confirm that I have read and understood the Information Sheet dated [********] for the above study.

If I have asked for clarification or for more information, I have had satisfactory responses. 

I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without

giving any reason. 

I understand that relevant sections of the data collected from me during the study may be looked at by

the researcher and the person supervising the project 

I agree to take part in the above study:

Name of Participant: __________________________________

Dated: __________________________________

Name of Researcher: Harjinder Mackenzie

Name of Supervisor: Professor Mandy Robbins

Dated: …………………………….

40

Appendix E

The HEXACO Personality Inventory- Revised

HEXACO-PI-R

(SELF REPORT FORM)

DIRECTIONS

On the following pages you will find a series of statements about you. Please

read each statement and decide how much you agree or disagree with that

statement. Then write your response in the space next to the statement using

the following scale:

5 = strongly agree

4 = agree

3 = neutral (neither agree nor disagree)

2 = disagree

1 = strongly disagree

Please answer every statement, even if you are not completely sure of your

response.

Please provide the following information about yourself.

Sex (circle): Female Male

Age: ______ years

Year of Study: ________

Marital Status (circle): Single Married Separated Divorced

Parent (circle): Yes No

41

1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree

1 I would be quite bored by a visit to an art gallery.

2 I plan ahead and organize things, to avoid scrambling at the last minute.

3 I rarely hold a grudge, even against people who have badly wronged me.

4 I feel reasonably satisfied with myself overall.

5 I would feel afraid if I had to travel in bad weather conditions.

6 I wouldn't use flattery to get a raise or promotion at work, even if I thought it would succeed.

7 I'm interested in learning about the history and politics of other countries.

8 I often push myself very hard when trying to achieve a goal.

9 People sometimes tell me that I am too critical of others.

10 I rarely express my opinions in group meetings.

11 I sometimes can't help worrying about little things.

12 If I knew that I could never get caught, I would be willing to steal a million dollars.

13 I would enjoy creating a work of art, such as a novel, a song, or a painting.

14 When working on something, I don't pay much attention to small details.

15 People sometimes tell me that I'm too stubborn.

16 I prefer jobs that involve active social interaction to those that involve working alone.

17 When I suffer from a painful experience, I need someone to make me feel comfortable.

18 Having a lot of money is not especially important to me.

19 I think that paying attention to radical ideas is a waste of time.

20 I make decisions based on the feeling of the moment rather than on careful thought.

21 People think of me as someone who has a quick temper.

22 On most days, I feel cheerful and optimistic.

23 I feel like crying when I see other people crying.

24 I think that I am entitled to more respect than the average person is.

25 If I had the opportunity, I would like to attend a classical music concert.

26 When working, I sometimes have difficulties due to being disorganized.

27 My attitude toward people who have treated me badly is “forgive and forget”.

28 I feel that I am an unpopular person.

29 When it comes to physical danger, I am very fearful.

30 If I want something from someone, I will laugh at that person's worst jokes.

31 I’ve never really enjoyed looking through an encyclopedia.

32 I do only the minimum amount of work needed to get by.

42

33 I tend to be lenient in judging other people.

34 In social situations, I’m usually the one who makes the first move.

35 I worry a lot less than most people do.

36 I would never accept a bribe, even if it were very large.

37 People have often told me that I have a good imagination.

38 I always try to be accurate in my work, even at the expense of time.

39 I am usually quite flexible in my opinions when people disagree with me.

40 The first thing that I always do in a new place is to make friends.

41 I can handle difficult situations without needing emotional support from anyone else.

42 I would get a lot of pleasure from owning expensive luxury goods.

43 I like people who have unconventional views.

44 I make a lot of mistakes because I don’t think before I act.

45 Most people tend to get angry more quickly than I do.

46 Most people are more upbeat and dynamic than I generally am.

47 I feel strong emotions when someone close to me is going away for a long time.

48 I want people to know that I am an important person of high status.

49 I don’t think of myself as the artistic or creative type.

50 People often call me a perfectionist.

51 Even when people make a lot of mistakes, I rarely say anything negative.

52 I sometimes feel that I am a worthless person.

53 Even in an emergency I wouldn’t feel like panicking.

54 I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get that person to do favors for me.

55 I find it boring to discuss philosophy.

56 I prefer to do whatever comes to mind, rather than stick to a plan.

57 When people tell me that I’m wrong, my first reaction is to argue with them.

58 When I’m in a group of people, I’m often the one who speaks on behalf of the group.

59 I remain unemotional even in situations where most people get very sentimental.

60 I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it.

43

Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ)

Subject ID:_________________

Date:______________________

Below is a list of statements. Please read each statement carefully and rate how frequently

you feel or act in the manner described. Circle your answer on the response form. There are

no right or wrong answers or trick questions. Please answer each question as honestly as you

can.

Neve

r

Rarely Sometimes Ofte

n

Always

1. When someone else is feeling

excited, I tend to get excited too

0 1 2 3 4

2. Other people's misfortunes do not

disturb me a great deal

0 1 2 3 4

3. It upsets me to see someone being

treated disrespectfully

0 1 2 3 4

4. I remain unaffected when someone

close to me is happy

0 1 2 3 4

5. I enjoy making other people feel

better

0 1 2 3 4

6. I have tender, concerned feelings for

people less fortunate than me

0 1 2 3 4

7. When a friend starts to talk about

his\her problems, I try to steer the

conversation towards something else

0 1 2 3 4

8. I can tell when others are sad even

when they do not say anything

0 1 2 3 4

9. I find that I am "in tune" with other

people's moods

0 1 2 3 4

10

.

I do not feel sympathy for people

who cause their own serious illnesses

0 1 2 3 4

11. I become irritated when someone

cries

0 1 2 3 4

12

.

I am not really interested in how

other people feel

0 1 2 3 4

13

.

I get a strong urge to help when I see

someone who is upset

0 1 2 3 4

14

.

When I see someone being treated

unfairly, I do not feel very much pity

for them

0 1 2 3 4

15

.

I find it silly for people to cry out of

happiness

0 1 2 3 4

16

.

When I see someone being taken

advantage of, I feel kind of protective

towards him\her

0 1 2 3 4

44

Prosocialness Scale for Adults’ (PSA)

INSTRUCTIONS

The following statements describe a large number of common situations. There are no

‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers; the best answer is the immediate, spontaneous one.

Read carefully each phrase and mark the answer that reflects your first reaction.

1 = never/almost never true 2 = occasionally true 3 = sometimes true 4 = often true 5 = almost always/always

true

1. I am pleased to help my friends/colleagues in their activities

2. I share the things that I have with my friends

3. I try to help others

4. I am available for volunteer activities to help those who are in need

5. I am emphatic with those who are in need

6. I help immediately those who are in need

7. I do what I can to help others avoid getting into trouble

8. I intensely feel what others feel

9. I am willing to make my knowledge and abilities available to others

10. I try to console those who are sad

11. I easily lend money or other things

12. I easily put myself in the shoes of those who are in discomfort

13. I try to be close to and take care of those who are in need

14. I easily share with friends any good opportunity that comes to me

15. I spend time with those friends who feel lonely

16. I immediately sense my friends’ discomfort even when it is not directly communicated to

me

45

A Quantitative Analysis of the Relationship between Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour to determine the Altruistic Personality

Recommended publications

Analysis of relationship among prosocial tendencies, empathy and five-factor model of personality in...

Personality types according to personality compass and its relationship with self-regulated learning

Impulsivity, venturesomeness, empathy and schizotypy

Blood groups and personality characteristics