Empathizing With Others’ Pain Versus Empathizing With Others’ Joy: Examining the Separability of Positive and Negative Empathy and Their Relation to Different Types of Social Behaviors and Social Emotions

Abstract

Existing work linking empathy with social behavior has focused overwhelmingly on empathy for the negative emotions of others. But recent research suggests that feeling along with others’ negative emotions is a capacity distinct from feeling along with others’ positive emotions. In Study 1, we demonstrate the separability of positive and negative empathy by showing that although both relate to some of the same foundational empathic processes, each has a number of distinct correlates. In Study 2 we take an experimental approach and show that encouraging participants to empathize with the positive versus negative emotions of a suffering yet hopeful social group results in distinct patterns of vicarious emotion. Finally, Study 3 shows that although both positive empathy and negative empathy are associated to a similar degree with helping behavior directed toward others in need, positive—but not negative—empathy is related to “everyday” prosocial behaviors aimed specifically at increasing others’ positive emotions (e.g., random acts of kindness). Together, these results provide what to our knowledge is the first demonstration of the causal potency of positive and negative empathy as well as the first evidence that positive and negative empathy relate to different types of social behaviors.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik]
On: 18 August 2015, At: 11:29
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG
Click for updates
Basic and Applied Social Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20
Empathizing With Others’ Pain Versus Empathizing With
Others’ Joy: Examining the Separability of Positive
and Negative Empathy and Their Relation to Different
Types of Social Behaviors and Social Emotions
Michael R. Andreychika & Nicole Migliaccioa
a Fairfield University
Published online: 18 Aug 2015.
To cite this article: Michael R. Andreychik & Nicole Migliaccio (2015): Empathizing With Others’ Pain Versus Empathizing
With Others’ Joy: Examining the Separability of Positive and Negative Empathy and Their Relation to Different Types of Social
Behaviors and Social Emotions, Basic and Applied Social Psychology
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1071256
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Empathizing With Others’ Pain Versus Empathizing With
Others’ Joy: Examining the Separability of Positive and
Negative Empathy and Their Relation to Different
Types of Social Behaviors and Social Emotions
Michael R. Andreychik and Nicole Migliaccio
Fairfield University
Existing work linking empathy with social behavior has focused overwhelmingly on
empathy for the negative emotions of others. But recent research suggests that feeling
along with others’ negative emotions is a capacity distinct from feeling along with others’
positive emotions. In Study 1, we demonstrate the separability of positive and negative
empathy by showing that although both relate to some of the same foundational
empathic processes, each has a number of distinct correlates. In Study 2 we take an
experimental approach and show that encouraging participants to empathize with the
positive versus negative emotions of a suffering yet hopeful social group results in distinct
patterns of vicarious emotion. Finally, Study 3 shows that although both positive empa-
thy and negative empathy are associated to a similar degree with helping behavior direc-
ted toward others in need, positive—but not negative—empathy is related to ‘‘everyday’’
prosocial behaviors aimed specifically at increasing others’ positive emotions (e.g., ran-
dom acts of kindness). Together, these results provide what to our knowledge is the first
demonstration of the causal potency of positive and negative empathy as well as the first
evidence that positive and negative empathy relate to different types of social behaviors.
Empathy is relevant for predicting a variety of prosocial
behaviors (for a review, see Eisenberg, 2000). But this
link between empathy and prosociality has emerged
from work focusing almost exclusively on the relation-
ship between empathy for others’ negative emotions
and helping behavior. With a few notable exceptions—
which are discussed next—very little attention has been
paid to how empathy for the positive emotions of others
might relate to prosocial behavior and emotion. The
present work seeks to address this gap in the literature.
After discussing positive and negative empathy and
reviewing recent evidence from the developmental and
social-neuroscience literatures suggesting their separ-
ability, we present three studies designed to show that
positive and negative empathy represent distinct—albeit
related—constructs that predict different types of social
behaviors and social emotions. In Study 1 we provide
evidence for the discriminant validity of positive and
negative empathy, showing that although they are
related, they are also associated with a variety of distinct
and theoretically sensible correlates. Study 2 takes an
experimental approach to demonstrate that positive
and negative empathy result in different patterns of
vicarious emotion in response to a suffering, yet hopeful,
social group. Whereas encouraging participants to focus
on the group’s positive emotions results in greater vicari-
ous hopefulness, encouraging participants to focus on
the group’s negative emotions results in greater levels
of distress. Finally, in Study 3 we demonstrate that posi-
tive and negative empathy have unique behavioral cor-
relates, showing that although both positive and
negative empathy are associated to a similar degree with
greater helping of others in need, positive—but not
negative—empathy predicts ‘‘everyday’’ helping
behaviors aimed at increasing the positive emotions
both of strangers (e.g., random acts of kindness) and
Correspondence should be sent to Michael R. Andreychik,
Department of Psychology, Fairfield University, 1073 North Benson
Road, Fairfield, CT 06615. E-mail: mandreychik@fairfield.edu
BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0:1–18, 2015
Copyright #Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0197-3533 print=1532-4834 online
DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2015.1071256
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

relationship partners. These results represent what to
our knowledge is the first demonstration that positive
and negative empathy relate to different types of social
behaviors and can cause different patterns of social
emotions.
EMPATHY
Although the word ‘‘empathy’’ is only about a century
old, humans have long been interested in the notion of
‘‘feeling along with’’ others. Empathy was central to
the philosophical discourses of thinkers like Immanuel
Kant (1889), David Hume (1738=1978, 1751=1998),
Adam Smith (1759), and the Buddha (see Hanh,
1997), as well as the biological theories of Charles
Darwin (1871). Although empathy (and related terms
such as sympathy) has been defined in a variety of ways
(see, e.g., Batson, 2010; de Waal, 2008; Wispe
´,1986),
here we adopt the definition advanced by Eisenberg
and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). We treat
empathy as ‘‘an affective response that stems from the
apprehension or comprehension of another’s emotional
state or condition, and which is identical or very similar
to what the other person is feeling or would be expected
to feel’’ (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998, p. 702; see also de
Waal, 2008; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994).
In contemporary psychology, empathy has received a
wealth of attention (see Eisenberg, 2000, for a review).
This work suggests, among other things, that empathy
may play a central role in the human need for belonging-
ness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) by facilitating the
emotional connection between individuals necessary
for smooth and responsive social interactions (Decety
& Jackson, 2004). Most relevant to the present work is
the voluminous literature linking empathy to prosocial
behavior. This work has demonstrated that empathy—
whether measured as a person’s characteristic tendency
to empathize with others (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2002)
or manipulated by encouraging people to connect with
the emotional experience of others (e.g., Batson et al.,
1997)—is (causally) related, both concurrently and long-
itudinally, to a whole host of prosocial behaviors.
Further supporting the central role of empathy in social
life, this work has also suggested a link between empa-
thy deficits and psychopathology (e.g., Cohen & Strayer,
1996; Decety, Chen, Harenski, & Kiehl, 2015).
With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Sallquist,
Eisenberg, Spinrad, Eggum, & Gaertner, 2009; Zhou
et al., 2002); however, insights regarding empathy’s links
with prosocial behavior have emerged from work focus-
ing on the manner in which empathy for the negative
emotions of others (e.g., suffering, sadness) is related
to prosociality (e.g., Lamm, Decety, & Singer, 2011;
Singer et al., 2004). Certainly this focus on feeling along
with the negative emotions of others makes sense. Those
who need help are those who are currently experiencing
some kind of misfortune or struggle that results in nega-
tive emotionality. Thus, understanding when potential
helpers are likely to resonate with these negative
emotions and when such resonance is and is not likely
to lead to helping represent important questions.
But this predominant focus on negative emotions
leaves open a number of questions regarding empathy
for the positive emotions of others. The most basic of
these questions has to do with the potential separability
of positive and negative empathy. Although there are
reasons to expect that positive and negative empathy
are ‘‘simply’’ two indicators of a single more general
empathic capacity, recent scholarship is consistent with
the possibility that empathizing with others’ positive
versus negative emotions represent distinct—albeit
related—capacities (e.g., Light et al., 2009; Morelli,
Rameson, & Lieberman, 2014; Sallquist et al., 2009).
In addition to examining the separability of positive
and negative empathy, we go one step further to exam-
ine how positive and negative empathy relate to—and
cause—different types of social behaviors and social
emotions, a goal that to our knowledge has not been
addressed by existing research.
POSITIVE EMPATHY VERSUS
NEGATIVE EMPATHY
As just mentioned, although we assume that empathiz-
ing with others’ positive versus negative emotions likely
engage a number of the same foundational empathic
processes (e.g., perspective taking; emotional contagion)
we assert that positive and negative empathy are concep-
tually distinct capacities (rather than, e.g., two different
examples of a single underlying empathic capacity) with
distinct correlates that predict different types of
social behaviors and social emotions. Recent work,
especially from social neuroscience and developmental
psychology, supports this conceptualization.
For example, Morelli et al. (2014) recorded subjects’
neural activity as they watched targets experiencing
pain, anxiety, or happiness. When subjects watched
targets experiencing any of these emotions (relative to
when they watched a neutral expression control con-
dition), they showed activation in the septal area, a
region associated with prosocial motivation and care-
taking behavior (e.g., Francis, Champagne, & Meaney,
2000; Moll et al., 2011). Of importance, however,
when subjects watched targets experiencing pain and
anxiety—but not when they watched targets experienc-
ing happiness—they showed activation in neural areas
associated with the personal experience of negative
affect (i.e., the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the
2ANDREYCHIK AND MIGLIACCIO
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

anterior insula; e.g., K. D. Davis, 2000; Eisenberger,
Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Peyron, Laurent, &
Garcia-Larrea, 2000; Rainville, 2002; Shackman et al.,
2011). In contrast, watching targets experiencing
happiness—but not pain or anxiety—resulted in activation
in areas associated with the personal experience of positive
affect (i.e., the ventromedial prefrontal cortex; e.g., Haber
& Knutson, 2010; Kim, Shimojo, & O’Doherty, 2011;
Knutson, Adams, Fong, & Hommer, 2001; O’Doherty,
2004). These results thus support the notion that whereas
empathizing with others’ emotions—regardless of the
valence of the emotions—likely engages certain common
key processes, empathizing with others’ positive versus
negative emotions activates distinct additional brain
regions, regions associated with the personal experience
of those emotions.
Sallquist et al. (2009) used a very different methodology
to examine the separability of positive and negative empa-
thy in children. They obtained maternal self-reports of
children’s positive empathy as well as mothers’, fathers’,
and nonparental caregivers’ (e.g., babysitter, daycare tea-
cher) reports of children’s negative empathy. Supporting
the idea that there is some overlap between the constructs,
both positive and negative empathy were associated with
greater social competence (e.g., Does the child play with
others? Does the child comply with requests?). But high-
lighting the distinctness of the constructs, positive—but
not negative—empathy was related to children’s disposi-
tional positive emotionality (see, e.g., Feshbach, 1982;
Zhou et al., 2002 for additional evidence that positive
and negative empathy have distinct correlates), and,
although positive and negative empathy were positively
correlated to some degree, this correspondence was not
so great as to suggest the two constructs were simply
redundant with one another. In particular, positive empa-
thy was modestly positively correlated with mother and
father reports of children’s negative empathy at two time
points (.19 <rs<.43) and was unrelated to nonparental
caregiver reports of negative empathy at both time points
(rs<.13).
Based on this work, we expect that both positive and
negative empathy will relate to certain core processes
involved in connecting with others’ emotions, such as
perspective taking (e.g., M. H. Davis, 1980) and
(valence-unspecified) emotional contagion. But we also
expect that positive and negative empathy will each have
a number of distinct correlates. To provide initial sup-
port for our account, in Study 1, we conceptually repli-
cate existing findings, such as those linking positive
empathy to dispositional positive emotionality (e.g.,
Morelli et al., 2014; Sallquist et al., 2009) and negative
empathy to dispositional negative emotionality (e.g.,
M. H. Davis, 1996; Morelli et al., 2014; Rothbart,
Derryberry, & Hershey, 2000). Beyond replicating exist-
ing work, we also demonstrate links between positive
empathy, negative empathy, and a few additional
variables, links suggested by existing data and theory
(e.g., Batson, 1987; M. H. Davis, 1980; Morelli et al.,
2014) but that, to the best of our knowledge, have not
been directly tested. In particular, we examine relation-
ships between positive empathy, negative empathy, and
both perspective taking (e.g., M. H. Davis, 1980) and
(valence-unspecified) emotional contagion. Because
both positive and negative empathy involve connection
with others’ emotional experience, we predict that both
capacities will be associated with these foundational
empathic processes.
Finally, we examine links between positive empathy,
negative empathy, and social emotions. In Studies 1
and 2 we test whether positive and negative empathy
are related to personal distress in response to others’ suf-
fering (e.g., Batson, 1987). Given that a high degree of
negative emotionality in response to others’ suffering
can lead to personal distress (e.g., Batson, 1987;M.H.
Davis, 1980), we expect that because negative empathy
entails strongly connecting with the negative emotions
of others, individuals high in negative empathy should
tend to report greater distress in response to others’ suf-
fering. In contrast, because positive empathy entails
strongly connecting with the positive rather than the
negative emotions of others, individuals high in positive
empathy should tend to report little distress in response
to others’ suffering. Study 1 examines this prediction at
the dispositional level, looking at the relationship
between individuals’ characteristic tendencies to connect
with the positive and negative emotions of others and
the extent to which they report experiencing distress in
response to others’ suffering in general. Study 2
examines this issue at the situational level, experimen-
tally manipulating positive and negative empathy and
observing the effects of that manipulation on indivi-
duals’ emotional reactions to a specific social target.
Beyond looking at relationships between positive
empathy, negative empathy, and personal distress,
Study 2 also tests whether positive and negative empa-
thy differentially affect more positive social emotions,
such as vicarious hopefulness regarding the plight of
others. We expect that individuals encouraged to con-
nect with the positive emotions of a suffering but hope-
ful social group will experience greater levels of
vicarious hopefulness than will individuals encouraged
to connect solely with the group’s negative emotions.
H1: Because they engage a number of the same founda-
tional empathic processes, positive empathy and
negative empathy will both be positively associated
with perspective taking (M. H. Davis, 1980) and a
general capacity to resonate with the emotional
experiences of others.
H2: Positive empathy will be associated with greater dis-
positional positive emotionality and less dispositional
EMPATHIZING WITH PAIN VERSUS JOY 3
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

negative emotionality. In contrast, negative empathy
will be associated with less dispositional positive
emotionality and greater dispositional negative
emotionality.
H3: Positive empathy and negative empathy will relate
to distinct patterns of vicarious social emotions.
Whereas negative empathy will be associated with
greater personal distress in response to others’ suf-
fering at both the dispositional (Study 1) and situa-
tional (Study 2) levels, positive empathy will be
associated with greater levels of vicarious positive
emotionality (Study 2).
POSITIVE EMPATHY, NEGATIVE EMPATHY,
AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
We now turn to the final element of our predictions,
namely, not only are positive and negative empathy dis-
tinct capacities with distinct consequences for social
emotions but they are associated with different types
of social behaviors, a prediction that to our knowledge
has not been tested in existing work. We expect that
both positive and negative empathy will be associated
with prosocial behavior aimed at assisting others in
need. With respect to negative empathy, this prediction
is certainly not novel, as hundreds if not thousands of
studies have now demonstrated a robust relationship
between negative empathy and prosocial behavior direc-
ted toward needy targets (see Batson, 2010, for a
review). To our knowledge there exists only one (unpub-
lished) study directly linking positive empathy with help-
ing behavior directed toward needy others. Specifically,
Morelli, Lieberman, Telzer, and Zaki (as cited in
Morelli, Lieberman, & Zaki, 2015) showed that disposi-
tional positive empathy was strongly related to disposi-
tional prosociality as measured by the Prosocial
Tendencies Measure (Carlo & Randall, 2002), a measure
that asks primarily about respondents’ tendencies to
help others in need (e.g., ‘‘It is easy for me to help others
when they are in a bad situation’’). Of course, given that
there exists only one, unpublished, study linking positive
empathy with helping behavior directed toward needy
targets, the replication of such initial findings represents
an important step in the development of this—or any—
young area of research.
Although we expect that both positive empathy and
negative empathy will be positively associated with help-
ing needy others, we also expect that positive empathy
will uniquely predict prosocial behaviors aimed at
increasing others’ positive emotions and well-being in
more ordinary, day-to-day experiences (i.e., outside of
the context of helping others in need). In particular,
we expect that positive—but not negative—empathy will
be associated with positivity-enhancing behaviors
directed toward both relationship partners and strangers
(e.g., random acts of kindness). Study 3 tests these
hypotheses.
H4: Positive empathy and negative empathy will both
be associated with greater helping of needy targets.
H5: Positive—but not negative—empathy will be asso-
ciated with greater engagement in behaviors aimed
specifically at increasing others’ positive emotions
(e.g., random acts of kindness).
STUDY 1: EXAMINING THE SEPARABILITY
OF POSITIVE EMPATHY AND NEGATIVE
EMPATHY
Study 1 tested the idea, just advanced, that although
positive empathy and negative empathy involve a number
of the same foundational processes, they are distinct con-
structs with a number of distinct correlates. We expected
both positive and negative empathy to relate to a general
tendency to connect with others’ emotions and to take
others’ perspectives. But, based on the logic just outlined,
we also expected negative empathy to relate to greater
dispositional negative emotionality, less dispositional
positive emotionality, and greater personal distress in
response to needy others. In contrast, we expected positive
empathy to relate to greater dispositional positive emo-
tionality and less dispositional negative emotionality.
Method
Participants
Participants were 283 users of the Mechanical Turk
online participant management system who received
U.S. $0.40 for their participation. The sample comprised
131 female and 148 male participants; four participants
did not indicate their gender. Average age of parti-
cipants was 33.9 years with a range from 18 to 72.
Procedure
Participants were directed from the Mechanical Turk
website to a consent form located on SurveyMonkey.
After providing consent, participants completed a var-
iety of questionnaires in one of several different orders.
Positive and negative empathy. The Positive Empa-
thy scale comprised seven items. These items were based
closely on Sallquist et al.’s (2009) Dispositional Positive
Empathy Scale, with wordings changed so that the items
were more appropriate for our adult respondents. The
items were answered on a 0 (does not describe me well)
to 4 (describes me very well) scale. The scale showed
excellent reliability (a¼.88, M¼2.88, SD ¼.79).
4ANDREYCHIK AND MIGLIACCIO
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

The Negative Empathy scale also comprised seven
items. Because we had difficulty finding a scale with
items that unambiguously referred only to the capacity
to connect with others’ negative emotions, we combined
some items from existing scales with a few items that we
created. Most of the items were taken from Mehrabian
and Epstein’s (1972) Questionnaire Measure of
Emotional Empathy, with one item taken from M. H.
Davis’s (1980) Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI),
and two items created by the authors. All of the items
were answered on a 0 (does not describe me well)to4
(described me very well) scale. The Negative Empathy
scale also showed excellent reliability (a¼.89,
M¼2.14, SD ¼.91). The Positive and Negative
Empathy scales can be found in Appendix A.
As just outlined, it could be argued that all of the
empathy items are representative of a more general tend-
ency to connect with others’ emotions. To examine this
possibility we performed a confirmatory factor analysis
using IBM AMOS software (Arbuckle, 2006) and
maximum-likelihood estimation to compare the fit of
two different factor structures. The first model represents
our proposed two-factor model. Here, the seven positive
empathy items were constrained to load on a positive
empathy factor and the seven negative empathy items
were constrained to load on a separate negative empathy
factor with the positive and negative empathy factors
allowed to covary (as we expected correlated factors).
We compared the fit of this model to a one-factor model
where all of the positive and negative empathy items were
constrained to load on a single general empathy factor.
A variety of indicators suggested that the two-factor
solution provided a good fit to the data (Tucker-Lewis
index [TLI] ¼.94, root mean square error of approxi-
mation [RMSEA] ¼.07, comparative fit index
[CFI] ¼.95 and non-normed fit index [NFI] ¼.92; see
Hu & Bentler, 1999). As expected, the positive and nega-
tive empathy factors were positively correlated (r¼.55),
but this correlation was not so strong as to suggest that
they were simply redundant with one another. Even
more important, the two-factor solution provided a
much better fit to the data than the one-factor solution,
which fit the data quite poorly (TLI ¼.67,
RMSEA ¼.17, CFI ¼.72, NFI ¼.70).
General empathy. Participants also completed a
seven-item measure of general empathic capacity. As
with the Negative Empathy scale, because we had dif-
ficulty finding an existing measure with items that unam-
biguously referred to a general capacity to connect with
the emotions of others (i.e., without reference to specific
target emotions), we combined items from two existing
measures. Five of these items were taken from the
Multi-Dimensional Emotional Empathy Scale (Mayer,
Caruso, & Salovey, 1999) and two were taken from
the Toronto Empathy Scale (Spreng, McKinnon, Mar,
& Levine, 2009). All of these items referred to the general
tendency to connect empathically with others and did
not make reference to connecting specifically with either
positive or negative emotions. Items were answered on a
0(does not describe me well)to4(describes me very well)
scale. All of the items can be found in Appendix A. After
reverse-scoring where appropriate, an overall general
empathic capacity score was calculated (a¼.86,
M¼3.41, SD ¼.80). Because both positive and negative
empathy are reflective of a more general tendency to res-
onate with the emotions of others (see also Morelli et al.,
2014; Sallquist et al., 2009), both were expected to relate
to general empathic capacity.
Perspective taking. Participants completed the
Perspective Taking subscale of M. H. Davis’s IRI. This
scale contains seven items designed to tap a general
tendency to take the perspective of others (e.g., ‘‘I some-
times try to understand my friends better by imagining
how things look from their perspective’’) answered on
a0(does not describe me well)to4(describes me very
well) scale. After appropriate reverse-scoring, an overall
perspective-taking score was calculated (a¼.88,
M¼2.68, SD ¼.83). Because both positive and negative
empathy likely rely to some extent on a general tendency
to take the perspective of others, both were expected to
relate to perspective taking (see also Morelli et al., 2014;
Sallquist et al., 2009).
Dispostional personal distress. Participants com-
pleted the personal distress subscale of M. H. Davis’s
IRI. This scale contains seven items designed to tap a
general tendency to feel negative emotional arousal in
response to others’ suffering (e.g., ‘‘Being in a tense
emotional situation scares me’’) answered on a 0 (does
not describe me well)to4(describes me very well) scale.
After appropriate reverse-scoring, an overall
perspective-taking score was calculated (a¼.90,
M¼1.42, SD ¼.90). Here we expected divergent rela-
tions for positive and negative empathy. In particular,
because individuals high in negative empathy are likely
to ‘‘catch’’ primarily the negative emotions of others,
they should also experience greater distress in response
to others’ suffering. In contrast, because those high in
positive empathy are likely to ‘‘catch’’ primarily the
positive emotions of others, we did not expect an associ-
ation between positive empathy and personal distress.
Dispositional emotionality. Participants also com-
pleted a measure of dispositional emotionality, adapted
from the PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994). They were
EMPATHIZING WITH PAIN VERSUS JOY 5
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

asked to indicate the extent to which various emotions
words characterized the way they generally feel on a
scale from 1 (very slightly, or not at all)to5(extremely).
Scores were calculated based on the procedure outlined
in Watson and Clark (1994). This resulted in the
computation of three measures of general emotionality:
Joviality (excited, cheerful, delighted, enthusiastic, lively,
happy, joyful, energetic; a¼.94, M¼2.99, SD ¼.87),
Fearfulness (scared, afraid, shaky, jittery, nervous;
a¼.85, M¼1.63, SD ¼.74), and Sadness (sad, down-
hearted, alone, blue, lonely; a¼.91, M¼1.88, SD ¼.91).
We expected divergent relations for positive and
negative empathy on all of these dimensions of general
emotionality. Because negative empathy corresponds
to a tendency to relate to and experience the negative
emotions of others, we expected those high in negative
empathy to report higher levels of negative emotional-
ity such as fearfulness and sadness and lower levels
of positive emotionality such as joviality. We expected
the opposite pattern for those high in positive emotion-
ality. These predictions are consistent with the results
reviewed earlier linking positive empathy with positive
emotionality and negative empathy with negative
emotionality (M. H. Davis, 1996; Morelli et al., 2014;
Rothbart et al., 2000; Sallquist et al., 2009).
Results and Discussion
Throughout the article, results are reported in accord-
ance with the recommendations made by Trafimow
and Marks (2015). Zero order correlations can be found
in Table 1. Most critical for our analyses, however, we
also conducted a series of hierarchical regression analy-
ses to allow us to examine the unique variance in our
outcome variables accounted for by positive and nega-
tive empathy. For each of our dependent variables, we
conducted two analyses, one in which we entered nega-
tive empathy in the first step and positive empathy in the
second step, and another in which we entered positive
empathy in the first step and negative empathy in the
second. Table 2presents the unique proportions of
variance in each of our outcome variables explained
by positive and negative empathy, represented by DR
2
from the first to the second step of the regression.
Table 2also reports Cohen’s (1988)f
2
as an additional
effect size estimate. By convention, f
2
values of .02,
.15, and .35 correspond to small, medium, and large
effect sizes.
1
We first examined relationships between positive
empathy, negative empathy, and general empathic
capacity, perspective taking, and personal distress.
Recall our prediction from earlier that because both
positive and negative empathy require a similar
propensity=ability to connect with others, both should
relate to a tendency to attune to others’ emotions and
mental states. This is precisely what we found: Both
positive and negative empathy were associated with
higher levels of general empathic capacity and increased
perspective taking, with both accounting for unique
variance in those outcome variables. Also recall, how-
ever, our prediction that because the empathic experi-
ence of negative empathizers is likely to be
characterized more so by the experience of relatively
aversive, negative emotions, whereas the empathic
experience of positive empathizers is likely to be charac-
terized more so by the experience of pleasant, positive
emotions, negative empathy should be associated with
higher levels of personal distress and positive empathy
should be either unrelated to personal distress or per-
haps even predict lower levels of distress. Again, this is
precisely what we found: Whereas negative empathy
TABLE 1
Zero-Order Correlations Among Positive Empathy, Negative Empathy, and General Empathic Capacity, Perspective Taking, Personal Distress,
and Dispositional Emotionality (Study 1)
Perspective Taking Personal Distress General Empathy Fearfulness Sadness Joviality
Negative empathy r(279) ¼.38 r(277) ¼.44 r(279) ¼.68 r(276) ¼.15 r(278) ¼.17 r(275) ¼.14
Positive empathy r(277) ¼.45 r(275) ¼.07 r(277) ¼.62 r(274) ¼.15 r(276) ¼.20 r(273) ¼.44
1
Given criticisms surrounding the utility of hierarchical regression
as a tool to effectively isolate the unique variance in criterion variables
accounted for by predictor variables (e.g., Trafimow, 2004), we also
note that the key predicted relationships between positive empathy,
negative empathy, and the criterion variables employed in both Studies
1 and 3 emerged whether looking at the zero-order correlations or the
results of the hierarchical regressions.
TABLE 2
Unique Proportions of Variance in General Empathic Capacity,
Perspective Taking, Personal Distress, and Dispositional Emotion-
ality Explained by Either Positive Empathy or Negative Empathy
(Study 1)
Predictor
Perspective-
taking
Personal
Distress
General
Empathy Fearfulness Sadness Jovial ity
Negative empathy
DR
2
.03 .23 .17 .08 .11 .01
f
2
.04 .29 .41 .09 .13 .01
b.21 .56 .50 .33 .39 .13
Positive empathy
DR
2
.08 .04 .09 .08 .12 .19
f
2
.10 .05 .20 .10 .14 .23
b.33 .24 .35 .34 .41 .51
6ANDREYCHIK AND MIGLIACCIO
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

was associated with greater personal distress, positive
empathy was associated with less personal distress, with
both positive empathy and negative empathy accounting
for unique variance in personal distress.
We next examined associations between positive
empathy, negative empathy, and dispositional emotion-
ality. These analyses revealed that positive empathy was
associated with lower levels of fear, lower levels of
sadness, and higher levels of joviality, accounting for
unique variance in each. In contrast, negative empathy
was associated with higher levels of fear, higher levels
of sadness, and lower levels of joviality, also accounting
for unique variance in each. These findings are consist-
ent with the idea that individuals who are more person-
ally facile with positive and negative emotions,
respectively, are likely to be attuned to the correspond-
ing types of emotions in others (see also M. H. Davis,
1996; Morelli et al., 2014; Rothbart et al., 2000; Sallquist
et al., 2009).
Taken together, the results of Study 1 are consistent
with the idea previously advanced that although
empathizing with others’ positive emotions and
empathizing with others’ negative emotions engage a
number of the same foundational processes, they are
distinct capacities. It is important to note, however, that
the results from Study 1 are correlational and thus they
cannot speak to the potential causal effects of positive
and negative empathy. In Study 2 we addressed this
shortcoming by presenting participants with an article
ostensibly about a suffering yet hopeful social group.
We predicted that instructing participants to focus on
the positive versus negative emotions of the group
would result in distinct patterns of vicarious emotion.
STUDY 2: EXAMINING THE CAUSAL EFFECTS
OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EMPATHY
ON SOCIAL EMOTIONS
Method
Participants
Participants were 107 users of the Mechanical Turk
online participant management system who received
U.S. $0.70 for their participation. The sample comprised
57 female and 48 male participants; two participants did
not indicate their gender. Average age of participants
was 36.57 years with a range from 19 to 61.
Procedure
Participants were directed from the Mechanical Turk
website to a consent form located on SurveyMonkey.
After providing consent, participants were directed to
one of the three experimental conditions.
Participants were told that we were interested in
how people think about social groups. Before present-
ing participants with information about the group, we
manipulated empathy via perspective-taking instruc-
tions adapted from those used by Batson and collea-
gues (e.g., Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1997). In the
objective condition, participants were instructed to
remain objective and detached as they read and not
to focus on the emotional experience of the individuals
in the article. In the positive empathy condition, part-
icipants were told to focus on the positive emotions
of the individuals in the article and to ignore any nega-
tive emotions that were discussed. In the negative
empathy condition, participants were told to focus
on the individuals’ negative emotions and ignore their
positive emotions. For complete instructions, see
Appendix B.
After reading the perspective-taking instructions,
participants were directed to an article ostensibly
about a newly discovered social group, patterned off
a similar article employed in Andreychik and Gill
(2014). The article presented an isolated group living
in an inhospitable environment and described a var-
iety of hardships they suffered because of these con-
ditions (e.g., widespread illnesses due to lack of
clean water; inhospitable climate that makes produc-
ing enough food difficult; lack of health care, which
leadstoproblemssuchashighinfantmortality).In
addition to descriptions of their struggles, however,
members of the group also expressed optimism about
FIGURE 1 Descriptive statistics for personal distress and hopeful-
ness within each empathy condition (Study 2). Note. Means are
indicated by the þsigns within the boxes, medians are shown by the
horizontal lines within the boxes, the 25th and 75th percentiles are
shown as the tops and bottoms of the boxes, and the minimum and
maximum values are shown as the small horizontal lines above and
below the boxes.
EMPATHIZING WITH PAIN VERSUS JOY 7
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

what they could achieve if their lives were less difficult.
To provide emotional material with which parti-
cipants might resonate, in addition to providing a nar-
rative description of the group, the article also
presented a number of direct quotes in which individ-
ual group members discussed their emotional experi-
ences with respect both to their difficult life
conditions and their hopefulness for the future. See
Appendix C for the full article.
After reading the article, participants were asked to
indicate on a 1 (not at all)to7(extremely) scale the
extent to which they felt each of nine different emotions.
Six of these emotions were taken from existing research
(e.g., Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987) and were
designed to tap the negative emotional experience of
personal distress (i.e., troubled, upset, worried, alarmed,
distressed, disturbed;a¼.93, M¼4.52, SD ¼1.59).
Three additional items were created to tap the positive
emotional experience of hopefulness (i.e., optimistic,
hopeful, encouraged;a¼.85, M¼3.27, SD ¼1.49).
Results and Discussion
Means, medians, 25th and 75th percentiles, and mini-
mum and maximum values for personal distress and
hopefulness within each empathy condition can be
found in Figure 1. In addition, comparisons of score
frequencies for personal distress and hopefulness within
each empathy condition can be found in Figures 2
(personal distress) and 3 (hopefulness). Recall the first
of our two primary predictions: We expected that part-
icipants in the negative empathy condition would report
greater personal distress than those in the positive empa-
thy or objective conditions. Consistent with this predic-
tion, there was a moderate effect of our empathy
manipulation on personal distress (partial g
2
¼.09).
FIGURE 2 Comparison of frequency of personal distress scores within each empathy condition (Study 2).
8ANDREYCHIK AND MIGLIACCIO
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

Participants who had been encouraged to focus on the
negative emotions of the group and ignore the group’s
positive emotions reported greater personal distress
(M¼5.17, SD ¼1.37) than participants encouraged to
focus on the group’s positive emotions (M¼4.14,
SD ¼1.73) and those instructed to remain objective
while reading the article (M¼4.25, SD ¼1.49).
Our second focal prediction was that participants in
the positive empathy condition would report greater
hopefulness than those in the negative empathy or con-
trol conditions. We found a moderately sized effect of
the empathy manipulation on hopefulness (partial
g
2
¼.08). Participants who had been encouraged to
focus on the positive emotions of the group and ignore
the group’s negative emotions reported greater hopeful-
ness (M¼3.83, SD ¼1.78) than participants encouraged
to focus on the group’s negative emotions (M¼2.77,
SD ¼1.30) or those instructed to remain objective
(M¼3.21, SD ¼1.18).
Building on the results of Study 1, Study 2 demon-
strated that encouraging participants to empathize with
others’ positive versus negative emotions shaped their
vicarious emotional responses to a suffering yet hopeful
social group. Whereas focusing on the group’s negative
emotions (and ignoring their positive emotions) resulted
in increased levels of personal distress, focusing on the
group’s positive emotions (and ignoring their negative
emotions) led to greater levels of hopefulness. These results
are, to the best of our knowledge, the first to demonstrate
such causal effects of positive and negative empathy. We
now turn our attention to the final element of our predic-
tions, namely, that positive and negative empathy are asso-
ciated with different types of social behaviors.
STUDY 3: EXAMINING THE (UNIQUE)
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF POSITIVE
EMPATHY AND NEGATIVE EMPATHY
In Study 3 we examined whether positive empathy and
negative empathy are associated with different types of
social behaviors by administering the same positive and
negative empathy measures employed in Study 1 and
asking participants to indicate how often they engage in
behavior aimed at alleviating the suffering of needy others
andhowoftentheyengageinbehavioraimedatincreas-
ing the positive emotions both of strangers (e.g., random
acts of kindness) and relationship partners (e.g.,
pro-relational behaviors). Consistent with the existing
work just reviewed, we expected that positive and negative
empathy would both relate positively to helping behavior
directed toward others in need. In addition, we expected
that positive—but not negative—empathy would relate
to behaviors aimed specifically at increasing the positive
emotions of (non-needy) others.
Method
Participants
Participants were 207 users of the Mechanical Turk
online participant management system who received
U.S. $0.50 for their participation. The sample comprised
101 female and 102 male participants; four participants
did not indicate their gender. Average age of parti-
cipants was 36.2 years with a range from 20 to 74.
Procedure
The procedure was identical to Study 1.
Positive and negative empathy. Participants com-
pleted the same positive and negative empathy items as
in Study 1. The scales again showed excellent reliability
(negative empathy: a¼.86, M¼2.40, SD ¼.80; positive
empathy: a¼.92, M¼3.05, SD ¼.72).
As in Study 1, we again performed a confirmatory
factor analysis using AMOS software and maximum
likelihood estimation, comparing the fit of our proposed
two-factor model to the fit of an alternative single-factor
model. Because our initial analysis of the two-factor
solution indicated that a few of the error terms for the
individual empathy items were highly correlated (modi-
fication indices >22.0), we allowed these error terms to
correlate. A variety of indicators suggested that this
two-factor solution provided a good fit to the data
(TLI ¼.92, RMSEA ¼.09, CFI ¼.93, NFI ¼.90; see
Hu & Bentler, 1999). As expected, the positive and nega-
tive empathy factors were positively correlated (r¼.68).
Critically, as in Study 1, the two-factor solution pro-
vided a much better fit to the data than the one-factor
solution, which fit the data quite poorly (TLI ¼.66,
RMSEA ¼.18, CFI ¼.71, NFI ¼.68), even after
allowing highly-correlated error terms to correlate
(TLI ¼.80, RMSEA ¼.14, CFI ¼.85, NFI ¼.81).
2
Helping others in need. We created five items that
asked about how often participants engaged in helping
behavior aimed specifically toward others in need (e.g.,
‘‘I felt moved to help after learning of another person’s
or group’s especially sad or tragic situation’’). Parti-
cipants indicated on a 0 (never)to4(very often) scale
how often they had engaged in each behavior.
Responses to the six items were then averaged to pro-
vide an overall index of helping needy others (a¼.76,
M¼2.11, SD ¼.79). These items can be found in
Appendix D.
2
We replicated this factor structure for a third time in a separate
sample of 236 participants.
EMPATHIZING WITH PAIN VERSUS JOY 9
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

Acts of kindness. We administered eight items that
asked about how often participants engaged in ‘‘every-
day’’ behaviors aimed at increasing others’ happiness
(e.g., ‘‘I have smiled and said hello to someone I passed
on the street’’; ‘‘I have left a ‘random’ positive or kind
note for someone on their car, by mail, or on their
Facebook=Twitter page’’). Some of the items were cre-
ated by the authors and some adapted from Hamilton
(2010). Participants again answered on a 0 (never)to4
(very often) scale, and responses were averaged to pro-
vide an overall index of acts of kindness (a¼.76,
M¼1.99, SD ¼.67). These items can be found in
Appendix D.
Pro-relational behaviors. Participants also com-
pleted the Pro-Relational Behaviors scale (Peetz &
Kammrath, 2013). Participants indicated on a 1 (not at
all likely)to7(extremely likely) scale how likely they
were to engage in seven behaviors aimed at increasing
the happiness of relationship partners (e.g., ‘‘[I am likely
to] Surprise partner with their favorite beverage or
candy’’). Responses to the seven items were averaged
to provide an overall index of pro-relational behaviors
(a¼.85, M¼5.68, SD ¼1.03).
Results and Discussion
Zero-order correlations between positive empathy,
negative empathy, and our measures of prosocial
behavior can be seen in Table 3. As in Study 1, we also
performed a series of hierarchical regression analyses
to allow us to see the unique contributions of positive
empathy and negative empathy to our measures of
prosocial behavior. These results can be found in
Table 4.
FIGURE 3 Comparison of frequency of hopefulness scores within each empathy condition (Study 2).
10 ANDREYCHIK AND MIGLIACCIO
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

As expected, both positive empathy and negative
empathy were associated with greater engagement in
behaviors aimed at helping others in need, with each
accounting for unique variance in helping. Together,
they accounted for 20% of the variability in helping of
needy others.
Recall that we also expected positive empathy to
uniquely predict ‘‘everyday’’ behaviors aimed at increas-
ing others’ positive emotions. We measured two differ-
ent types of positivity-enhancing behaviors: ‘‘random
acts of kindness’’ directed toward strangers, and
pro-relational behaviors (Peetz & Kammrath, 2013)
directed toward relationship partners. Whereas positive
empathy was strongly positively associated with both
random acts of kindness and pro-relational behaviors,
accounting for a substantial portion of variance in each,
negative empathy accounted for essentially no unique
variance in either of these variables.
Although we find the results of the hierarchical
regression analyses particularly informative because
they allow us to see the unique variance in each of our
helping variables attributable to positive empathy and
negative empathy, because the zero-order correlations
paint a slightly different picture, we also discuss those
here. At the zero-order level, both positive empathy
and negative empathy were positively correlated with
helping of needy others, random acts of kindness, and
pro-relational behaviors. However, consistent with the
idea that both positive empathy and negative empathy
should relate similarly to helping of needy others, the
correlation between positive empathy and helping of
needy others (r¼.44) is quite similar to that between
negative empathy and helping of needy others
(r¼.38). Consistent with the idea that positive empathy
should relate more strongly to behaviors aimed specifi-
cally at increasing others’ positive emotions, positive
empathy is correlated much more strongly with both
pro-relational behaviors (r¼.47) and random acts of
kindness (r¼.49) than is negative empathy (r¼.27
and r¼.28, respectively).
We imagine that the reason for the somewhat differ-
ent stories told by the regressions and the zero-order
correlations is that, as we argue throughout the article,
there is overlap between positive and negative empathy
and thus when looking at correlations between one type
of empathy and an outcome variable without also con-
trolling for the influence of the other type of empathy
on the outcome variable, one is not able to assess the
unique variance in the outcome variable attributable
to each type of empathy. Thus, the fact that both posi-
tive and negative empathy correlate positively with
pro-relational behaviors, for example, is likely due to
the fact that there are common components underlying
both positive and negative empathy (e.g., the tendency
to take others’ perspectives) that attune people to
others’ emotional experience and therefore relate to
whether they engage in other-directed prosocial beha-
viors in general. But the fact that positive empathy cor-
relates much more strongly with pro-relational
behaviors than does negative empathy is likely due to
the fact that there also exist components unique to posi-
tive empathy that relate to one’s tendency to engage in
specific types of prosocial behaviors, namely, behaviors
aimed at increasing others’ positive emotions. In any
case, the important point for us here is that, whereas
positive empathy and negative empathy are both
strongly related to helping others who are suffering,
positive empathy is related much more strongly than
is negative empathy to prosocial behaviors aimed
specifically at increasing others’ positive emotions.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Existing research on empathy focuses overwhelmingly
on what can be termed negative empathy—the capacity
to resonate with the negative emotions (e.g., pain, sad-
ness) of others (see Eisenberg, 2000). Although there
are reasons to expect that connection with others’ nega-
tive emotions and connection with others’ positive emo-
tions are ‘‘simply’’ two different indicators of a single
more general capacity to connect with others’ emotions,
TABLE 4
Unique Proportions of Variance in Helping of Needy Others, Random
Acts of Kindness, and Pro-Relational Behaviors Explained by Either
Positive Empathy or Negative Empathy (Study 3)
Helping Needy Others Acts of Kindness
Pro-relational
Behaviors
Negative empathy
DR
2
.12 <.001 <.001
f
2
.28 .001 .001
b.43 .01 .03
Positive empathy
DR
2
.11 .16 .16
f
2
.24 .21 .21
b.41 .49 .48
TABLE 3
Zero-Order Correlations Among Positive Empathy, Negative Empa-
thy, and Helping of Needy Others, Random Acts of Kindness, and
Pro-Relational Behaviors (Study 3)
Helping Needy
Others
Acts of
Kindness
Pro-Relational
Behaviors
Negative
empathy
r(196) ¼.38 r(194) ¼.28 r(196) ¼.27
Positive
empathy
r(196) ¼.44 r(194) ¼.49 r(195) ¼.47
EMPATHIZING WITH PAIN VERSUS JOY 11
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

recent research—especially in developmental psychology
and social neuroscience—suggests that connecting with
the negative versus positive emotions of others may rep-
resent conceptually distinct—albeit related—capacities
(e.g., Morelli et al., 2014; Sallquist et al., 2009). We
examined the potential separability of positive and nega-
tive empathy and, even more critically, whether positive
empathy and negative empathy are related to different
types of social behaviors and cause distinct patterns of
vicarious social emotions.
Consistent with the notion that positive and negative
empathy represent related capacities, Study 1 revealed
that positive empathy was positively correlated with
negative empathy and that both positive empathy and
negative empathy were associated with the tendency
to ‘‘catch’’ the emotions of others and to take the per-
spective of others. But, consistent with the notion that
positive and negative empathy are distinct capacities,
Study 1 also showed that positive and negative empathy
were associated with distinct and theoretically sensible
correlates such as the tendency to personally experience
positive versus negative emotions.
Study 2 built on these results by providing what to
our knowledge is the first demonstration that positive
and negative empathy can cause different patterns of
vicarious emotion. There, we showed that whereas part-
icipants encouraged to empathize with a suffering yet
hopeful group’s positive emotions reported greater
levels of vicarious hopefulness when learning about the
group, participants encouraged to empathize with the
group’s negative emotions reported greater levels of
personal distress.
Finally, Study 3 provided what to our knowledge is
the first evidence that positive and negative empathy
relate differently to social behavior. We found that posi-
tive and negative empathy each accounted for unique
variability in prosocial behavior aimed at assisting
others in need. This finding is consistent with the wealth
of existing work linking negative empathy to helping of
needy others (see Batson, 2010) and with the only exist-
ing study that we know of linking positive empathy to
helping of others in need (Morelli, Lieberman, Telzer,
& Zaki, as cited in Morelli et al., 2015). Of course, given
that there exists only one, unpublished, study linking
positive empathy with helping behavior directed toward
needy targets, the replication of such initial findings
represents an important step in its own right.
Beyond replicating existing findings, Study 3 also
showed that positive—but not negative—empathy is
positively associated with prosocial behavior specifically
aimed at ‘‘making others happy.’’ In particular, we found
that positive empathy was associated with positivity-
enhancing prosocial behaviors directed toward both
strangers (random acts of kindness) and relationship
partners (pro-relational behaviors).
Potential Applications of Results
These results have a number of potential practical applica-
tions. One area of application has to do with the relevance
of these results to therapeutic contexts, especially those
focused on nurturing new and existing relationships and
healing fractured relationships. Existing work in this area
suggests that relationships benefit from ‘‘capitalization,’’
where relationship partners actively share in one another’s
positive outcomes and emotions (e.g., Gable & Reis, 2010).
Our results suggest that in addition to its interpersonal
benefits, capitalization may also be beneficial at the
intrapersonal level, as partners who more regularly focus
on and share in each others’ positive emotions may also
increase their own levels of positive emotionality.
In addition, given the important function of positive
relational behaviors such as those examined in Study 3
for relationship building, maintenance, and repair
(e.g., Algoe, Fredrickson, & Gable, 2013; Algoe, Gable,
& Maisel, 2010; Peetz & Kammrath, 2013; Pistole,
Roberts, & Chapman, 2010), the present work also sug-
gests the potential usefulness of encouraging individuals
to focus on others’ positive emotions—thereby poten-
tially increasing the extent to which they engage in posi-
tive relational behaviors aimed at increasing others’
positive emotions—as a strategy for building and
improving relationships.
In these respects, these results interface well
with emerging research on positive psychotherapy (e.g.,
Seligman, Rashid, & Parks, 2006), which focuses, in
part, on increasing clients’ positive emotions rather than
(or in addition to) directly targeting negative emotions.
In addition to existing positive psychotherapeutic inter-
ventions such as gratitude journaling, focusing on bles-
sings, and savoring, our results suggest that exercises
designed to increase the extent to which individuals try
to empathize with others’ positive experiences might
also have beneficial effects on well-being.
One final future application has to do with the con-
ditions under which positive and negative empathy might
relate most strongly to prosocial behavior. Although the
present work demonstrated that both positive and nega-
tive empathy are positively correlated with helping of
needy others, because negative empathy is sensitive to
others’ negative emotions, it might best predict helping
in situations where needy targets specifically highlight
how their negative situation is causing them emotional
difficulties. In contrast, because positive empathy is sensi-
tive to others’ positive emotions, it might best predict
helping in situations where needy targets highlight how
their negative situation is preventing them from flourish-
ing and experiencing positive emotions. Pilot studies are
currently under way in our lab testing this possibility by
systematically manipulating the emotional information
highlighted by needy targets in their helping appeals. Of
12 ANDREYCHIK AND MIGLIACCIO
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

course, uncovering the types of information most
effective at energizing helping among individuals high
in positive and=or negative empathy could have poten-
tially broad practical applications for tailoring helping
appealstoparticularaudiences.
Limitations and Future Directions
One important limitation of the present work is that it
relies specifically on self reports of helping behavior.
Given the typically low correlations between
self-reported helping behavior and actual helping beha-
vior (e.g., Batson, 1998; Magoo & Khanna, 1991; Piliavin
& Charng, 1990), we think it is particularly important for
future work to replicate these results in more
‘‘real-world’’ contexts. This could be done both exper-
imentally by, for example, manipulating positive and
negative empathy using instructions such as those
employed in Study 2 and observing the effects of such a
manipulation on behavior in an analogue of a real-world
helping situation (e.g., helping someone who appears to
be in distress as participants leave a study; e.g., Darley
& Batson, 1973), or correlationally by, for example,
obtaining measures of individuals’ positive and negative
empathy, as well as records or observations of additional
relevant variables (e.g., past donation behavior).
Another limitation of our studies—especially our cor-
relational Studies 1 and 2—is that they are based on
responses from participants at a single point in time.
Thus, it is conceivable that participants’ responses could
have been influenced by, for example, a desire to appear
consistent. Although it is less clear how such a consist-
ency bias could have impacted the results of Study 3
(i.e., the fact that participants were exposed to only
one of the three experimental conditions makes it diffi-
cult to see how their responses could have been affected
by some theory they may have had about the predicted
effects of the empathy manipulation), future research
might address this issue by, for example, separating
measurement of key variables (e.g., by measuring some
variables at one testing session and others at a later
session), or by obtaining measures of relevant variables
in ways that are less amenable to conscious control (e.g.,
physiological or implicit measures of emotionality).
We also note that, consistent with existing debate sur-
rounding the ‘‘ultimate’’ motivations underlying helping
among individuals high in negative empathy (for a
review, see Batson, 1991), our results cannot speak to
the ‘‘ultimate’’ motivations underlying helping among
individuals high in negative and=or positive empathy.
For example, our results cannot distinguish whether
individuals high in positive empathy, because they
are particularly sensitive to others’ positive emotions,
help out of a desire to share vicariously in others’
improvement-related positivity (e.g., K. D. Smith,
Keating, & Stotland, 1989), or out of a desire to increase
the other’s welfare, with any vicarious positive emotions
they experience as a result of helping emerging as a
byproduct of this ‘‘ultimate’’ other-focused motivation.
One way to disentangle these possibilities is to vary
whether participants high in positive empathy (whether
dispositionally measured or situationally induced) are
provided with the opportunity to learn if their help actu-
ally improved the situation of the needy other. If sub-
jects’ ultimate motivation is to share in the needy
others’ joy at improvement, they should help only when
they will have the opportunity to learn of the other’s
improvement. But, in a study utilizing this method,
Batson and colleagues (Batson et al., 1991) found that
subjects induced to feel (negative) empathy for a suffer-
ing target by means of perspective-taking instructions
helped regardless of whether they were told they would
learn of the other’s improvement, suggesting that (nega-
tive) empathy led to an other-focused motivation to
improve the needy other’s welfare (with any anticipated
empathic joy a by-product of this other-focused motiv-
ation) rather than a self-focused motivation to increase
one’s own positive mood. Of course, because individuals
high in positive empathy should be particular sensitive
to information about the needy target’s improvement
(and the positive emotions of targets in general), it could
be hypothesized that they would be more likely than
individuals high in negative empathy to seek out the
vicarious positive emotions that might come from seeing
needy others improve (see Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent,
1973; Cialdini et al., 1987 for additional strategies for
disentangling ‘‘helping for mood lifting reasons’’ from
‘‘helping for altruistic reasons’’). Our lab is currently
exploring this issue using this and other paradigms.
Finally, we note that although we have focused on the
distinctions between, and unique predictive validity of,
positive and negative empathy, at both a theoretical and
empirical level, we do not see these capacities as mutually
exclusive. At a theoretical level, we agree with the notion
reviewed in the introduction that empathizing with others’
emotions—regardless of the valence of those emotions—
likely engages many of the same foundational processes,
and thus individuals who tend to empathize with, for
example, the negative emotions of others will also tend to
empathize with the positive emotions of others. At an
empirical level, the correlations found between positive
empathy and negative empathy in the studies reported here
and in other existing work also support the notion that
positive and negative empathy can co-occur within a single
individual. Of importance, however, our results also sup-
port the idea that although these capacities can co-occur,
they do not necessarily co-occur and they are, in fact, dis-
tinct from one another. In particular, the results of Study
3 demonstrate that positive empathy and negative empathy
explain unique variance in social behaviors aimed at
EMPATHIZING WITH PAIN VERSUS JOY 13
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

helping others in need (e.g., positive empathy predicts
helping behavior even when controlling for the variance
in helping behavior attributable to negative empathy). In
addition, positive empathy alone predicts behaviors aimed
specifically at increasing others’ positive emotions.
CONCLUSION
Highlighting the need for an increased appreciation of
the distinction between empathizing with others’
positive emotions and empathizing with others’ negative
emotions, the present work shows that, although they
share a number of common components, positive empa-
thy and negative empathy are distinct capacities that
relate to distinct patterns of social behavior and social
emotion. Future work is needed to better understand
both the theoretical and practical implications of these
results, especially with respect to their potential applica-
bility for therapists and other practitioners—especially
those concerned with increasing relational well-being—
and for those concerned with better understanding and
ultimately increasing prosocial behavior more generally.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Michael Gill, Susan Rakowitz, three anony-
mous reviewers, and editor David Trafimow for their
thoughtful feedback. We also thank Michelle
Cusumano, Stephanie Gutkin, Laura Ivy, Alex Kimble,
Sam Krivensky, Eliza Lewis, Ariana Philbin, Nick
Restivo, Francesca Romano, and Elizabeth Sheerin for
their assistance with data collection.
REFERENCES
Algoe, S. B., Fredrickson, B. L., & Gable, S. L. (2013). The social
functions of the emotion of gratitude via expression. Emotion,13,
605–609. doi:10.1037=a0032701
Algoe, S. B., Gable, S. L., & Maisel, N. C. (2010). It’s the little things:
Everyday gratitude as a booster shot for romantic relationships.
Personal Relationships,17, 217–233. doi:10.1111=
j.1475-6811.2010.01273.x
Andreychik, M. R., & Gill, M. J. (2014). Do natural kind beliefs about
social groups contribute to prejudice? Distinguishing bio-somatic
essentialism from bio-behavioral essentialism, and both of
these from entitativity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
18, 454–474. doi:10.1177=1368430214550341
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer software].
Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic?.
In L. Berkowitz & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psycho-
logical answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. Gilbert,
S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 282–316). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Batson, C. D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In
M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. Mikulincer, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature
(pp. 15–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H.
M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61, 413–
426. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.61.3.413
Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking:
Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,23, 751–758.
doi:10.1177=0146167297237008
Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress
and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with
different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality,55,
19–39. doi:10.1111=j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J.,
Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., ...Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy
and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group
improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,72, 105–118. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.72.1.105
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a
pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry,2, 107–122.
doi:10.1207=s15327965pli0202_1
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin,117, 497–529. doi:10.1037=0033-2909.117.3.497
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
Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression
and altruism: A case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology,9, 502–516. doi:10.1016=0022-1031 (73)90031-0
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., &
Beaman, A. L. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or self-
ishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52,
749–758. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.52.4.749
Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and
comparison youth. Developmental Psychology,32, 988–998.
doi:10.1037=0012-1649.32.6.988
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). ‘From Jerusalem to Jericho’: A
study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,27, 100–108.
doi:10.1037=h0034449
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex.
London, UK: John Murray.
Davis, K. D. (2000). Studies of pain using functional magnetic reson-
ance imaging. In K. L. Casey & M. Bushnell (Eds.), Pain imaging
(pp. 195–210). Seattle, WA: IASP Press.
Davis, M. H. (1980, January). Individual differences in empathy: A multi-
dimensional approach. Dissertation Abstracts International,40, 3480.
Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Decety, J., Chen, C., Harenski, C. L., & Kiehl, K. A. (2015).
Socioemotional processing of morally-laden behavior and their con-
sequences on others in forensic psychopaths. Human Brain Map-
ping,36, 2015–2026. doi:10.1002=hbm.22752
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of
human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews,
3, 71–100. doi:10.1177=1534582304267187
14 ANDREYCHIK AND MIGLIACCIO
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

de Waal, F. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The
evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology,59, 279–300.
doi:10.1146=annurev.psych.59.103006.093625
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development.
Annual Review of Psychology,51, 665–697. doi:10.1146=annurev.
psych.51.1.665
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In
N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed.: Vol. 3.
Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 701–778).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C.,
Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., & Carlo, G. (2002). Prosocial develop-
ment in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,82, 993–1006.
doi:10.1037=0022-3514.82.6.993
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does
rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science,302,
290–292. doi:10.1126=science.1089134
Feshbach, N. D. (1982). Sex differences in empathy and social beha-
vior in children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial
behavior (pp. 315–337). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Francis, D. D., Champagne, F. C., & Meaney, M. J. (2000). Variations
in maternal behaviour are associated with differences in oxytocin
receptor levels in the rat. Journal of Neuroendocrinology,12, 1145–
1148. doi:10.1046=j.1365-2826.2000.00599.x
Gable, S. L., & Reis, H. T. (2010). Good news! Capitalizing on positive
events in an interpersonal context. In M. P. Zanna & M. P. Zanna
(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 42, pp. 195–
257). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Haber, S. N., & Knutson, B. (2010). The reward circuit: Linking pri-
mate anatomy and human imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology,35,
4–26. doi:10.1038=npp.2009.129
Hamilton, D. R. (2010). Why kindness is good for you. London, UK:
Hay House.
Hanh, T. N. (1997). Teachings on love. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional con-
tagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-
ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6,
1–55. doi:10.1080=10705519909540118
Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature (2nd ed.,L.A.Bigge,
Trans.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1738)
Hume, D. (1998). An enquiry concerning the principles of morals. (T.
Beauchamp, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original
work published 1751).
Kant, I. (1889). Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and other works on
the theory of ethics (4th ed., T. K. Abbott, Trans.). New York, NY:
Longmans, Green. (Original work published 1785)
Kim, H., Shimojo, S., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2011). Overlapping
responses for the expectation of juice and money rewards in human
ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex,21, 769–776.
doi:10.1093=cercor=bhq145
Knutson, B., Adams, C. M., Fong, G. W., & Hommer, D. (2001).
Anticipation of increasing monetary reward selectively recruits
nucleus accumbens. The Journal of Neuroscience,21, RC159.
Lamm, C., Decety, J., & Singer, T. (2011). Meta-analytic evidence
for common and distinct neural networks associated with
directly experienced pain and empathy for pain. Neuroimage,54,
2492–2502. doi:10.1016=j.neuroimage.2010.10.014
Light, S. N., Coan, J. A., Zahn-Waxler, C., Frye, C., Goldsmith, H.
H., & Davidson, R. J. (2009). Empathy is associated with dynamic
change in prefrontal brain electrical activity during positive emotion
in children. Child Development,80, 1210–1231. doi:10.1111=
j.1467-8624.2009.01326.x
Magoo, G., & Khanna, R. (1991). Altruism and willingness to donate
blood. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies,7, 21–24.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelli-
gence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence,
27, 267–298. doi:10.1016=S0160–2896 (99)00016–1
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy.
Journal of Personality,40, 525–543. doi:10.1111=j.1467-6494.
1972.tb00078.x
Moll, J., Zahn, R., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Bramati, I. E., Krueger, F.,
Tura, B., ...Grafman, J. (2011). Impairment of prosocial sentiments
is associated with frontopolar and septal damage in frontotemporal
dementia. Neuroimage,54, 1735–1742. doi:10.1016=j.neuroimage.
2010.08.026
Morelli, S. A., Lieberman, M. D., & Zaki, J. (2015). The emerging
study of positive empathy. Social and Personality Psychology Com-
pass,9, 57–68. doi:10.1111=spc3.12157
Morelli, S. A., Rameson, L. T., & Lieberman, M. D. (2014). The
neural components of empathy: Predicting daily prosocial behavior.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,9, 39–47. doi:10.1093=
scan=nss088
O’Doherty, J. P. (2004). Reward representations and reward-related
learning in the human brain: Insights from neuroimaging. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology,14, 769–776. doi:10.1016=
j.conb.2004.10.016
Peetz, J., & Kammrath, L. (2013). Folk understandings of self regu-
lation in relationships: Recognizing the importance of self-regulatory
ability for others, but not the self. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology,49, 712–718. doi:10.1016=j.jesp.2013.02.007
Peyron, R., Laurent, B., & Garcia-Larrea, L. (2000). Functional ima-
ging of brain responses to pain. A review and meta-analysis (2000).
Neurophysiologie Clinique=Clinical Neurophysiology,30, 263–288.
doi:10.1016=s0987-7053(00)00227-6
Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent
theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology,16, 27–65.
doi:10.1146=annurev.so.16.080190.000331
Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Chapman, M. L. (2010). Attachment,
relationship maintenance, and stress in long distance and
geographically close romantic relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships,27, 535–552. doi:10.1177=0265407510363427
Rainville, P. (2002). Brain mechanisms of pain affect and pain
modulation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,12, 195–204.
doi:10.1016=S0959-4388 (02)00313-6
Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Hershey, K. L. (2000). Stability of
temperament in childhood: Laboratory infant assessment to parent
at seven years. In V. J. Molfese & D. L. Molfese (Eds.), Tempera-
ment and personality development across the life span (pp. 85–120).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sallquist, J., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Eggum, N. D., & Gaertner,
B. M. (2009). Assessment of preschoolers’ positive empathy:
Concurrent and longitudinal relations with positive emotion, social
competence, and sympathy. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
4(3), 223–233. doi:10.1080=17439760902819444
Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psycho-
therapy. American Psychologist,61, 774–788. doi:10.1037=
0003-066X.61.8.774
Shackman, A. J., Salomons, T. V., Slagter, H. A., Fox, A. S., Winter,
J. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2011). The integration of negative affect,
pain and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience,12,154–167. doi:10.1038=nrn2994
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., &
Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but
not sensory components of pain. Science,303, 1157–1162.
doi:10.1126=science.1093535
Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. London, England: A.
Millar.
EMPATHIZING WITH PAIN VERSUS JOY 15
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P., & Stotland, E. (1989). Altruism reconsid-
ered: The effect of denying feedback on a victim’s status to empathic
witnesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57, 641–650.
doi:10.1037=0022-3514.57.4.641
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, 62–71. doi:10.
1080=00223890802484381
Trafimow, D. (2004). Problems with change in R
2
as applied to theory
of reasoned action research. British Journal of Social Psychology,43,
515–530. doi:10.1348=0144666042565344
Trafimow, D., & Marks, M. (2015). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology,37, 1–2. doi:10.1080=01973533.2015.1012991
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the
positive and negative affect schedule. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
Wispe
´, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To
call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,50, 314–321. doi:10.1037=0022-3514.50.2.314
Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S. H., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M.,
Guthrie, I. K., ...Shepard, S. A. (2002). The relations of parental
warmth and positive expressiveness to children’s empathy-related
responding and social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child
Development,73, 893–915. doi:10.1111=1467-8624.00446
APPENDIX A: EMPATHY ITEMS
Positive Empathy Items
I enjoy seeing other people receive gifts.
I often become happy when I see others in happy
situations on TV or in a movie.
I often feel happy for others who receive good news.
When someone else is feeling excited, I tend to get
excited too.
It makes me happy to see others succeed.
I often get excited when others around me are excited.
I often feel happy when those around me are smiling.
Negative Empathy Items
I don’t get upset just because a friend is acting upset.
a
(R)
It makes me sad to see a lonely stranger in a group.
a
Seeing people cry upsets me.
a
I cannot continue to feel OK if people around me are
depressed.
a
I often become upset for others who receive upsetting
news.
e
Other people’s misfortunes often disturb me a great
deal.
b
When a friend is sad, I become sad.
e
General Empathy Items
I find that I am ‘‘in tune’’ with other people’s moods.
c
I am not really interested in how other people feel.
c
(R)
I don’t give others’ feelings much thought.
d
(R)
I always try to tune in to the feelings of those around
me.
d
It’s easy for me to get carried away by other people’s
emotions.
d
My feelings are my own and don’t reflect how others
feel.
d
(R)
I feel deeply for others.
d
APPENDIX B: INSTRUCTIONS
Objective Instructions
As you read, try to take an objective perspective, being
as objective as possible about what has happened to the
group and the group members being interviewed. Try
not to let yourself get caught up in imagining what the
group members have been through and how they feel
as a result. Just read the information presented carefully.
Positive Empathy Instructions
As you read, try to imagine the positive emotions the
group members feel as a result of their experiences and
how those experiences have affected their lives.
Although the group members may also discuss feeling
negative emotions, you should try your best to ignore
those negative emotions and focus instead on really try-
ing to imagine the positive emotions the group members
feel.
Negative Empathy Instructions
As you read, try to imagine the negative emotions the
group members feel as a result of their experiences and
how those experiences have affected their lives.
Although the group members may also discuss feeling
positive emotions, you should try your best to ignore
those positive emotions and focus instead on really try-
ing to imagine the negative emotions the group members
feel.
APPENDIX C: SCIENTISTS UNCOVER A
DISTINCTIVE SOCIAL GROUP
In Western Mongolia, near the intersection of
Mongolia and Kazakhstan, scientists stumbled upon
a community of humans that have aroused much curi-
osity among researchers and much attention from
a
From Mehrabian and Epstein (1972).
b
Adapted from Davis (1980).
c
From Spreng et al. (2009).
d
From Mayer et al. (1999).
e
Created by the authors.
16 ANDREYCHIK AND MIGLIACCIO
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

humanitarian organizations. Fortunately, members of
the community speak a dialect of Chinese and so
researchers have been able to obtain first-person
accounts of life in the community.
Day-to-day life in the remote community is very dif-
ficult. Geographically isolated, the region lacks basic
natural resources such as clean drinking water and
arable farm land. As a result, hunger and thirst are con-
stant threats, and rates of water-borne illnesses are
alarmingly high. Urlik, a 32-year-old male, has lost
two children to one of the most common of these water-
borne illnesses. ‘‘My son died when he was six, my
daughter when she was only two. Both of them went
the same way. They completely lost their appetite.
Any food we did give them they could not keep down.
They had terrible diarrhea. After a few days of this, they
started having terrible fits of shaking and cramps. They
wasted away to nothing before they went. My son lasted
about two weeks, my daughter only a few days.’’ Biolo-
gists think it likely that both of Urlik’s children died
from microsporidiosis, a common protozoal infection
often found in groundwater and easily treated by mod-
ern antibiotics.
Beyond the hostile environmental conditions, scien-
tists note that the group lives in a rugged, mountainous
area making it quite difficult for them to relocate
(especially for families that include the very young and
the very old). Being trapped in such an inhospitable
place means that the lives of the inhabitants are focused
almost exclusively on meeting the necessities of day-to-
day existence, trying to wring as much as they can from
a land that produces little in the way of crops or veg-
etation. Nearly every inhabitant of working age spends
just about every day engaged in some type of subsistence
activity. The men of the community primarily engage in
subsistence farming while the women engage primarily
in gathering of native plants, as well as grubs, worms,
and other protein-rich insects. The amount of time
devoted to these subsistence activities leaves little time
for recreational or cultural activities, or even quality
interaction with one’s family or community. ‘‘We leave
before dawn to gather guil berries, and most days we
do not return until after dark. There are so few of them
available, especially in the colder months, that it often
takes that long to gather enough to sustain us,’’ remarks
Luji, a gatherer. ‘‘Most days I see my children for only
an hour or two, if at all. And I’m so tired that it is dif-
ficult to focus on them in the time I do spend with
them.’’ Perhaps unsurprisingly, given their difficult lives
and lack of quality social interactions, the community
suffers from high rates of anxiety and depression.
Except for some primitive forms of tribal medicine,
health care is essentially absent. The rate of infant
mortality is much higher here than in the developed
world, and is even higher than in other comparable
tribal societies. ‘‘I do not know a single woman who
has not lost at least one child,’’ says 23-year-old Tula.
‘‘My mother lost three children under the age of two
before I was born. And, she lost another three in infancy
before my brother was born. I myself lost my first baby.
For women here this is an expected part of life. But, I
tell you from experience that even though this happens
a lot, it’s something that one never gets over. I still think
about the baby I lost every day.’’
Given both their isolation and their lack of time to
devote to activities beyond those required for their sub-
sistence, education is all but absent, with an effective
zero-percent literacy rate. Scientists are hopeful how-
ever, that the introduction of educational facilities can
help the community to develop more effective ways of
managing the harsh environment, leaving more time
for enriching cultural and community-building activities
that may contribute to increases in community mem-
bers’ well-being. ‘‘I often wonder what life would be like
if my family and I had time to just enjoy one another’s
company,’’ says Urlik, ‘‘What our community might be
able to do together. What my children, or even myself
could become if we had time to explore who we are as
individuals and as a community. I just wonder what it
would be like to ask questions like ‘Who am I?’ ‘What
do I want to become?’ rather than ‘How will I find food
or water today?’ ’’
APPENDIX D: ITEMS
Helping Others in Need Items
I have gone out of my way to help a friend or
acquaintance who was dealing with a very painful situ-
ation (e.g., death or illness in the family, end of a
long-term romantic relationship).
I have volunteered or donated to charities that focus
on helping others who are suffering badly (e.g., victims
of war, refugees) to lessen or end their suffering.
I have felt moved to help after learning of another
person’s or group’s especially sad or tragic situation.
I have given food or money to a homeless person who
was really struggling.
I have reached out to a classmate or neighbor who
was lonely and did not have many friends to help them
feel less isolated.
Acts of Kindness Items
I have bought something for the person in line behind
me even though I did not know them (e.g., a coffee for
the person behind me in line at a coffee shop).
I have surprised my partner or housemate with a
meal (that I cooked or bought).
EMPATHIZING WITH PAIN VERSUS JOY 17
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015

I have made an effort to thank someone who did
or said something that made a positive difference in
my life.
I have smiled and said hello to someone I passed on
the street.
I have left a very generous tip for a waiter or
waitress.
I have left a ‘‘random’’ positive or kind note for
someone on their car, by mail, or on their facebook=
twitter page.
I have sent a nice card or note to a friend or family
member, just because.
I have complimented a stranger (on their clothes, on
their good work).
18 ANDREYCHIK AND MIGLIACCIO
Downloaded by [Fairfield University], [Michael Andreychik] at 11:29 18 August 2015