Corey Duke
Kristen Gilbert
John Burling
Abstract
of the intricacies of ecological reasoning becomes increasingly important. Previous research has
shown empathy induced toward animals to elicit altruistic environmental reasoning (Berenguer
2010). The present study furthers that research by examining the unexplored area of personality's
interpersonal sensitivity. Students at a small liberal arts university completed the Highly
Sensitive Person scale (Aron 1997) before viewing empathy primers designed to elicit empathy
toward either an animal or human while given instruction to attempt to empathize or remain
objective toward the object depicted thusly creating a 2x2 factorial design based on object of
empathy (animal or human) and empathy level (low or high). Participants then ranked solutions
(anthropocentric, ecocentric, and social contract). An analysis of variance across all variables
revealed a significant effect between object of empathy (animal or human) and empathy group
(low or high) on the ranking of ecocentric solutions to the dilemma with highly sensitive person
It is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate through our day without being involved
in complex ecological decision making. Whether its deciding to carpool to work in the
morning, bring your own bags to the grocery store, or turn the faucet off while you brush your
teeth almost every decision we make is having an impact in some way on the environment. It
appears that the sum of these and related decisions will ultimately determine whether or not a
sustainable society can be formed. It is because of this that an understanding of what influences
this decision making process is crucial if we are indeed to achieve this sustainable society.
Building on previous research this paper presents a study attempting to improve upon our
understanding of what influences our decision making process when ecological issues are
Although many explanatory theoretical approaches have been put forward, probably the
most significant and widely utilized approach comes from the notion of environmental behavior
as being altruistic in nature and scope (Dietz et al., 2005). Within this realm of altruistic
behavior probably the most influential model is the norm-activation model of altruism as
proposed by Schwartz (1977) from which much research in environmental psychology has been
based and theoretical models built upon including the important value-belief-norm theory of
ecological behavior (Dietz et al., 2005). For Schwartz helping behavior comes from norms
environmental behavior would begin with a sense of a valued-other in need and an instigating
administered punishment for not (Berenguer, 2010). Thus, the internal response is related to
complying with or not complying with internal ideas of how one would act in a particular
situation (Berenguer, 2010). It should be noted that from this perspective it is necessary to
perceive a valued other as being in need for helping behavior to occur (Berenguer, 2010).
As mentioned before, a great deal of work has stemmed from and been developed on top
of the Schwartz Altruistic Behavior Model in environmental psychology. Among these the
value-belief-norm theory of behavior has become a highly influential model (Stern, Deitz, &
Kalof, 1993; Dietz, Fitzgerald, & Schwom, 2005; Berenguer, 2010). This model describes
environmental behaviors as being more likely to occur when and if individuals believe
environmental attributes that are important for them can be harmed and their behavior will
prevent this happening (Berenguer, 2010). This theory, again built off of Schwartzs model of
helping behavior, relies on and requires an object of empathy in need (Dietz et al., 2005;
Berenguer, 2010). The other thing worth highlighting about this theory is that it proposes three
different types or aspects of value orientations that make up ones worldview or orientation for
This idea of different value orientations has been explored in several studies and many
different value orientations have been proposed (Thompson & Barton, 1994; Kortenkamp &
Moore, 2001; Berenguer, 2007; Berenguer, 2010). Thompson and Barton (1994) make the claim
however that the underlying values that make up belief systems that lead to environmentally
supportive behaviors can be simplified by classifying them into two categories: anthropocentric
and ecocentric. According to this model anthropocentric motives or values that elicit support for
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 5
the environment hinge on the notion of nature as valuable insofar as it supports or enhances the
lives of humans, and in an ecocentric belief system nature would be valued in and of itself
independent of its usefulness to mankind (Thompson & Barton, 1994; Berenguer, 2010). In this
view, the egoistic and altruistic value types of the Value-Belief-Norm model wound make up the
anthropocentric value dimension and the biospheric would make up the ecocentric dimension
focusing on valuing nature in itself. This distinction becomes important as these different belief
orientations can have a direct and dramatic effect on environmental behavior (Thompson &
Barton, 1994; Berenguer, 2010). When other human centered values are involved or jeopardized
in a situation those with an anthropocentric view are less likely to want to protect the
environment and thus will not always behave in a proenvironmental manner (Berenguer, 2007;
Within the realm of helping and prosocial behavior another piece of work has become
behavior (Berenguer, 2007). This model stems from the altruistic and prosocial behavior
framework put forth by Daniel Batson (1991) with empathy at its core, which refers to an
emotional response congruent with the perceived welfare of another (Berenguer, 2010). Batson
and others pointed out and showed in several studies that taking the perspective of another in
need and imagining his or her plight can arouse emotions of sympathy and compassion
improving attitudes and behaviors towards different groups or objects such as the homeless
population, AIDS victims, and minorities (Batson, 1991; Batson et al., 1997; Batson et al., 2002;
Berenguer 2007; Berenguer 2010). An important distinction between this model of altruistic
behavior and Schwartzs norm activation model is that although this does still begin with the
perception of another in need, the object or person in need does not necessarily need to be a
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 6
valued object or person (Schwartz 1977; Berenguer 2010). The act of imagining the other in
need and taking the others perspective is argued to arouse an emotional response which
motivates the individual to help relieve the specific need in question where again in the norm
activation model a personal norm and a valued other is needed, although Batson does
acknowledge that there are occasions where a valued other that is threatened can arouse empathic
There have been quite a few studies in which the effect of empathy is shown to improve
environmental attitudes and behaviors (Berenguer 2007; Berenguer 2010; Schultz, 2000). In
Schultzs study it was found that participants instructed to take the perspective of an animal
being harmed by pollution scored significantly higher than students receiving the instruction to
(Schultz, 2000). Berenguer completed two studies showing the effect of empathy on
environmental attitudes, reasoning, and behavior (Berenguer, 2007; Berenguer, 2010). In the
first Berenguer used a two by two factorial design to manipulate empathy (high or low) by object
(bird or tree) and showed that compared to a group of students not induced to feel empathy, those
in the empathy group allocated more funds to environmental protection agencies (Berenguer,
2007). Again using a two by two factorial design to induce empathy Berenguer showed in a
second study that the object toward which empathy is induced (either human or vulture) had a
significant effect on the number and types (anthropocentric, ecocentric, and nonenvironmental)
While empathy induced toward environmental objects is at the roots of these studies, very
few studies if any have examined personalitys possible effects on the induction of empathy
toward environmental objects. Is one personality type more sensitive to the manipulation of
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 7
empathy toward nonhuman objects than another? That is the question this study hopes to help
sensitivity. What might be the most significant model of this dimension of personality comes
from the work of Aron and Aron (1997) in which a unique personality construct is put forward in
their individual studies across a wide and varying population, there appears to be a difference in
certain individuals and how they process sensory information; an aspect shown to be unique
from social introversion and other personality constructs (Aron & Aron, 1997). A 27-item
measure was put forth in their studies termed the Highly Sensitive Person Scale which has been
shown in both their studies and those of others to be a valid and reliable measure of the construct
of sensory processing sensitivity (Aron & Aron, 1997; Evans & Rothbart, 2008; Smolewska,
McCabe, & Woody, 2006). People high in these dimensions it is proposed are more likely to be
affected by images, movies, and stories, however as mentioned before, there has been little to no
research done examining this personality dimensions effect on the ability to empathize with these
This research study attempts to merge these two fields bridging the gap in the literature
nonhuman environmental objects measuring its effects on moral reasoning value orientations.
The previous studies mentioned above have shown that environmental behavior, attitudes, and
reasoning can be influenced by both taking the perspective of another person or animal in plight.
It has also been shown that the object of empathy has an influence on the type of reasoning used
in a moral dilemma and thus the same results can be expected (Berenguer, 2010). In personality
research it has been shown that those high on the personality construct of sensory processing
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 8
sensitivity will be more strongly influenced by stimulation (Aron & Aron, 1997). It is
hypothesized that this effect can be seen on the manipulation of empathy by a story or picture
with those higher on the construct of sensory processing sensitivity being more strongly swayed
Method
Participants
Participants were 174 (119 women, 53 men, 2 unidentified) students ranging in age from
public liberal arts university in Alabama. Participants selected by convenience sampling were
randomly assigned by ordered packet sorting to each of the four experimental conditions:
empathy (high/low) and object of empathy (young man/vulture). All participants were treated in
Materials
All items included in the packet were printed in black and white on 8.5 in x 11 in
white copy paper. The first page of the research packet was the consent form. This was followed
by a demographics form asking participants their age, major, class standing, and sex. The third
page included in the packet was the Highly Sensitive Person Scale which is a 27 item
questionnaire using a seven point Likert-type scale that attempts to measure sensory processing
sensitivity through statements such as I am easily overwhelmed by strong sensory input which
participants rate according to how true they are for oneself. Three items were added to this scale
items is I would rather go to the beach or on a hike than see a new movie. These three items
were interspersed with the Highly Sensitive Person Scale items thus creating a total of thirty
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 9
items included on this page. Following this page was a stop page which included the words
Stop Here! (Please stop here and wait for further instruction) and an oversized stop sign.
Following the stop page was an instruction page containing one of two different sets of
instructions in large print identical to those used in previous studies (Berenguer, 2010). For
those placed in the high empathy condition the instruction page read:
On the following page you will read a text including a story about a young man or
vulture and you will see his or its image in a photograph. As you read the text and look
at the photo, try to imagine how the young man or vulture feels about what has happened
to him or it, and how it has affected his or its life. Try to feel the consequences of
everything the young man or vulture has had to go through and how this has made him
or it feel.
For those placed in the low empathy condition the instruction page read:
On the following page you will read a text including a story about a young man or
vulture and you will see his or its image in a photograph. As you read the text and look
at the photo, try to adopt an objective point of view toward what is being described in the
news story. Try not to dwell on how the young man or vulture might feel, but rather to
The next page of the packet contained one of two possible fictitious news items designed
to arouse empathy used in previous studies (Berenguer, 2010). Each news item described an
automobile accident but differed from one another in that one described a vulture left paralyzed
by the accident while the other described a young man left paralyzed. The pictures and text used
Following the news item page were two separate measures designed to check the
manipulation of empathy presented together on one page. The first of these measures, as used by
Berenguer (2010), included two questions and used a 9 point Likert-type scale system. The first
of these items read To what extent did you try to remain objective about the news item you
read? and the second item read To what extent did you try to imagine the feelings of the young
man or vulture in relation to what you read in the news item? Beneath these questions were 6
adjectives describing emotional states participants were instructed to rate according to how well
they described their current state or their state while viewing the article using a 7-point likert
scale. The adjectives, as employed in previous studies (Batson, 1991; Berenguer, 2010) for
evaluating empathy consisted of and were presented in this order: compassionate, soft-hearted,
Following the empathy and emotion check page was a vignette presenting an
environmental dilemma participants were asked to reason through a method used for
measuring reasoning employed in several different studies (Berenguer, 2010; Kortenkamp and
Moore, 2001). The dilemma described the aftermath of an oil spill in which fisherman want to
return to work but if they do it would further harm the fish population and is presented in
Appendix B. Instructions asked participants to decide what the fishermen should do and think
about the reasons they used to determine what they feel would be the best response to the
situation before turning the page. The page following the vignette asked participants to rank a
set of ten items according to how much they based their solution on them with 1 being least
important in their reasoning process and 10 being most important in their reasoning process.
Each item that was included on the vignette response page was given one of three type groupings
by the researchers; an item was typed as either being more anthropocentric in nature meaning a
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 11
solution to the vignette in which human beings are held as the most important beings involved,
more ecocentric in nature meaning that the solution held all living things as equally important or
valuable, or as non-environmental in nature meaning that the solution held social contracts or the
like as the most important factor to be considered. This is better explained through examples of
the items included. An example of one of the four anthropocentric type items included would be
The fishermen need to provide for their families. An example of one of the four ecocentric
type items included would be The marine animals are also entitled to life. An example of one
of the two non-environmental type item used would be The fishermen have an agreement with
Procedure
Experimenters went to several different classes ranging from introductory history courses
to graduate level education courses during their respected regular meeting times. The research
experiment was conducted during this time. Through random packet sorting participants were
assigned to each of the four experimental conditions: empathy (high/ low) and object of empathy
(young man/ vulture). Once the packets were administered, identical instructions were read to all
classes and experimenters answered any questions that arose. The first set of spoken instructions
given by the experimenter instructed participants to proceed until they reached the stop page
putting their pencils down to signal they were finished with the finished with the first portion of
the packet. Once it was noted by the experimenters that all participants had reached the stop
page and put their pencils down a second set of vocal instructions were given by experimenters
instructing participants to turn to the following page and remain there until given further
instruction. This allowed for the time spent viewing the instruction page to be timed across
subject. After sixty seconds of viewing the instruction page as timed by the experimenter using a
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 12
timer participants were instructed to turn to the following page remaining on it until given further
instruction trying their best to follow the directions presented on the instruction page while
viewing the newspaper article. Once again, a timer was used to allow the amount of time spent
viewing the newspaper article to be the same across subject. After ninety seconds of viewing the
newspaper item page as timed by the experimenters, participants were instructed to turn the page
and continue on completing the remainder of the packets at their own pace. The packets of all
participants who disregarded instructions by either moving ahead too soon or previewing pages
Results
To assess the effectiveness of the manipulation of empathy two methods were taken. The
first way this was checked was through the questions about the degree to which participants had
remained objective or imagined the feelings of the object of empathy (young man or vulture).
The mean of those in the high empathic condition (M = 5.931) was significantly different from
the mean of those in the low empathic condition (M = 7.103), F(1, 172) = 10.672, p < .001. The
same was seen in assessing responses to the question about the extent to which participants
imagined the feelings of the object of empathy with the mean of those in the high empathic
condition (M = 6.805) differing significantly from the mean of those in the low empathic
condition (M = 4.471), F(1, 172) = 33.353, p < .000. No significant difference was found as a
The second way the effectiveness of the manipulation of empathy was checked was
through responses to a questionnaire containing the six empathy adjectives employed in previous
studies (Batson, 1991; Berenguer, 2010). The mean of those in the high empathic condition (M
= 28.160) differed significantly from the mean of those in the low empathic condition (M =
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 13
23.706), F(1, 170) = 10.197, p < .01. A significant main effect was seen for gender with females
(M = 28.183) scoring higher on a scale of empathic emotions regardless of condition than males
(M = 23.682), F(1, 170) = 10.416, p < .01. A significant main effect was also found based on
object of empathy with those presented with the article depicting a young man (M = 27.546)
rating their empathic emotions higher than those presented with the article depicting a vulture (M
= 24.320), F(1, 170) = 5.347, p < .05. In view of these results it was concluded that the
To test sensitivitys effect on the manipulation of empathy a median split was performed
on participants Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSP) scores separating participants into a high
sensitivity group and a low sensitivity group (Median = 103.5) before comparing their group
means to the two manipulation of empathy checks mentioned above. An ANOVA revealed no
significant effects with sensitivity groups (low and high) as a factor and responses to the extent
asking the extent to which they imagined the feelings of the object depicted in the news item
question as the dependent variable did however reveal a significant difference in means, F(2,
163) = 5.180, p < .05. An inverse relationship was seen between the means of these variables
meaning that those in the high empathic condition with lower sensitivity scores had a lower
mean than those with higher sensitivity scores in the high empathic condition while those in the
low empathic condition with lower sensitivity scores had a higher mean than those with higher
sensitivity scores (see Table 1.0). Gender was shown to play a part as a 2 (sex) x 2 (empathic
condition) x 2 (sensitivity group) ANOVA revealed a significant difference in group means, F(3,
165) = 4.386, p < .05. Mean differences are shown in Table 2.0. A 2 (sex) x 2 (empathic
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 14
Table 2.0
Group Means
(With Empathy Emotion Felt as the Dependent Variable)
Empathic Condition Sex High Sensitivity Low Sensitivity
Group Means
(With Empathy Emotion Felt as the Dependent Variable)
Empathic Condition Object of Empathy Sex High Sensitivity Low Sensitivity
Female 23.412 27.000
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 15
difference of group means measured on this same dependent variable, F(4, 165) = 4.177, p < .05.
Group differences were also analyzed using the six empathic emotions questionnaire
difference of means based on the dependent variable of empathic emotion scores, F(3, 165) =
3.923, p < .05. A 2 (empathic condition) x 2 (object of empathy) x 2 (sex) x 2 (sensitivity group)
ANOVA again with empathic emotion scores as the dependent variable revealed another
significant difference in means between groups, F(4, 165) = 4.112, p < .05.
To measure the effects of these differences in groups and conditions on moral reasoning
the responses to the moral dilemma questionnaire containing the three types of questions
(anthropocentric, ecocentric, and nonenvironmental) were analyzed on a question type sum score
basis. To obtain this total score for each question type each of the questions was submitted to
two researchers that blind from one another rated each question according to how well they felt
the question captured the essence of the question type (anthropocentricism, ecocentricism, or
nonenvironmental) it was assigned on a scale of 0-100 with 100 being extremely well.
Surprisingly, there was no difference between the two researchers ratings. To achieve the sum
score for each question type each question was assigned the value given by the researchers by
multiplying each individual score by the given value for that specific question before being
combined with the other scores of that type thereby obtaining this sum question type score.
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 16
ANOVAs for all variables were then used with each question type sum score as the dependent
variable. With the ecocentric question types as the dependent variable a significant difference of
means was found for empathic condition by object of empathy, F(2, 91) = 6.367, p < .05. When
measured upon this dependent variable no main effects were found other than for the variable
sex of which it was found that women (M = 1630.660) rated these questions significantly higher
than men (M = 1363.500), F(1, 91) = 8.014, p < .01. Sensitivity grouping did not have a
significant effect measured by this dependent variable. When the anthropocentric sum score was
used as the dependent variable no significant differences between group means was found.
When the non-environmental sum score was used as the dependent variable no significant
Discussion
Although our findings werent conclusive they do suggest that individual differences in
mostly in the actual process of manipulation that these differences come to light. Our analysis
revealed that those scoring higher in the trait of sensory processing sensitivity attempted to either
empathize or remain objective while viewing a newspaper article more than those scoring lower
in sensitivity depending on which set of instructions they were given. In essence, it appeared
that they were better at following directions, or at least they tried harder to. An explanation for
this might be that they are indeed more sensitive to stimuli and thus were more attentive to the
sensitivity scores did have an influence on how much empathic emotion participants expressed
feeling after viewing the newspaper article depending on gender and which experimental
condition they were placed in. The mean differences hint, among other things, that participants
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 17
self specifying themselves as men that scored lower in sensory processing sensitivity were less
likely to rate themselves as feeling empathic emotions when given instruction to empathize with
a young man or vulture presented in a newspaper article than those scoring higher in sensory
processing sensitivity. A possible explanation for this might be found in the research done on
gender differences in self reported empathy suggesting that women are more likely to self report
feeling higher levels of empathy than men (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). This would be
interesting as there was only a slight gender difference in scores of those higher in sensitivity.
It was expected that those scoring higher on the construct of sensory processing
sensitivity would be more easily swayed by the manipulation of empathy revealed through the
reasoning of an environmental dilemma and our findings did not support this. Participants
sensitivity scores did not appear to be a determining factor in how participants responded to the
environmental vignette as scored through our three types of response questions. This study did
however support the findings of previous research (Berenguer, 2010) as object of empathy
(vulture or man) and empathy instruction (high or low) were found to be determining factors in
that our empathy induced manipulation of moral reasoning was successful. Thus, our question of
As this study was conducted at a small liberal arts school during the summer semester
with all participants being students these results may not be generalizable to the population as a
whole. Our manipulation of empathy also occurred through a newspaper article which might
only allow for empathy manipulation of certain individuals and not as effective or as an in vivo
experience. An experimenter created vignette was chosen over those used in previous studies in
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 18
an attempt to create a situation that participants would be more familiar with. This might allow
for some discrepancies as this vignette and accompanying measure hasnt yet been examined for
accuracy. Also, this is a preliminary study and all conclusions should be taken in light of that.
Finally, probably the greatest limitation of this study comes from the self report method used
which provides only an indication of how individuals respond on paper that may or may not be
generalizable.
Further research might attempt to move past the limitations mentioned above using in
vivo manipulation of empathy or by examining these affects applied to daily behavior. The
present research does hint at the possibility of sensory processing sensitivity acting as a factor in
how participants empathize hinting at an area in the literature that has been largely ignored.
In sum, this research furthers the work of others suggesting that the personality trait of
sensory processing sensitivity does play a role in the how individuals empathize but does not
appear to make a significant difference in empathy induced environmental moral reasoning. The
practical value of this is immense as it furthers the notion that emotion plays a role in
attention towards the immense problems facing both man and animal thus motivating pro-
Appendix A:
______________________________________________________________________________
SUNDAY NEWS, SEPTEMBER 25, 2010 SUNDAY NEWS, SEPTEMBER 25, 2010
Young man left paralyzed after being hit by a Vulture left paralyzed after being hit by a
car car
Apendix B:
The following is a description of a real situation. We ask that you read through it and think
about what those involved in the situation should do. When you feel like you have your answer
please turn the page and rate the options and reasons according to how closely related they are to
yours.
Not more than 6 weeks ago a major oil spill occurred near Mobile Bay in the Gulf of
Mexico. This had devastating effects on both the wildlife population and the economy of the
region as the areas main source of industry involved fishing and seafood. Many fishermen can
barely make ends meet as it is and going six weeks without pay is stretching many of them thin
because many of them have to support families. While much of the oil has been cleaned up, it
had drastic and devastating effects on the fish and marine animals causing a heavy reduction of
their numbers. To make matters worse, Mobile Bay is an estuary where many unique species of
fish come to breed. With their already low numbers, the fish population is extremely vulnerable
and if they are fished many of them might become extinct. The people that live in Mobile are
struggling because their incomes depend on the fishing industry and many want the fishermen to
return to work. Moreover, in Mobile it is felt that nobody has given the locals a thought as to the
economic crisis they are experiencing.
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 21
References
Aron, E., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to
introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 345-368.
Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action:
Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., &
Bednar, L. L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a memver of a stigmatized group
improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.
Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Schwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Reviews
Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R., (1983) Sex differences in empathy and related capacities.
21, 261-272.
the highly sensitive person scale: The components of sensory-processing sensitivity and their
relation to the BIS/BAS and big five. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1269-1279.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental