1. Empathy Davis (1994) multidimensional approach: Perspective taking (PT): adopt the viewpoint of others (“I sometimes attempt to understand my friends by imagining how things look from their perspective”) Emotional concern (EC): experience compassion for unfortunate others (“I have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me”) Personal distress (PD): experience distress in response to distress in others (“Being in a tense emotional situation scares me”) Fantasy (F): imaginatively transpose oneself into fictional situations (“When reading an interesting story, I imagine how I would feel if the events were happening to me”)

2. Empathy and Values (Perspective taking): +UN (BEN), - POW, SEC (Riska, 2003,Finnish adults (Red Cross volunteers), SVS, IRI; the same for both sexes) (Emotional:)+ BEN (UN), - POW, (ACH), (SEC), HED, SD (above sample; Myyry & Helkama, Educ. Psychol. 2001, SVS, QMEE (university students); Kallionpää (13-16-year- olds): strong for men, weak for fem.)

3. Guilt, Shame and Values Guilt: negative evaluation of specific behaviour + tendency to take reparative actions Shame: negative evaluation of global self + desire to escape or hide Tangney TOSCA (1992): scenarios, e.g. ”You make a big mistake on an important project at work. People were depending on you and your boss criticizes you” Rate the likelihood of reacting with: -”I want to hide” (shame) - ”I should have done a better job” (guilt)

4. guilt, shame and values (cntd) TOSCA guilt : consistently correlated with perspective taking and empathic concern (Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Silfver, submitted, Finnish university and high school students) TOSCA shame: + personal distress, - other oriented empathy TOSCA guilt and values: + BEN, UN, CONF, - POW (???) (Silfver, submitted, Finnish high school students, PVQ, adolescent TOSCA) Problem with TOSCA guilt: most scenarios involve consequences for human beings. How about norm violations without such (immediate) consequences?

5. Norm-related guilt Add scenarios with actions having no immediate consequences to others (crossing against red, not paying TV licence)

6. Hypotheses Perspective-taking is related: + UN (BEN), - others Empathic concern is related: + BEN (UN), - others TOSCA guilt is related: + UN, BEN, CONF, - others Norm guilt is related: + CONF, TRAD, SEC, - ST, HED Connections are weaker in countries where conformity is more important (high hierarchy, power distance)

7. Cross-cultural variation Countries: Finland, Bulgaria, Portugal Schwartz Hierarchy: High: Bulgaria (2.7), Low: Finland (1.8), Portugal (2.1) (M= 2.3) Hofstede Power Distance: High: Bulgaria (70), Portugal (63), Low: Finland (33)

8. METHOD Samples Social science/psychology students, women Helsinki, n=131, Sofia, n=111, Coimbra n= 176 Measures Schwartz PVQ Davis IRI Tangney TOSCA -plus norm guilt:

9. Means and standard deviations in values FinlandBulgariaPortugalp-value Universalism1.24 (0.19) 1.1.04 (0.14) 6.1.13 (0.14) 3.<.001 Benevolence1.21 (0.14) 2.1.08 (0.16) 4.1.17 (0.13) 1.<.001 Self-direction1.20 (0.18) 3.1.18 (0.17) 1.1.16 (0.16) 2.ns. Hedonism1.08 (0.24) 4.1.11 (0.27) 3.1.07 (0.23) 4.ns. Security1.01 (0.18) 5.1.01 (0.17) 7.1.02 (0.14) 5.ns. Stimulation0.97 (0.22) 6.1.08 (0.29) 5.0.98 (0.24) 6.<.01 Achievement0.95 (0.22) 7.1.14 (0.21) 2.0.98 (0.20) 7.<.001 Conformity0.89 (0.20) 8.0.86 (0.17) 9.0.89 (0.18) 8.ns. Power0.72 (0.20) 9.0.88 (0.26) 8.0.70 (0.20) 10.<.001 Tradition0.71 (0.19) 10.0.69 (0.23) 10.0.80 (0.19) 9.<.001

10. Means and standard deviations in guilt, shame and empathy FinlandBulgariaPortugalp-value TOSCA-guilt4.31 (0.40)4.29 (0.46)4.16 (0.43)<.01 TOSCA-shame2.86 (0.71)2.92 (0.66)2.75 (0.50)ns. Norm-related guilt3.18 (0.68)3.18 (0.81)3.32 (0.61)ns. Empathic concern2.88 (0.54)2.88 (0.58)3.10 (0.49)<.001 Perspective-taking2.56 (0.56)2.43 (0.64)2.64 (0.55)<.05 Personal distress1.83 (0.60)2.28 (0.74)2.34 (0.72)<.001 Fantasy2.80 (0.61)2.44 (0.82)2.66 (0.74)<.01

11. Correlations between TOSCA-guilt and values TOSCA-guilt FinlandBulgariaPortugal Universalism.11.21*.04 Benevolence.13.30**.05 Tradition.04.10-.14 Conformity.12.16-.01 Security.03.18-.07 Power-.19*-.30**.06 Achievement-.15-.07.04 Hedonism-.05-.34***.06 Stimulation-.06-.24*.02 Self-direction-.09-.15.01

12. Correlations between norm-related guilt and values Norm-related guilt FinlandBulgariaPortugal Universalism.01.06-.02 Benevolence.06.28**.00 Tradition.12.35***.08 Conformity.29**.36***.21** Security.06.22*-.01 Power-.08-.30**-.02 Achievement-.11-.14-.03 Hedonism-.29**-.46***-.15* Stimulation-.29**-.35***-.20** Self-direction-.12-.30**-.21**

13. Correlations between shame and values Tosca-shame FinlandBulgariaPortugal Universalism-.02.08 Benevolence-.09.04.15 Tradition.29**.13-.08 Conformity.20*.12-.02 Security.05.07.00 Power-.19*.02.01 Achievement-.02.06.13 Hedonism-.01-.31**-.04 Stimulation-.08-.16-.02 Self-direction-.20*-.15-.15*

14. Correlations between empathic concern and values Empathic concern FinlandBulgariaPortugal Universalism.26**.13.09 Benevolence.24**.46***.23** Tradition.10.21*.13 Conformity.02.18.12 Security.09.19*.03 Power-.20*-.39***-.11 Achievement-.30**-.32**-.20** Hedonism-.06-.13-.05 Stimulation-.01-.18-.02 Self-direction-.16-.19*-.23**

15. Correlations between perspective-taking and values Perspective- taking FinlandBulgariaPortugal Universalism.14.37***.20** Benevolence.22*.31**.25** Tradition-.01.10-.01 Conformity.09.07.12 Security.23**.14-.13 Power-.28**-.39***-.19* Achievement-.23**-.33***-.10 Hedonism-.15-.20*-.11 Stimulation-.01-.05 Self-direction-.14-.06-.03

16. Correlations between personal distress and values Personal distress FinlandBulgariaPortugal Universalism-.06.01-.10 Benevolence-.10.11-.07 Tradition.26**.41***.21** Conformity.09.40***.06 Security.07.29**.12 Power-.22*-.25**.00 Achievement.04-.22*.07 Hedonism.07-.23*.03 Stimulation-.08-.41***-.17* Self-direction-.21*-.32**-.30***

17. Conclusions Support for two motivational systems: (1) UN, BEN associated with empathy (perspective- taking & empathic concern), However, not so clearly with guilt (empathy-based guilt in particular; problems with measure) (2) CONF, TRAD associated with guilt over norm violations, and also with shame (in Finland only) Unexpected: TRAD predicted personal distress (TRAD as a means of coping with distress?)

18. Conclusions continued Contrary to hypotheses, associations stronger in a high hierarchy country (Bulgaria) and weaker in low hierarchy countries (Finland, Portugal). However, the 3 countries showed no differences on conformity. Possible (speculative) explanations: Bulgaria the most ”individualistic” sample (high ACH), where UN & BEN non-normative); Portugal highest scoring on Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance -> traditional gender roles, not value priorities, regulate reports on empathy and guilt