Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
- Empathy: Aggression?
SocialIntelligence
induce psychological, sometimes wen physical, harm to a target person by mere social
manipulation, without puning him/herself at dircct risk of retaliation. A consequenceof the
theory is that social intelligence should be expcted to correlate more with indirect than with
direct forms of aggression, since indirect aggression by definition requires skills at social
manipulation.
SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
The conceptofsocial intelligence was coined alread by Thorndike (1920, p. 228). However,
Thorndike and his colleague were not able to verifr the existence of zuch a domain of
intelligence through psychometric studies (Thorndike, 1936; Thorndike & Stein, 1937), and
the concept fell into oblivion. Recently, a renewed interest in social inteltigence has emergd
with most authors claiming that there is, indee4 evidence for the existence of this domain
(e.g., Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1989; Erwin, 1993; Ford & Tisah 1983), while others are critical
(e.g., Keating l9E9). Social intelligence has a connotation closely related to notions such as
social skills andcompEtence.Emotional intelligence (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1990; Goleman,
1995) clearly is a partly overlapping concept, and interpcrsonal inteltigence (Harch &
Gardner, 1993)another. According to the presentauthors,social intelligence has a perceptual,
a cognitive-analytical,and a behavioral (skills) component.Clevernessin analyzing the social
behavior of others is central, and, reciprocally, so is the ability to recognize motives and
cognitive traps of one's own. Furthermore, the socially intelligent individual is capable of
producing adequatebehavior for the purpose of achieving desired social goals. As far as goals
with respect to conllicts are concerned,these may be hostile, but also aiming at a peaceful
resoltttionofconflicts. Social intelligence should be an assetin conflict situations, whether rhe
individual choosesto be aggressive or peaceful. The choice betrveen these two types of conflict
behavior is, for the socially intelligent individual, optional.
Social intelligence has mostly been meazuredby self reports, such as the Six Factors Test of
Social Intelligenc (O'Sullivan et al., 1965). The validiry of self reports is always somervhar
questionableif the measuredability or trait is socially (un)desirable,an4 accordingly, peerestimated measuresare rccommendable in such cases.There has been been a scarcity of peerestimated measursof social intelligence so far; Ford and Tisak (1983) included a peer
nominalion measure(which is not the sameas peer esrimations,in a strict sense)in their test
battery. In order to cover this laclg Kaukiainen et al. (1995b) developedan instrument labeled
Peer-EstimatedSocial Intelligence (PESI).
EMPATHY
The concept of empathy was introduced into North American psycholory by Titchener
(1909), who receivedpan ofhis training in Germany. The German notion of Eingefilhlung
was tmnslated into empathy, and Mitgefihlung
ofthe concept,cf. Wispe, 1987). Empathy and synrparhyare not idenrical, although symparhy
is the common consequenceof emprthy. While empathy is the sharing of the perceived
emotion of anolher, sympathy mirrors th wiltingness to alleviate the sulferings of another
(Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). However, in the literature, these two terms have been used as
almost interchaneableconcepts.
There are both affective and cognitive aspects to empathy (Strayer, lgEZ). According to
Feshbachand Feshbach(1982), empathy comprisesthree essentialcomponents:a) perception
and discrimination, i.e. the ability to use relevant information in order to recognize, identi&,
and label emotions, b) perspective and role taking i.e. the ability to .rssume and experience
another's viewpoint, and c) emotional responsiveness,i.e. the ability to share another's
feelings.
Empathy increaseswith age, with the exception of puberty, and girls are, in general, more
emphatic than boys (Lennon & Eisenberg 1987).
Lwels of empathy have usually been assessedeither by self reports, projective methods,
experimental procedures,or the recording and interpretation of nonverbal signals (Miller &
Eisenberg, 1988). Kaukiainen et al. (1995a) developed the first instrument intended to
measure empathy by use of peer estimations, Peer-Estimated Empathy (PEE).
In the lilerature so far, it has been raken more or less for granted that empothy constitutes an
integral part of social intelligence, and that the two are overlapping concepts, difficult to
sparatefrom each other. For instance,Ford and Tisak (1983) choseHogan's ( 1969) Empathy
Scale as one of six measuresof social intetligence, in their test battery. Howwer, lhe ability to
feel empathy is at least logically distinct from socid intelligence, although the wo are likely
to correlate significantly. Kaukiainen et al. (in press) factor-analyzed the items of PEE and
PESI, i.e., perstimated measuresof empathy and social intelligence, and found that the
concepts clustered into different factors, although they were highly correlated. For the sake of
investigating their relationship to aggrssion,it is meaningful to make a distinction benveen
empathy and social intelligence, not only conceptwrlly, but also at the level of
operationalization.
presentation of violence. In these films, the victim is objectilied and dehuman2ed, and
empathy is reduced.Also Feshbach(1988) suggeststhat regular TV is not likely to increase
empathy, rather the opposite.
The fact that empathy indeed mitigates aggressionwas recenily corroboratedby fuchardson
et al. (1994), who reported three studies in which empalhy was neglively
related to
friendship goups, typically dyads; i.e., having a close best friend They discussemotions and
relations more than adolescent boys do (Kankaanranta et al., 1993), and they use ,s*e
saitl...and rhen he said..." expressionsfrequently (Goodwin, 1990). This specific friendship
pattern is likely to be fertile soil for the developmenl of indirect, socially manipulative
aggressive strategies.
In accordance with another line of thinking individual differences in power and skills - not
only physical strcn$h, but also mental faculties - inlluence the choice of aggressive stralery.
Bjdrkqvist et al. (1994) suggestthat a principle which they refer ro as the effecr/dangerratio
may be in operation, and that each individual (when controlled enough to behave rationally)
learns to apply conflict strategies having the most advantageous ratio in hiVher particular
case. Since males arc physically stronger than females, they are more lilcly to apply physical
means, which are more effective and less dangerous for them than for females. Reviews also
agree on the fact that males in general are physically more aggressive than females
(Bjcirkqvist & Niemelt, 1992; Eagly & Sreffen, 1986; Frcdi et al., 1977;Hy&,,1984; Maccoby
& Jacklin, 1974). In regard to direct verbal aggrcssion, some authors report greater frequency
among boys than among girls (e.g., Whiting & Edwards, 1973), while orhers find no sex
difference (e.9., Bjdrkqvist et al., 1992a)or slight variation due to culturc or age (Gterman et
al., 1994). Frodi et al. (1977), reviewing twenty-six studieg came !o the conclusion that no
sex difference could be discerned in sixteen of them, while males were direcl verbally more
aggrcssive in nine studies, and females in one. The review by Hyde (198a) is inconclusive.
Tlut is, the majority of studies do not report a sex difference, and when a sex difference is
found, it is usually indicating higher scores of direct verbal aggression among males. This
rtlatively
minor sex difference is undemandable in the light that males and females,
according to recent revierrs (e.g., Hyde 1990), are equals wilh respect to verbal intelligenc. If
males have a slight edge in direct verbal aggression, this cirormstance may be explained by
the fact that, due to their greater physical strength, verbal threats from their pan may appear
more credible and frightening than similar threats f females.
declinesby age. Ifgirls arc socially more competentthan boys, theseskills may be utilized for
the purpose of both aggressive and peaceful purposes. This finding may contribute to the
explanation of why adolescent girls exceed boys in both indirect aggression and peacefi.rl
conllict resolution(Ostermanet al.. 1997).
SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE,
Relationships betven social intelligence, emprthy, pro. and antisocial conflict behavior
How, then, do social intelligence and empathy relate not only to indirect aggression, but to a
variety of forms of conllict behavior, prosocial as well as antisocial? This isnre rvas
investigatedby the prcsent aurhors. PESI, pEE, and the Direct & Indirect Aggression Scales
@IAS) were used as measures, and two hundred and thre adolescenls (mean age = 12, sd =
0'8) participated in the study. The cr - scoresofthe di.fferent measureswere as follows: social
intelligence, .95; empathy, .96; physicat aggression, .96; verbal aggression, .91; indirect
aggression, .97; peaceful conlict resolution, .86; and wilhelrmyal
Irom conqicts,.73. Trre
relationships benveen the measuresare summarized in Table l.
TABLE L Bivariate and Partial correlntions (controlling for Empathy, and social
Intelligence, Respectively) between peer-Estimaterl Social Intelligence, Empathy, and
Difrerent Types of Conflict Behavior (n = 203; f= ltO, m = 93).
Social intellieence
bivariate correlations
partial correlations
(empathycontrolled)
Indirect aggression
Verbal aggression
Physical aggrcssion
PeacefuI conllict resolution
Withdrawal
.55
.39
.22
.80
.48
***
f*i
*|
*+r
**t
.65
.54
.38
.51
-l)
Empathy
bivariate correlations
Indirect aggression
Verbal aggression
Ptrysical aggrssion
Peaceful conflict resolution
Withdrawal
. 1 5*
.05
-.04
.80 ***
.47 ***
partial correlations
(social intelligence controlled)
__45***
-,40 **r
-.32 *rr
.51 ***
.18 **
p<.05,.'p<.01,n'p<.00t
As the table rweals, social intelligence correlates signfficantly with all forms of conllict
bchavior, aggressive as well as peacful. sta(ing
noteworthy that the correlation between social intettigence and the various types of aggressive
behavior is strongest in the case of indirect aggression, second in the case of verbal
aggression, and weakest in the cas of physical aggression. The correlation cofficient with
peaceful conflict rcsolution is larger than any other.
When empathy is panialed ou! correlations pertaining to indirect, verbal, and physical
aggression increase, while correlations with peaceful conflict resolution and withdrawal
decrease.
Empathy, on the other hand, correlates strongly with peacefuI conJlict resolution and
withdrawal, but not significantly wirh verbal nor physical aggression, and only weakly with
indirect aggression. When social intelligence is partialed out, corrclations with the various
types of aggression turn significantly
negtive,
CONCLUSIONS
Social intelligence, thug is required for aggressive as well as for peaceful conllict behavior,
but empathy clerrly mitigates aggression. Social intelligence (without controlling for
empathy) correlates with the various types of conllict behavior in the following order: a)
peaceful means of conflict resolution, b) indirect aggression, c) withdrawal, d) verbal
aggression, and e) physical aggression. The order is most likely no coincident - the various
types of conflict behavior are ordered in accordance with how "safe" they are. Tlus
circumstance suggeststhat socially intelligent individuals choose methods which expose them
to as little direct d.rnger as possible. Solving conllict peacefully is the least dangerous, and
also the most advantageous metho4 it has the best effect/danger ratio. Peaceful conflict
resolution de-escalates aggression and, thereby, reduces risks of future harm. Indirect
aggression may have advantages, but it also ncompasses risks, and may escalate conllict.
Withdrawal is a strates/ including little effec! but also little danger. And, direct verbal and,
especially, physical aggression, involve risks.
With respect to the three types of aggression, social intelligence correlates most strongly
with indirect aggression, somewhat weaker with verbal aggression, and weakest with physical
aggression. This fact is in line with rhe developmental theory suggested by Bjttrkqvist et al.
(1992a,1992c), according to which indirect aggression requires more social intelligence than
direct veftal aggressiog which, in turn, requires more intelligence than physical aggression.
Since empathy mitigates interpersonal aggression, empathy training inded
is likely to b a
REF'ERENCIS
Baron, R A (1971). Aggressionas a function of magnitude of victim's pain cues,lwel of
prior anger aro"sal, and aggressor-victim similarity. Journal of Personality and Socia!
Psychologt, /8, 48-54.
Bjdrtcqvist,K. (1992). Sex differencesin physical, verbal, and indirect aggression:A review
ofrecent research.Ser Roles, 30. 177-188.
Bjitrkqyist, K. (1985). holent jlms, aniev,
CommenlationesScientiarium Socialum.
Bjdrkqvist, K., Niemell, P. (1992). New rrends in the study offemale aggression.In K.
Bjdrkqvist & P. NiemeH (Eds.), Ofmice ancl women: Aspects offemale aggression. (pp. 316). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bjttrkqvist, K., LagerspeE,K M. J., & Kaukiainen, A (1992a): Do girls manipulareand
boys fight? Developmental trends regarding direct and indirect aggrssion. lgg"es.rive
Behavior, 18, lI7-127.
Bj6rkqvist, K., Lagerspee,,K. M. J., & Gterman, K. (1992b). The Direct & Indirect
Aggression.lcales. Vasa, Finland: Department of Social Sciences, Ato etcaaemi
University.
Bjorkayist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A (1992c). The devetopment ofdirect and
indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. In K. Bjdrkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.),
Of mice andwomen: Aspects offemale aggression (pp. 5l-6a). San Diego, CA: Academic
PreJs.
Bjorkqvis! K., Gterman, K, & Lagerspetz,K. M. J. (1994). Sex differencesin covert
aggressionamong adults.,4ggresoveBehavior, 20, 27-33.
Bramel, D., Taub, B., & Blum, B. (1963). Aa obseweCsreaction to the suffering of his
enemy. Journal ofPersonaliN and Social Psychologt, 8,384-392.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrorq J. F. (19E9). Social inteuigenceand cognitive assssmenrs
of
personality. In R. S. Wyer, h., &T. K. Srull (Eds.), Social intelligence and cognitive
assessmentsof personality. Afuances in socidl cognition (Vol. 2) (pp. l-59). Hillsdale NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohn, L.D. (1991). Sex differencesin the courseofpersonality dwelopment: A metaanalysis. PsychoIogi cal Bu I le ti n, I 09, 252-266.
Crich N.R. ( I 995). Relarional aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of
distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathotogt, 7, 313-322.
CricK N.R., & Crotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression,gender,and socialpsychologicaladjustment.Chi ld Development,66, 7 lO-722.
Eagly, AH., & Steffen,V.J. (1986). Genderand aggressivebehavior: A meta-analytic
review ofthe social psychologicalliterature. Psychological Bulletin, 100,309-330.
Eisenberg, N. (1989). Empathy and related emotional responses. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Eisenberg N., & Miller, P. A (l9EA. Emprthy, sympathy, and altruism: Empirical and
conceptual links. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer @ds.), Enpathy and ils development.
Cambriclge studies in social and emotional development (W.292-316). New York:
Cambridge University Prss.
Eisenberg N., & Strayer,J. (1987). Critical issuesin the snrdy ofempathy. In N. Eisenbcrg
& J. Strayer(Eds.), Enpathy and its development(pp. 3-13). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Erwin, P. (1993). Friendship and peer relations in children. New York John Wiley.
Feshbach, N. D. (1989). Empathy training and prosocial behavior. In J. Groebel, & R A.
Hinde@ds.),lggressronandwar:Theirbiologicalandsocialbases (pp. l0l-lll).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feshbach,N. D. (19E8).Television and the developmentofempathy. In S. Oskamp (Ed),
Television as a social issue.Applied social psychologt annual (Yol. 8) (pp. 261-269).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (19E2). Learning to care. San Francisco: Scott, Forcsman
& Co.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacogrilive dwelopment and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive dorelopment inquiry. lm ei can Psychol ogi st, 34, 906-9 11.
For4 M. 8., & Tisah M. S. (1983). A further search for social intelligencr,. Journal of
Educational Psvchology, 75, 196-206.
Frodi, A, Macaulay, J., & Thome, P. R (1977). Are women always less agglessive than
men? Psychological Bulletin, 84, 634460.
Fry, D. P., & Hines, N. (1993, July). Sex differencesin indircct and direct aggressionin
Argentina. Paper presented at the 3rd European Congress ofPsycholory, Tampere,
Finland
Golema& D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York Bantam Book.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Tactical usesof stories: Participadon frameworks within girls'and
boys' disputes. Di scource Processes, I 3, 33-77.
Turku.
KaukiainenuA., Bjrirkqvist, K., Osterman,K., Lagerspetz,K. M. J., & Forsblom, S. (1995b).
Peer-Estimated Social Intelligence (PES4. Turku, Finland: Department of Psycholog,
Univenity of Turlor.
Kaukiainen, A, Bjdrkqvist, K., Osterman,K., Lagerspee, K. M. J., Niskanen, L. (1994).
Social intelligence and the use of indirect aggression.Presentedat the )OII Biennal
Meetings of the Intemational Societyfor the Study of Behavioural Dwelopment, June 28July 2, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Keating, D. P. (1978). A search for social intelligence. Journal ofEducational Psychologt,
70.218-233.
Lagerspetz,K. M. J., Bjttrt<qvist,K, & Peltoneq T. (1988). Is indirect aggressiontypical of
females? Gender differences in I l- to l2-year old children Aggressive Behavior, I 4, 1O3.114.
Lagerspea, K. M- J., Bjdrkqvist, K. (1994). Indirect aggressionin boys and girls. In R. L.
Huesmann@d),Aggressivebehavior:Currentperspectives(pp.
l3l-150).NewYork:
Plenum Press.
Lennon, R., & Eisenberg N. (1987). Genderand age differencesin empathy and sympathy.
In N. Eisenberg & J. Stmyer (Eds.), Empathy and its development. Cambridge studies in
social and developmental development (pp. 195-214. New York Cambridge University
Press.
Mayer, J. D., Szrlovey,P. (1990). The intelligence ofemotional intelligence./arelligence, 17,
433442.
Maccoby, E. 8., Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychologt ofsex dilferences. Stanfond, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Miller, P. A, & Eisenberg N. (1988). The relationship of empathy to to aggressiveand
externalising/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, I 03, 324-344.
Osterman, K., Bjdrkqvist, K., & Lagenpetz, K. M. J., Kaukiainen, A, Huesmann, RL.,
FraczelgA (1994a): Peerand selfestimated aggressionin 8-year old children from five
ethnic groups.,4ggressiveBehavior, 20, 111{28.
Gterman, K., Bjrlrkqvist, I(, & Lagerspee , K. M. J., with Kaukianeq A, Landau, S. F.,
Fraczek, A., & Caprar4 G.V., (in press). Cross-cultural evidence offemale indirect
agglession. lggressl ve Beha' i or.
Osterman, K., Bjitrkqvist, K., & Lagerspee, K M. J., with Kaukianen, A, Landau, S. F.,
Fnzcek, A, & Caprar4 G.-V., (1994). Patternsof aggressionamong adolescentsof thre
Richardson,R, Hammoch G. S., Smith, S.M., Gardner, W., Signo, M. (1994). Empatlry as
a cogritive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior ,20, 275-289.
Rivers, I., & SmittU P.IC (1994). Types ofbullying behaviour and their correlates.
Aggressiv e Behovi or, 20, 359 -368.
Selman, R- (198O). The growth ofinterpersonal understanding. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Strayer, J. (1984. Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J.
Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development. Cantbidge studies in social and
developmental d*elopment (p.218-244).
Strayer, J., & Eisenberg N. (198r. Empathy viewed in conlex. In N. Eisenberg & J.
Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development. Carnbridge stutlies in social and
developmental development (p.389-398).