Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 1

Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning

Corey Duke

Kristen Gilbert

John Burling

The University of Montevallo

Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 2

Abstract

As we continue to face difficult and complex environmental problems an understanding

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

effects on empathy induced altruistic environmental reasoning, in particular the trait of

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

to an environmental dilemma presented in a vignette which were coded in three categories

(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

scores having no significant effect.

Keywords: Highly Sensitive Person, empathy, interpersonal sensitivity, environmental

moral reasoning, ecocentricism, anthropocentricism.

Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 3

Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning

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

involved by looking in particular at interpersonal sensitivitys affect on empathy-induced

altruistic environmental reasoning.

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

which he defines as a self-expectation of a specific action in a particular situation that is

experienced as a feeling of moral obligation (Schwartz, 1977). From Schwartzs model,

environmental behavior would begin with a sense of a valued-other in need and an instigating

situation which is an expectation of a self-administered reward for helping or a self-

Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 4

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

helping behavior: corresponding to oneself (egoistic), corresponding to other humans (altruistic),

and corresponding to the environment as as an entity in itself (biospheric) (Berenguer, 2010;

Detz et al., 2005).

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;

Berenguer, 2010; Thompson & Barton, 1994).

Within the realm of helping and prosocial behavior another piece of work has become

quite prominent and useful in leading to an explanatory model of environmentally friendly

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

feelings (Batson, 1997).

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

remain as objective as possible on measures of biospheric environmental concern and motives

(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)

of reasons given for solutions to environmental moral dilemmas (Berenguer, 2010).

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

begin to answer by looking in particular at the personality construct of sensory processing

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

an attempt to explain individual differences in sensory processing. As revealed through seven of

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

nonhuman objects (Aron & Aron, 1997).

This research study attempts to merge these two fields bridging the gap in the literature

by examining sensory processing sensitivity as it relates to ones ability to empathize with

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

and affected by the viewing.

Method

Participants

Participants were 174 (119 women, 53 men, 2 unidentified) students ranging in age from

17 to 54 (M = 25.74, SD = 8.62) taking summer courses at the University of Montevallo, a small

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

accordance with the American Psychological Associations Ethical Principles of Psychologists.

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

attempting to take a pre-measure of environmentalism. An example of one of these included

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

remain objective and neutral.

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

in each are presented in Appendix A.

Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 10

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,

warm, moved, sympathetic, and tender.

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

restaurants and shouldnt break that contract.

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

of the packet before asked to do so were not used in analysis.

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

function of gender or object of empathy relating to either of these two questions.

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

manipulation of empathy was effective.

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

to which participants remained objective question as the dependent variable. A 2 (empathic

condition) x 2 (sensitivity group) factorial ANOVA with participant responses to a question

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

High Male 30.750 21.757

Female 29.681 30.506

Low Male 19.600 21.125

Female 26.349 26.333

Table 3.0

Group Means
(With Empathy Emotion Felt as the Dependent Variable)
Empathic Condition Object of Empathy Sex High Sensitivity Low Sensitivity

High Young Man Male 30.833 23.714

Female 28.833 34.167

Vulture Male 30.667 19.800

Female 30.529 26.846

Low Young Man Male 19.000 25.917

Female 29.286 25.667

Vulture Male 20.200 16.333

Female 23.412 27.000
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 15

condition) x 2 (sensitivity group) x 2 (object of empathy) ANOVA also revealed a significant

difference of group means measured on this same dependent variable, F(4, 165) = 4.177, p < .05.

Mean differences are shown in Table 3.0.

Group differences were also analyzed using the six empathic emotions questionnaire

mentioned previously as a dependent variable to assess sensitivitys effect on empathy arousal.

A 2 (empathic condition) x 2 (sex) x 2 (sensitivity group) ANOVA revealed a significant

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

differences of group means was found.

Discussion

Although our findings werent conclusive they do suggest that individual differences in

sensory processing sensitivity do have an effect on the manipulation of empathy, although it is

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

experimenters instruction. Interestingly, analysis of the data revealed that participants

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

environmental moral reasoning as measured through ecocentric reasoning questions suggesting

that our empathy induced manipulation of moral reasoning was successful. Thus, our question of

sensory processing sensitivitys influence on empathy induced environmental moral reasoning

appears to have an answer suggested.

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

environmental reasoning across personality types pointing to a path of possibly generating

attention towards the immense problems facing both man and animal thus motivating pro-

helping and pro-environmental moral reasoning.

 Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 19

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

-Hit by speeding car.

-Hit by speeding car.
-Rushed to hospital.
-Is paralyzed from the waist down for life.
A young man was seriously injured
yesterday in an accident near Sylacauga
Alabama. The young man suffered severe
spinal injuries after being involved in a
collision with a speeding car in the western
Talladega National Forrest region. A
mobile intensive care unit was sent to the
scene and the man was taken to the regional
hospital where he is receiving treatment.
According to the hospital spokesman, Dr.
Robert Schultz, the initial indications are
that the young man is likely to be paralyzed
from the waist down.
-Rushed to animal hospital.
-Is paralyzed and will be unable to fend for
itself.
A turkey vulture was seriously injured
yesterday in an accident near Sylacauga
Alabama. The vulture suffered severe spinal
injuries after being involved in a collision
with a speeding car in the western Talladega
National Forrest region. A mobile intensive
care unit was sent to the scene and the
animal was taken to the animal hospital
where it is receiving treatment. According to
the lead veterinarian, Dr. Robert Schultz, the
initial indications are that the vulture is
severely paralyzed and will no longer be
able to fend for itself.
Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 20

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.

Situation: Fishing after an Oil Spill

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. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer.

Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656-1666.

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.

Berenguer, J. (2007). The effect of empathy in proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors.

Environment and Behavior, 39, 269-283.

Berenguer, J. (2010). The effect of empathy in environmental moral reasoning.

Environment and Behavior, 42, 110-134.

Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Schwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Reviews

in Environmental Resources, 30, 335-372.

Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R., (1983) Sex differences in empathy and related capacities.

Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100-131.

Evans, D. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (2008) Temperamental sensitivity: Two constructs or

one? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 108-118.

Empathy, the Highly Sensitive Person, and Environmental Moral Reasoning 22

Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentricism and anthropocentricism:

Moral reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology,

21, 261-272.

Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on

concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391-406.

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 10, 221-279.

Smolewska, K. A., McCabe, S. B., & Woody, E. Z. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of

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

concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.

Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes

toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.